Non-tree data structures in Haskell - haskell

Question

Making tree like data structures is relatively easy in Haskell. However, what if I want a structure like the following:
A (root)
/ \
B C
/ \ / \
D E F
So if I traverse down the structure through B to update E, the returned new updated structure also has E updated if I traverse through C.
Could someone give me some hints about how to achieve this? You can assume there are no loops.

Answer 1

I would flatten the data structure to an array, and operate on this instead:
import Data.Array
type Tree = Array Int -- Bounds should start at (1) and go to sum [1..n]
data TreeTraverse = TLeft TreeTraverse | TRight TreeTraverse | TStop
Given some traverse directions (left, right, stop), it's easy to see that if we go left, we simply add the current level to our position, and if we go right, we also add the current position plus one:
getPosition :: TreeTraverse -> Int
getPosition = getPosition' 1 1
where
getPosition' level pos (TLeft ts) = getPosition' (level+1) (pos+level) ts
getPosition' level pos (TRight ts) = getPosition' (level+1) (pos+level + 1) ts
getPosition' _ pos (TStop) = pos
In your case, you want to traverse either ABE or ACE:
traverseABE = TLeft $ TRight TStop
traverseACE = TRight $ TLeft TStop
Since we already now how to get the position of your element, and Data.Array provides some functions to set/get specific elements, we can use the following functions to get/set tree values:
getElem :: TreeTraverse -> Tree a -> a
getElem tt t = t ! getPosition tt
setElem :: TreeTraverse -> Tree a -> a -> Tree a
setElem tt t x = t // [(getPosition tt, x)]
To complete the code, lets use your example:
example = "ABCDEF"
exampleTree :: Tree Char
exampleTree = listArray (1, length example) example
And put everything to action:
main :: IO ()
main = do
putStrLn $ "Traversing from A -> B -> E: " ++ [getElem traverseABE exampleTree]
putStrLn $ "Traversing from A -> C -> E: " ++ [getElem traverseACE exampleTree]
putStrLn $ "exampleTree: " ++ show exampleTree ++ "\n"
putStrLn $ "Setting element from A -> B -> E to 'X', "
let newTree = setElem traverseABE exampleTree 'X'
putStrLn $ "but show via A -> C -> E: " ++ [getElem traverseACE newTree]
putStrLn $ "newTree: " ++ show newTree ++ "\n"
Note that this is most-likely not the best way to do this, but the first thing that I had in mind.

Answer 2

Once you've established identity, it can be done.
But first you must establish identity.
In many languages, values can be distinct from each other, but equal. In Python, for example:
>>> a = [1]
>>> b = [1]
>>> a == b
True
>>> a is b
False
You want to update E in one branch of the tree, and also update all other elements for which that element is E. But Haskell is referentially transparent: it has no notion of things being the same object; only equality, and even that is not applicable for every object.
One way you could do this is equality. Say this was your tree:
__A__
/ \
B C
/ \ / \
1 2 2 3
Then we could go through the tree and update all the 2s to, say, four. But this isn't exactly what you want in some cases.
In Haskell, if you want to update one thing in multiple places, you'll have to be explicit about what is and isn't the same thing. Another way you could deal with this is to tag each different value with a unique integer, and use that integer to determine identity:
____________A___________
/ \
B C
/ \ / \
(id=1)"foo" (id=2)"bar" (id=2)"bar" (id=3)"baz"
Then we could update all values with an identity of 2. Accidental collisions cannot be a problem, as there can be no collisions except those that are intentional.
This is essentially what STRef and IORef do, except they hoist the actual value into the monad's state and hide the identities from you. The only downside of using these is you'll need to make much of your code monadic, but you're probably not going to get away from that easily whatever you do. (Modifying values rather than replacing them is an inherently effectful thing to do.)
The structure you gave was not specified in much detail so it's impossible to tailor an example to your use case, but here's a simple example using the ST monad and a Tree:
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.ST
import Data.Tree
import Data.Traversable (traverse)
import Data.STRef
createInitialTree :: ST s (Tree (STRef s String))
createInitialTree = do
[a, b, c, d, e, f] <- mapM newSTRef ["A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F"]
return $ Node a [ Node b [Node d [], Node e []]
, Node c [Node e [], Node f []]
]
dereferenceTree :: Tree (STRef s a) -> ST s (Tree a)
dereferenceTree = traverse readSTRef
test :: ST s (Tree String, Tree String)
test = do
tree <- createInitialTree
before <- dereferenceTree tree
let leftE = subForest (subForest tree !! 0) !! 1
writeSTRef (rootLabel leftE) "new" -- look ma, single update!
after <- dereferenceTree tree
return (before, after)
main = do
let (before, after) = runST test
putStrLn $ drawTree before
putStrLn $ drawTree after
Observe that although we only explicitly modified the value of the left E value, it changed on the right side, too, as desired.
I should note that these are not the only ways. There are probably many other solutions to this same problem, but they all require you to define identity sensibly. Only once that has been done can one begin the next step.