I've just written this function which simply takes a pair whose second value is in some monad, and "pulls the monad out" to cover the whole pair.
unSndM :: Monad m => (a, m c) -> m (a, c)
unSndM (x, y) = do y' <- y
return (x, y')
Is there a nicer and/or shorter or point-free or even standard way to express this?
I've got as far as the following, with -XTupleSections turned on...
unSndM' :: Monad m => (a, m c) -> m (a, c)
unSndM' (x, y) = y >>= return . (x,)
Thanks!
If the Traversable and Foldable instances for (,) x) were in the library (and I suppose I must take some blame for their absence)...
instance Traversable ((,) x) where
traverse f (x, y) = (,) x <$> f y
instance Foldable ((,) x) where
foldMap = foldMapDefault
...then this (sometimes called 'strength') would be a specialisation of Data.Traversable.sequence.
sequence :: (Traversable t, Monad m) => t (m a) -> m (t a)
so
sequence :: (Monad m) => ((,) x) (m a) -> m (((,) x) a)
i.e.
sequence :: (Monad m) => (x, m a) -> m (x, a)
In fact, sequence doesn't really use the full power of Monad: Applicative will do. Moreover, in this case, pairing-with-x is linear, so the traverse does only <$> rather than other random combinations of pure and <*>, and (as has been pointed out elsewhere) you only need m to have functorial structure.
One minor point: it's possible to write this using only fmap (no >>=), so you really only need a Functor instance:
unSndM :: (Functor f) => (a, f c) -> f (a, c)
unSndM (x, y) = fmap ((,) x) y
This version is a bit more general. To answer your question about a pointfree version, we can just ask pointfree:
travis#sidmouth% pointfree "unSndM (x, y) = fmap ((,) x) y"
unSndM = uncurry (fmap . (,))
So, yes, an even shorter version is possible, but I personally find uncurry a bit hard to read and avoid it in most cases.
If I were writing this function in my own code, I'd probably use <$> from Control.Applicative, which does shave off one character:
unSndM :: (Functor f) => (a, f c) -> f (a, c)
unSndM (x, y) = ((,) x) <$> y
<$> is just a synonym for fmap, and I like that it makes the fact that this is a kind of function application a little clearer.
I haven't seen it written in any Haskell library (though it's probably in category-extras), but it is generally known as the "tensorial strength" of a monad. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_monad
http://comonad.com/reader/2008/deriving-strength-from-laziness/
Hoogle is your friend. If one of the standard libraries had it then a hoogle for "Monad m => (a, m b) -> m (a,b)" would find it. Note the function could still be in a hackage package, but it often isn't worth an extra build-dep just for small functions like this.
Related
I tried writing down joinArr :: ??? a => a r (a r b) -> a r b.
I came up with a solution which uses app, therefore narrowing the a down to ArrowApply's:
joinArr :: ArrowApply a => a r (a r b) -> a r b
joinArr g = g &&& Control.Category.id >>> app
Is it possible to have this function written down for arrows?
My guess is no.
Control.Monad.join could have been a good stand-in for >>= in the definition of the Monad type class: m >>= k = join $ k <$> m.
Having joinArr :: Arrow a => a r (a r b) (a r b) on our hands, it would be possible to write down instance Arrow a => Monad (ArrowMonad a):
m >>= k = joinArr (k <$> m)
Please note that joinArr should be slightly tweaked to be able to deal with the wrapper. If we speak of ArrowApply:
joinArr :: ArrowApply a => ArrowMonad a (ArrowMonad a b) -> ArrowMonad a b
joinArr (ArrowMonad m) = ArrowMonad $
m &&& Control.Category.id >>>
first (arr (\x -> let ArrowMonad h = x in h)) >>>
app
instance ArrowApply a => Monad (ArrowMonad a) is already implemented in the source file.
I reckon this argument not to be the best one (if it is right).
Am I right? What is the more formal way to back this up (or disprove it)?
I think the formal reason that you can’t implement a x (a x y) -> a x y using only Arrow is that this requires a notion of either application (as you tried) or currying, or rather uncurrying in this case:
uncurry :: a x (a y z) -> a (x, y) z
With that, joinArr is simply:
joinArr :: a x (a x y) -> a x y
joinArr f = dup >>> uncurry f
where dup = id &&& id
But if we can’t implement this without apply, curry, or uncurry, that means that a must be a Cartesian closed category (CCC) because we need some notion of “exponential” or higher-order arrow, which ArrowApply gives us, but Arrow only gives us a Cartesian category. (And I believe ArrowApply is equivalent to Monad because Monad is a strong monad in a CCC.)
The closest you can get with only Arrow is an Applicative, as you saw in the definition of instance (Arrow a) => Applicative (ArrowMonad a), which happens to be equivalent in power to join in the Reader monad (since there join = (<*> id)), but not the stronger monadic join:
joinArr' :: a x (x -> y) -> a x y
joinArr' f = (f &&& id) >>> arr (uncurry ($))
Note that instead of a higher-order arrow here, a x (a x y), we just reuse the (->) type.
In Haskell Applicatives are considered stronger than Functor that means we can define Functor using Applicative like
-- Functor
fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
fmap f fa = pure f <*> fa
and Monads are considered stronger than Applicatives & Functors that means.
-- Functor
fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
fmap f fa = fa >>= return . f
-- Applicative
pure :: a -> f a
pure = return
(<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
(<*>) = ??? -- Can we define this in terms return & bind? without using "ap"
I have read that Monads are for sequencing actions. But I feel like the only thing a Monad can do is Join or Flatten and the rest of its capabilities comes from Applicatives.
join :: m (m a) -> m a
-- & where is the sequencing in this part? I don't get it.
If Monad is really for sequencing actions then How come we can define Applicatives (which are not considered to strictly operate in sequence, some kind of parallel computing)?
As monads are Monoids in the Category of endofunctors. There are Commutative monoids as well, which necessarily need not work in order. That means the Monad instances for Commutative Monoids also need an ordering?
Edit:
I found an excellent page
http://wiki.haskell.org/What_a_Monad_is_not
If Monad is really for sequencing actions then How come we can define Applicatives (which are not considered to strictly operate in sequence, some kind of parallel computing)?
Not quite. All monads are applicatives, but only some applicatives are monads. So given a monad you can always define an applicative instance in terms of bind and return, but if all you have is the applicative instance then you cannot define a monad without more information.
The applicative instance for a monad would look like this:
instance (Monad m) => Applicative m where
pure = return
f <*> v = do
f' <- f
v' <- v
return $ f' v'
Of course this evaluates f and v in sequence, because its a monad and that is what monads do. If this applicative does not do things in a sequence then it isn't a monad.
Modern Haskell, of course, defines this the other way around: the Applicative typeclass is a subset of Functor so if you have a Functor and you can define (<*>) then you can create an Applicative instance. Monad is in turn defined as a subset of Applicative, so if you have an Applicative instance and you can define (>>=) then you can create a Monad instance. But you can't define (>>=) in terms of (<*>).
See the Typeclassopedia for more details.
We can copy the definition of ap and desugar it:
ap f a = do
xf <- f
xa <- a
return (xf xa)
Hence,
f <*> a = f >>= (\xf -> a >>= (\xa -> return (xf xa)))
(A few redundant parentheses added for clarity.)
(<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
(<*>) = ??? -- Can we define this in terms return & bind? without using "ap"
Recall that <*> has the type signature of f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b, and >>= has m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b. So how can we infer m (a -> b) -> m a -> m b from m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b?
To define f <*> x with >>=, the first parameter of >>= should be f obviously, so we can write the first transformation:
f <*> x = f >>= k -- k to be defined
where the function k takes as a parameter a function with the type of a -> b, and returns a result of m b such that the whole definition aligns with the type signature of bind >>=. For k, we can write:
k :: (a -> b) -> m b
k = \xf -> h x
Note that the function h should use x from f <*> x since x is related to the result of m b in some way like the function xf of a -> b.
For h x, it's easy to get:
h :: m a -> m b
h x = x >>= return . xf
Put the above three definations together, and we get:
f <*> x = f >>= \xf -> x >>= return . xf
So even though you don't know the defination of ap, you can still get the final result as shown by #chi according to the type signature.
I have this F-Algebra (introduced in a previous question), and I want to cast an effectful algebra upon it. Through desperate trial, I managed to put together a monadic catamorphism that works. I wonder if it may be generalized to an applicative, and if not, why.
This is how I defined Traversable:
instance Traversable Expr where
traverse f (Branch xs) = fmap Branch $ traverse f xs
traverse f (Leaf i ) = pure $ Leaf i
This is the monadic catamorphism:
type AlgebraM a f b = a b -> f b
cataM :: (Monad f, Traversable a) => AlgebraM a f b -> Fix a -> f b
cataM f x = f =<< (traverse (cataM f) . unFix $ x)
And this is how it works:
λ let printAndReturn x = print x >> pure x
λ cataM (printAndReturn . evalSum) $ branch [branch [leaf 1, leaf 2], leaf 3]
1
2
3
3
6
6
My idea now is that I could rewrite like this:
cataA :: (Applicative f, Traversable a) => AlgebraM a f b -> Fix a -> f b
cataA f x = do
subtree <- traverse (cataA f) . unFix $ x
value <- f subtree
return value
Unfortunately, value here depends on subtree and, according to a paper on applicative do-notation, in such case we cannot desugar to Applicative. It seems like there's no way around this; we need a monad to float up from the depths of nesting.
Is it true? Can I safely conclude that only flat structures can be folded with applicative effects alone?
Can I safely conclude that only flat structures can be folded with applicative effects alone?
You can say that again! After all, "flattening nested structures" is exactly what makes a monad a monad, rather than Applicative which can only combine adjacent structures. Compare (a version of) the signatures of the two abstractions:
class Functor f => Applicative f where
pure :: a -> f a
(<.>) :: f a -> f b -> f (a, b)
class Applicative m => Monad m where
join :: m (m a) -> m a
What Monad adds to Applicative is the ability to flatten nested ms into one m. That's why []'s join is concat. Applicative only lets you smash together heretofore-unrelated fs.
It's no coincidence that the free monad's Free constructor contains a whole f full of Free fs, whereas the free applicative's Ap constructor only contains one Ap f.
data Free f a = Return a | Free (f (Free f a))
data Ap f a where
Pure :: a -> Ap f a
Cons :: f a -> Ap f b -> Ap f (a, b)
Hopefully that gives you some intuition as to why you should expect that it's not possible to fold a tree using an Applicative.
Let's play a little type tennis to see how it shakes out. We want to write
cataA :: (Traversable f, Applicative m) => (f a -> m a) -> Fix f -> m a
cataA f (Fix xs) = _
We have xs :: f (Fix f) and a Traversable for f. My first instinct here is to traverse the f to fold the contained subtrees:
cataA f (Fix xs) = _ $ traverse (cataA f) xs
The hole now has a goal type of m (f a) -> m a. Since there's an f :: f a -> m a knocking about, let's try going under the m to convert the contained fs:
cataA f (Fix xs) = _ $ fmap f $ traverse (cataA f) xs
Now we have a goal type of m (m a) -> m a, which is join. So you do need a Monad after all.
I am reading in the haskellbook about applicative and trying to understand it.
In the book, the author mentioned:
So, with Applicative, we have a Monoid for our structure and function
application for our values!
How is monoid connected to applicative?
Remark: I don't own the book (yet), and IIRC, at least one of the authors is active on SO and should be able to answer this question. That being said, the idea behind a monoid (or rather a semigroup) is that you have a way to create another object from two objects in that monoid1:
mappend :: Monoid m => m -> m -> m
So how is Applicative a monoid? Well, it's a monoid in terms of its structure, as your quote says. That is, we start with an f something, continue with f anotherthing, and we get, you've guessed it a f resulthing:
amappend :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
Before we continue, for a short, a very short time, let's forget that f has kind * -> *. What do we end up with?
amappend :: f -> f -> f
That's the "monodial structure" part. And that's the difference between Applicative and Functor in Haskell, since with Functor we don't have that property:
fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
-- ^
-- no f here
That's also the reason we get into trouble if we try to use (+) or other functions with fmap only: after a single fmap we're stuck, unless we can somehow apply our new function in that new structure. Which brings us to the second part of your question:
So, with Applicative, we have [...] function application for our values!
Function application is ($). And if we have a look at <*>, we can immediately see that they are similar:
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
(<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
If we forget the f in (<*>), we just end up with ($). So (<*>) is just function application in the context of our structure:
increase :: Int -> Int
increase x = x + 1
five :: Int
five = 5
increaseA :: Applicative f => f (Int -> Int)
increaseA = pure increase
fiveA :: Applicative f => f Int
fiveA = pure 5
normalIncrease = increase $ five
applicativeIncrease = increaseA <*> fiveA
And that's, I guessed, what the author meant with "function application". We suddenly can take those functions that are hidden away in our structure and apply them on other values in our structure. And due to the monodial nature, we stay in that structure.
That being said, I personally would never call that monodial, since <*> does not operate on two arguments of the same type, and an applicative is missing the empty element.
1 For a real semigroup/monoid that operation should be associative, but that's not important here
Although this question got a great answer long ago, I would like to add a bit.
Take a look at the following class:
class Functor f => Monoidal f where
unit :: f ()
(**) :: f a -> f b -> f (a, b)
Before explaining why we need some Monoidal class for a question about Applicatives, let us first take a look at its laws, abiding by which gives us a monoid:
f a (x) is isomorphic to f ((), a) (unit ** x), which gives us the left identity. (** unit) :: f a -> f ((), a), fmap snd :: f ((), a) -> f a.
f a (x) is also isomorphic f (a, ()) (x ** unit), which gives us the right identity. (unit **) :: f a -> f (a, ()), fmap fst :: f (a, ()) -> f a.
f ((a, b), c) ((x ** y) ** z) is isomorphic to f (a, (b, c)) (x ** (y ** z)), which gives us the associativity. fmap assoc :: f ((a, b), c) -> f (a, (b, c)), fmap assoc' :: f (a, (b, c)) -> f ((a, b), c).
As you might have guessed, one can write down Applicative's methods with Monoidal's and the other way around:
unit = pure ()
f ** g = (,) <$> f <*> g = liftA2 (,) f g
pure x = const x <$> unit
f <*> g = uncurry id <$> (f ** g)
liftA2 f x y = uncurry f <$> (x ** y)
Moreover, one can prove that Monoidal and Applicative laws are telling us the same thing. I asked a question about this a while ago.
I want to map over Applicative form.
The type of map-like function would be like below:
mapX :: (Applicative f) => (f a -> f b) -> f [a] -> f [b]
used as:
result :: (Applicative f) => f [b]
result = mapX f xs
where f :: f a -> f b
f = ...
xs :: f[a]
xs = ...
As the background of this post, I try to write fluid simulation program using Applicative style referring to Paul Haduk's "The Haskell School of Expression", and I want to express the simulation with Applicative style as below:
x, v, a :: Sim VArray
x = x0 +: integral (v * dt)
v = v0 +: integral (a * dt)
a = (...calculate acceleration with x v...)
instance Applicative Sim where
...
where Sim type means the process of simulation computation and VArray means Array of Vector (x,y,z). X, v a are the arrays of position, velocity and acceleration, respectively.
Mapping over Applicative form comes when definining a.
I've found one answer to my question.
After all, my question is "How to lift high-order functions (like map
:: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]) to the Applicative world?" and the answer
I've found is "To build them using lifted first-order functions."
For example, the "mapX" is defined with lifted first-order functions
(headA, tailA, consA, nullA, condA) as below:
mapX :: (f a -> f b) -> f [a] -> f [b]
mapX f xs0 = condA (nullA xs0) (pure []) (consA (f x) (mapA f xs))
where
x = headA xs0
xs = tailA xs0
headA = liftA head
tailA = liftA tail
consA = liftA2 (:)
nullA = liftA null
condA b t e = liftA3 aux b t e
where aux b t e = if b then t else e
First, I don't think your proposed type signature makes much sense. Given an applicative list f [a] there's no general way to turn that into [f a] -- so there's no need for a function of type f a -> f b. For the sake of sanity, we'll reduce that function to a -> f b (to transform that into the other is trivial, but only if f is a monad).
So now we want:
mapX :: (Applicative f) => (a -> f b) -> f [a] -> f [b]
What immediately comes to mind now is traverse which is a generalization of mapM. Traverse, specialized to lists:
traverse :: (Applicative f) => (a -> f b) -> [a] -> f [b]
Close, but no cigar. Again, we can lift traverse to the required type signature, but this requires a monad constraint: mapX f xs = xs >>= traverse f.
If you don't mind the monad constraint, this is fine (and in fact you can do it more straightforwardly just with mapM). If you need to restrict yourself to applicative, then this should be enough to illustrate why you proposed signature isn't really possible.
Edit: based on further information, here's how I'd start to tackle the underlying problem.
-- your sketch
a = liftA sum $ mapX aux $ liftA2 neighbors (x!i) nbr
where aux :: f Int -> f Vector3
-- the type of "liftA2 neighbors (x!i) nbr" is "f [Int]
-- my interpretation
a = liftA2 aux x v
where
aux :: VArray -> VArray -> VArray
aux xi vi = ...
If you can't write aux like that -- as a pure function from the positions and velocities at one point in time to the accelerations, then you have bigger problems...
Here's an intuitive sketch as to why. The stream applicative functor takes a value and lifts it into a value over time -- a sequence or stream of values. If you have access to a value over time, you can derive properties of it. So velocity can be defined in terms of acceleration, position can be defined in terms of velocity, and soforth. Great! But now you want to define acceleration in terms of position and velocity. Also great! But you should not need, in this instance, to define acceleration in terms of velocity over time. Why, you may ask? Because velocity over time is all acceleration is to begin with. So if you define a in terms of dv, and v in terms of integral(a) then you've got a closed loop, and your equations are not propertly determined -- either there are, even given initial conditions, infinitely many solutions, or there are no solutions at all.
If I'm thinking about this right, you can't do this just with an applicative functor; you'll need a monad. If you have an Applicative—call it f—you have the following three functions available to you:
fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
pure :: a -> f a
(<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
So, given some f :: f a -> f b, what can you do with it? Well, if you have some xs :: [a], then you can map it across: map (f . pure) xs :: [f b]. And if you instead have fxs :: f [a], then you could instead do fmap (map (f . pure)) fxs :: f [f b].1 However, you're stuck at this point. You want some function of type [f b] -> f [b], and possibly a function of type f (f b) -> f b; however, you can't define these on applicative functors (edit: actually, you can define the former; see the edit). Why? Well, if you look at fmap, pure, and <*>, you'll see that you have no way to get rid of (or rearrange) the f type constructor, so once you have [f a], you're stuck in that form.
Luckily, this is what monads are for: computations which can "change shape", so to speak. If you have a monad m, then in addition to the above, you get two extra methods (and return as a synonym for pure):
(>>=) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
join :: m (m a) -> m a
While join is only defined in Control.Monad, it's just as fundamental as >>=, and can sometimes be clearer to think about. Now we have the ability to define your [m b] -> m [b] function, or your m (m b) -> m b. The latter one is just join; and the former is sequence, from the Prelude. So, with monad m, you can define your mapX as
mapX :: Monad m => (m a -> m b) -> m [a] -> m [b]
mapX f mxs = mxs >>= sequence . map (f . return)
However, this would be an odd way to define it. There are a couple of other useful functions on monads in the prelude: mapM :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> [a] -> m [b], which is equivalent to mapM f = sequence . map f; and (=<<) :: (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b, which is equivalent to flip (>>=). Using those, I'd probably define mapX as
mapX :: Monad m => (m a -> m b) -> m [a] -> m [b]
mapX f mxs = mapM (f . return) =<< mxs
Edit: Actually, my mistake: as John L kindly pointed out in a comment, Data.Traversable (which is a base package) supplies the function sequenceA :: (Applicative f, Traversable t) => t (f a) => f (t a); and since [] is an instance of Traversable, you can sequence an applicative functor. Nevertheless, your type signature still requires join or =<<, so you're still stuck. I would probably suggest rethinking your design; I think sclv probably has the right idea.
1: Or map (f . pure) <$> fxs, using the <$> synonym for fmap from Control.Applicative.
Here is a session in ghci where I define mapX the way you wanted it.
Prelude>
Prelude> import Control.Applicative
Prelude Control.Applicative> :t pure
pure :: Applicative f => a -> f a
Prelude Control.Applicative> :t (<*>)
(<*>) :: Applicative f => f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
Prelude Control.Applicative> let mapX fun ma = pure fun <*> ma
Prelude Control.Applicative> :t mapX
mapX :: Applicative f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
I must however add that fmap is better to use, since Functor is less expressive than Applicative (that means that using fmap will work more often).
Prelude> :t fmap
fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
edit:
Oh, you have some other signature for mapX, anyway, you maybe meant the one I suggested (fmap)?