I am trying to use partial application to shorten the following valid function definition:
ltest50 n = take 50 (iterate ltestonce n)
I thought something like:
ltest50 = take 50 (iterate ltestonce)
or
ltest50 = take 50 (iterate ltestonce$)
would do the trick, but no joy. What is the best way to do this in Haskell?
Haskell has the "dot operator" or "function composition" (.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c for this:
ltest50 n = take 50 (iterate ltestonce n)
is equivalent to:
ltest50 = take 50 . iterate ltestonce
(.) is defined as:
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
(.) f g x = f (g x)
or a bit shorter:
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
(.) f g x = f $ g x
Since it is a symbol placed between brackets, that means it can be used as . as an infix operator, so:
ltest50 = take 50 . iterate ltestonce
is "syntactical sugar" for:
ltest50 = (.) (take 50) (iterate ltestonce)
At least in Flanders (the Dutch part of Belgium) the operator is sometimes informally called "after" because you apply f after you have applied g on a variable.
Related
I have a hard time understanding what the function (:)(.) in haskell does. Could someone help me write it on pointful form, and explain step by step how to get there? The first step would be to expand the (:) so that we get ((.) :), but then I'm stuck.
It should be of type [(b->c)->(a->b)->a->c]->[(b->c)->(a->b)->a->c], but that doesn't help me, just makes me even more confused.
(:) (.)
Eta-expand:
\x -> (:) (.) x
Convert to infix notation:
\x -> (.) : x
I.e. x must be a list and we're prepending (.) to it (that's what : does: it prepends an element to a list).
(.) is a function, so x must be a list of functions.
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
, so x must have type
x :: [(b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c]
Well we can first convert the (:) data constructor, and the function (.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c operator as a lambda expression:
(:) -> (\x y -> (x:y))
(.) -> (\f g t -> f (g t))
So that means that (:)(.) is short for:
(\x y -> (x:y)) (\f g t -> f (g t))
So now we can replace x with the lambda expression:
\y -> (\f g t -> f (g t)) : y
So the function is equal to ((.) :): a partial "cons" where we still need to fill in the tail, and the head is the dot operator.
So the type is a list of functions with the same signature as the dot operator [(b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c].
If we thus for example take as argument [], we have constructed a singleton list (a list with exactly one element): the dot operator.
I am trying to convert the following Haskell code to point free style, to no avail.
bar f g xs = filter f (map g xs )
I'm new to Haskell and any help would be great.
Converting to pointfree style can be done entirely mechanically, though it's hard without being comfortable with the fundamentals of Haskell syntax like left-associative function application and x + y being the same as (+) x y. I will assume you are comfortable with Haskell syntax; if not, I suggest going through the first few chapters of LYAH first.
You need the following combinators, which are in the standard library. I have also given their standard names from combinator calculus.
id :: a -> a -- I
const :: a -> b -> a -- K
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c) -- B
flip :: (a -> b -> c) -> (b -> a -> c) -- C
(<*>) :: (a -> b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c) -- S
Work with one parameter at a time. Move parameters on the left to lambdas on the right, e.g.
f x y = Z
becomes
f = \x -> \y -> Z
I like to do this one argument at a time rather than all at once, it just looks cleaner.
Then eliminate the lambda you just created according to the following rules. I will use lowercase letters for literal variables, uppercase letters to denote more complex expressions.
If you have \x -> x, replace with id
If you have \x -> A, where A is any expression in which x does not occur, replace with const A
If you have \x -> A x, where x does not occur in A, replace with A. This is known as "eta contraction".
If you have \x -> A B, then
If x occurs in both A and B, replace with (\x -> A) <*> (\x -> B).
If x occurs in just A, replace with flip (\x -> A) B
If x occurs in just B, replace with A . (\x -> B),
If x does not occur in either A or B, well, there's another rule we should have used already.
And then work inward, eliminating the lambdas that you created. Lets work with this example:
f x y z = foo z (bar x y)
-- Move parameter to lambda:
f x y = \z -> foo z (bar x y)
-- Remember that application is left-associative, so this is the same as
f x y = \z -> (foo z) (bar x y)
-- z appears on the left and not on the right, use flip
f x y = flip (\z -> foo z) (bar x y)
-- Use rule (3)
f x y = flip foo (bar x y)
-- Next parameter
f x = \y -> flip foo (bar x y)
-- Application is left-associative
f x = \y -> (flip foo) (bar x y)
-- y occurs on the right but not the left, use (.)
f x = flip foo . (\y -> bar x y)
-- Use rule 3
f x = flip foo . bar x
-- Next parameter
f = \x -> flip foo . bar x
-- We need to rewrite this operator into normal application style
f = \x -> (.) (flip foo) (bar x)
-- Application is left-associative
f = \x -> ((.) (flip foo)) (bar x)
-- x appears on the right but not the left, use (.)
f = ((.) (flip foo)) . (\x -> bar x)
-- use rule (3)
f = ((.) (flip foo)) . bar
-- Redundant parentheses
f = (.) (flip foo) . bar
There you go, now try it on yours! There is not really any cleverness involved in deciding which rule to use: use any rule that applies and you will make progress.
Both of the existing answers don't really answer your specific question in a way that's elucidating: one is "here are the rules, work it out for yourself" and the other is "here is the answer, no information about how the rules generate it."
The first three steps are really easy and consist in removing a common x from something of the form h x = f (g x) by writing h = f . g. Essentially it's saying "if you can write the thing in the form a $ b $ c $ ... $ y $ z and you want to remove the z, change all the dollars to dots, a . b . c . ... . y:
bar f g xs = filter f (map g xs)
= filter f $ (map g xs)
= filter f $ map g $ xs -- because a $ b $ c == a $ (b $ c).
bar f g = filter f . map g
= (filter f .) (map g)
= (filter f .) $ map $ g
bar f = (filter f .) . map
So this last f is the only tricky part, and it's tricky because the f is not at the "end" of the expression. But looking at it, we see that this is a function section (. map) applied to the rest of the expression:
bar f = (.) (filter f) . map
bar f = (. map) $ (.) $ filter $ f
bar = (. map) . (.) . filter
and that's how you reduce an expression when you don't have complicated things like f x x and the like appearing in it. In general there is a function flip f x y = f y x which "flips arguments"; you can always use that to move the f to the other side. Here we have flip (.) map . (.) . filter if you include the explicit flip call.
I asked lambdabot, a robot who hangs out on various Haskell IRC channels, to automatically work out the point-free equivalent. The command is #pl (pointless).
10:41 <frase> #pl bar f g xs = filter f (map g xs )
10:41 <lambdabot> bar = (. map) . (.) . filter
The point free version of bar is:
bar = (. map) . (.) . filter
This is arguably less comprehensible than the original (non-point-free) code. Use your good judgement when deciding whether to use point-free style on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, if you don't care for IRC there are web-based point-free
converters such as pointfree.io, the pointfree command line program, and other tools.
Here is the problem, i need to write the well known twice function
(twice= \x-> \x-> x)
but this time using (.) composition function like (.) f g.
I don't know how to solve it, cause I thought at the beginning to do like:
(.) f g = (\x -> f (g x))
with (g = f) so it would be like this
(.) f f = (\x -> f (f x))
but I have a
"Conflicting definitions for `f'"
running on GHCI
So, any suggestions ?
I don't know how you got anything other than a parse input from this:
(.) f f = (\x -> f (f x))
but the definition you gave: twice = \x -> \x -> x has nothing to do with using something "twice" - indeed if you plug in some values:
twice a b
= (\x -> \x -> x) a b
= (\x -> (\x -> x)) a b -- (rename the inner x)
= (\x -> (\y -> y)) a b
= ((\x -> (\y -> y)) a) b
= (\y -> y) b
= b
and indeed GHCi will tell you the same:
> let twice = \x -> \x -> x
> :t twice
twice :: t -> t1 -> t1
> twice "a" "b"
"b"
Now I guess you want something like this:
let twice f x = f (f x)
for example:
> let twice f x = f (f x)
> twice (+1) 5
7
as you can see twice (+1) adds 2 (or twice one).
Now how can you do this using (.)? - Well your intuition was wright:
> let twice f = f . f
> twice (+1) 5
7
concerning a module
As you asked for a module - this compiles (and loads into GHCi) fine on my system(s):
module Twice where
twice :: (a->a) -> a -> a
twice f = f . f
remark:
this only works if you include (.) from the prelude (or GHC.Base) - I suspect that you got some kind of excercise that hid the prelude - in this case you have to define (.) for yourself first (most likely another excercise)
if you need to implement it yourself:
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
(.) g f x = g (f x)
I believe I understand fmap . fmap for Functors, but on functions it's hurting my head for months now.
I've seen that you can just apply the definition of (.) to (.) . (.), but I've forgot how to do that.
When I try it myself it always turns out wrong:
(.) f g = \x -> f (g x)
(.) (.) (.) = \x -> (.) ((.) x)
\x f -> (.) ((.) x) f
\x f y -> (((.)(f y)) x)
\x f y g-> (((.)(f y) g) x)
\x f y g-> ((f (g y)) x)
\x f y g-> ((f (g y)) x):: t2 -> (t1 -> t2 -> t) -> t3 -> (t3 -> t1) -> t
If "just applying the definition" is the only way of doing it, how did anybody come up with (.) . (.)?
There must be some deeper understanding or intuition I'm missing.
Coming up with (.) . (.) is actually pretty straightforward, it's the intuition behind what it does that is quite tricky to understand.
(.) gets you very far when rewriting expression into the "pipe" style computations (think of | in shell). However, it becomes awkward to use once you try to compose a function that takes multiple arguments with a function that only takes one. As an example, let's have a definition of concatMap:
concatMap :: (a -> [b]) -> [a] -> [b]
concatMap f xs = concat (map f xs)
Getting rid of xs is just a standard operation:
concatMap f = concat . map f
However, there's no "nice" way of getting rid of f. This is caused by the fact, that map takes two arguments and we'd like to apply concat on its final result.
You can of course apply some pointfree tricks and get away with just (.):
concatMap f = (.) concat (map f)
concatMap f = (.) concat . map $ f
concatMap = (.) concat . map
concatMap = (concat .) . map
But alas, readability of this code is mostly gone. Instead, we introduce a new combinator, that does exactly what we need: apply the second function to the final result of first one.
-- .: is fairly standard name for this combinator
(.:) :: (c -> d) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> d
(f .: g) x y = f (g x y)
concatMap = concat .: map
Fine, that's it for motivation. Let's get to the pointfree business.
(.:) = \f g x y -> f (g x y)
= \f g x y -> f ((g x) y)
= \f g x y -> f . g x $ y
= \f g x -> f . g x
Now, here comes the interesting part. This is yet another of the pointfree tricks that usually helps when you get stuck: we rewrite . into its prefix form and try to continue from there.
= \f g x -> (.) f (g x)
= \f g x -> (.) f . g $ x
= \f g -> (.) f . g
= \f g -> (.) ((.) f) g
= \f -> (.) ((.) f)
= \f -> (.) . (.) $ f
= (.) . (.)
As for intuition, there's this very nice article that you should read. I'll paraphrase the part about (.):
Let's think again about what our combinator should do: it should apply f to the result of result of g (I've been using final result in the part before on purpose, it's really what you get when you fully apply - modulo unifying type variables with another function type - the g function, result here is just application g x for some x).
What it means for us to apply f to the result of g? Well, once we apply g to some value, we'll take the result and apply f to it. Sounds familiar: that's what (.) does.
result :: (b -> c) -> ((a -> b) -> (a -> c))
result = (.)
Now, it turns out that composition (our of word) of those combinators is just a function composition, that is:
(.:) = result . result -- the result of result
You can also use your understanding of fmap . fmap.
If you have two Functors foo and bar, then
fmap . fmap :: (a -> b) -> foo (bar a) -> foo (bar b)
fmap . fmap takes a function and produces an induced function for the composition of the two Functors.
Now, for any type t, (->) t is a Functor, and the fmap for that Functor is (.).
So (.) . (.) is fmap . fmap for the case where the two Functors are (->) s and (->) t, and thus
(.) . (.) :: (a -> b) -> ((->) s) ((->) t a) -> ((->) s) ((->) t b)
= (a -> b) -> (s -> (t -> a)) -> (s -> (t -> b))
= (a -> b) -> (s -> t -> a ) -> (s -> t -> b )
it "composes" a function f :: a -> b with a function of two arguments, g :: s -> t -> a,
((.) . (.)) f g = \x y -> f (g x y)
That view also makes it clear that, and how, the pattern extends to functions taking more arguments,
(.) :: (a -> b) -> (s -> a) -> (s -> b)
(.) . (.) :: (a -> b) -> (s -> t -> a) -> (s -> t -> b)
(.) . (.) . (.) :: (a -> b) -> (s -> t -> u -> a) -> (s -> t -> u -> b)
etc.
Your solution diverges when you introduce y. It should be
\x f y -> ((.) ((.) x) f) y :: (c -> d) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> d
\x f y z -> ((.) ((.) x) f) y z :: (c -> d) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> d
\x f y z -> ((.) x (f y)) z :: (c -> d) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> d
-- Or alternately:
\x f y z -> (x . f y) z :: (c -> d) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> d
\x f y z -> (x (f y z)) :: (c -> d) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> d
Which matches the original type signature: (.) . (.) :: (c -> d) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> d
(It's easiest to do the expansion in ghci, where you can check each step with :t expression)
Edit:
The deeper intution is this:
(.) is simply defined as
\f g -> \x -> f (g x)
Which we can simplify to
\f g x -> f (g x)
So when you supply it two arguments, it's curried and still needs another argument to resolve.
Each time you use (.) with 2 arguments, you create a "need" for one more argument.
(.) . (.) is of course just (.) (.) (.), so let's expand it:
(\f0 g0 x0 -> f0 (g0 x0)) (\f1 g1 x1 -> f1 (g1 x1)) (\f2 g2 x2 -> f2 (g2 x2))
We can beta-reduce on f0 and g0 (but we don't have an x0!):
\x0 -> (\f1 g1 x1 -> f1 (g1 x1)) ((\f2 g2 x2 -> f2 (g2 x2)) x0)
Substitute the 2nd expression for f1...
\x0 -> \g1 x1 -> ((\f2 g2 x2 -> f2 (g2 x2)) x0) (g1 x1)
Now it "flips back"! (beta-reduction on f2):
This is the interesting step - x0 is substituted for f2 -- This means that x, which could have been data, is instead a function.
This is what (.) . (.) provides -- the "need" for the extra argument.
\x0 -> \g1 x1 -> (\g2 x2 -> x0 (g2 x2)) (g1 x1)
This is starting to look normal...
Let's beta-reduce a last time (on g2):
\x0 -> \g1 x1 -> (\x2 -> x0 ((g1 x1) x2))
So we're left with simply
\x0 g1 x1 x2 -> x0 ((g1 x1) x2)
, where the arguments are nicely still in order.
So, this is what I get when I do a slightly more incremental expansion
(.) f g = \x -> f (g x)
(.) . g = \x -> (.) (g x)
= \x -> \y -> (.) (g x) y
= \x -> \y -> \z -> (g x) (y z)
= \x y z -> (g x) (y z)
(.) . (.) = \x y z -> ((.) x) (y z)
= \x y z -> \k -> x (y z k)
= \x y z k -> x (y z k)
Which, according to ghci has the correct type
Prelude> :t (.) . (.)
(.) . (.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> a1 -> b) -> a -> a1 -> c
Prelude> :t \x y z k -> x (y z k)
\x y z k -> x (y z k)
:: (t1 -> t) -> (t2 -> t3 -> t1) -> t2 -> t3 -> t
Prelude>
While I don't know the origins of this combinator, it is likely that it was
developed for use in combinatory logic, where you work strictly with combinators,
so you can't define things using more convenient lambda expressions. There may be
some intuition that goes with figuring these things out, but I haven't found it.
Most likely, you would develop some level of intuition if you had to do it enough.
It's easiest to write equations, combinators-style, instead of lambda-expressions: a b c = (\x -> ... body ...) is equivalent to a b c x = ... body ..., and vice versa, provided that x does not appear among {a,b,c}. So,
-- _B = (.)
_B f g x = f (g x)
_B _B _B f g x y = _B (_B f) g x y
= (_B f) (g x) y
= _B f (g x) y
= f ((g x) y)
= f (g x y)
You discover this if, given f (g x y), you want to convert it into a combinatory form (get rid of all the parentheses and variable repetitions). Then you apply patterns corresponding to the combinators' definitions, hopefully tracing this derivation backwards. This is much less mechanical/automatic though.
Could you please explain the meaning of the expression ((.).(.))?
As far as I know (.) has the type (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c.
(.) . (.) is the composition of the composition operator with itself.
If we look at
((.) . (.)) f g x
we can evaluate that a few steps, first we parenthesise,
((((.) . (.)) f) g) x
then we apply, using (foo . bar) arg = foo (bar arg):
~> (((.) ((.) f)) g) x
~> (((.) f) . g) x
~> ((.) f) (g x)
~> f . g x
More principled,
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)
So, using (.) as the first argument of (.), we must unify
b -> c
with
(v -> w) -> (u -> v) -> (u -> w)
That yields
b = v -> w
c = (u -> v) -> (u -> w)
and
(.) (.) = ((.) .) :: (a -> v -> w) -> a -> (u -> v) -> (u -> w)
Now, to apply that to (.), we must unify the type
a -> v -> w
with the type of (.), after renaming
(s -> t) -> (r -> s) -> (r -> t)
which yields
a = s -> t
v = r -> s
w = r -> t
and thus
(.) . (.) :: (s -> t) -> (u -> r -> s) -> (u -> r -> t)
and from the type we can (almost) read that (.) . (.) applies a function (of one argument) to the result of a function of two arguments.
You've got an answer already, here's a slightly different take on it.
In combinatory logic (.) is B-combinator : Babc = a(bc). When writing combinator expressions it is customary to assume that every identifier consists of one letter only, and omit white-space in application, to make the expressions more readable. Of course the usual currying applies: abcde is (((ab)c)d)e and vice versa.
(.) is B, so ((.) . (.)) == (.) (.) (.) == BBB. So,
BBBfgxy = B(Bf)gxy = (Bf)(gx)y = Bf(gx)y = (f . g x) y
abc a bc a b c
We can throw away both ys at the end (this is known as eta-reduction: Gy=Hy --> G=H, if y does not appear inside H1). But also, another way to present this, is
BBBfgxy = B(Bf)gxy = ((f .) . g) x y = f (g x y) -- (.) f == (f .)
-- compare with: (f .) g x = f (g x)
((f .) . g) x y might be easier to type in than ((.).(.)) f g x y, but YMMV.
1 For example, with S combinator, defined as Sfgx = fx(gx), without regard for that rule we could write
Sfgx = fx(gx) = B(fx)gx = (f x . g) x
Sfg = B(fx)g = (f x . g) --- WRONG, what is "x"?
which is nonsense.