I really wish that Google was better at searching for syntax:
decades :: (RealFrac a) => a -> a -> [a] -> Array Int Int
decades a b = hist (0,9) . map decade
where decade x = floor ((x - a) * s)
s = 10 / (b - a)
f(g(x))
is
in mathematics : f ∘ g (x)
in haskell : ( f . g ) (x)
It means function composition.
See this question.
Note also the f.g.h x is not equivalent to (f.g.h) x, because it is interpreted as f.g.(h x) which won't typecheck unless (h x) returns a function.
This is where the $ operator can come in handy: f.g.h $ x turns x from being a parameter to h to being a parameter to the whole expression. And so it becomes equivalent to f(g(h x)) and the pipe works again.
. is a higher order function for function composition.
Prelude> :type (.)
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
Prelude> (*2) . (+1) $ 1
4
Prelude> ((*2) . (+1)) 1
4
"The period is a function composition operator. In general terms, where f and g are functions, (f . g) x means the same as f (g x). In other words, the period is used to take the result from the function on the right, feed it as a parameter to the function on the left, and return a new function that represents this computation."
It is a function composition: link
Function composition (the page is pretty long, use search)
Related
I am currently reading Learn You a Haskell for Great Good! and am stumbling on the explanation for the evaluation of a certain code block. I've read the explanations several times and am starting to doubt if even the author understands what this piece of code is doing.
ghci> (+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
508
An applicative functor applies a function in some context to a value in some context to get some result in some context. I have spent a few hours studying this code block and have come up with a few explanations for how this expression is evaluated, and none of them are satisfactory. I understand that (5+3)+(5*100) is 508, but the problem is getting to this expression. Does anyone have a clear explanation for this piece of code?
The other two answers have given the detail of how this is calculated - but I thought I might chime in with a more "intuitive" answer to explain how, without going through a detailed calculation, one can "see" that the result must be 508.
As you implied, every Applicative (in fact, even every Functor) can be viewed as a particular kind of "context" which holds values of a given type. As simple examples:
Maybe a is a context in which a value of type a might exist, but might not (usually the result of a computation which may fail for some reason)
[a] is a context which can hold zero or more values of type a, with no upper limit on the number - representing all possible outcomes of a particular computation
IO a is a context in which a value of type a is available as a result of interacting with "the outside world" in some way. (OK that one isn't so simple...)
And, relevant to this example:
r -> a is a context in which a value of type a is available, but its particular value is not yet known, because it depends on some (as yet unknown) value of type r.
The Applicative methods can be very well understood on the basis of values in such contexts. pure embeds an "ordinary value" in a "default context" in which it behaves as closely as possible in that context to a "context-free" one. I won't go through this for each of the 4 examples above (most of them are very obvious), but I will note that for functions, pure = const - that is, a "pure value" a is represented by the function which always produces a no matter what the source value.
Rather than dwell on how <*> can best be described using the "context" metaphor though, I want to dwell on the particular expression:
f <$> a <*> b
where f is a function between 2 "pure values" and a and b are "values in a context". This expression in fact has a synonym as a function: liftA2. Although using the liftA2 function is generally considered less idiomatic than the "applicative style" using <$> and <*>, the name emphasies that the idea is to "lift" a function on "ordinary values" to one on "values in a context". And when thought of like this, I think it is usually very intuitive what this does, given a particular "context" (ie. a particular Applicative instance).
So the expression:
(+) <$> a <*> b
for values a and b of type say f Int for an Applicative f, behaves as follows for different instances f:
if f = Maybe, then the result, if a and b are both Just values, is to add up the underlying values and wrap them in a Just. If either a or b is Nothing, then the whole expression is Nothing.
if f = [] (the list instance) then the above expression is a list containing all sums of the form a' + b' where a' is in a and b' is in b.
if f = IO, then the above expression is an IO action that performs all the I/O effects of a followed by those of b, and results in the sum of the Ints produced by those two actions.
So what, finally, does it do if f is the function instance? Since a and b are both functions describing how to get a given Int given an arbitrary (Int) input, it is natural that lifting the (+) function over them should be the function that, given an input, gets the result of both the a and b functions, and then adds the results.
And that is, of course, what it does - and the explicit route by which it does that has been very ably mapped out by the other answers. But the reason why it works out like that - indeed, the very reason we have the instance that f <*> g = \x -> f x (g x), which might otherwise seem rather arbitrary (although in actual fact it's one of the very few things, if not the only thing, that will type-check), is so that the instance matches the semantics of "values which depend on some as-yet-unknown other value, according to the given function". And in general, I would say it's often better to think "at a high level" like this than to be forced to go down to the low-level details of exactly how computations are performed. (Although I certainly don't want to downplay the importance of also being able to do the latter.)
[Actually, from a philosophical point of view, it might be more accurate to say that the definition is as it is just because it's the "natural" definition that type-checks, and that it's just happy coincidence that the instance then takes on such a nice "meaning". Mathematics is of course full of just such happy "coincidences" which turn out to have very deep reasons behind them.]
It is using the applicative instance for functions. Your code
(+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
is evaluated as
( (\a->\b->a+b) <$> (\c->c+3) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5 -- f <$> g
( (\x -> (\a->\b->a+b) ((\c->c+3) x)) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5 -- \x -> f (g x)
( (\x -> (\a->\b->a+b) (x+3)) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5
( (\x -> \b -> (x+3)+b) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5
( (\x->\b->(x+3)+b) <*> (\d->d*100) ) 5 -- f <*> g
(\y -> ((\x->\b->(x+3)+b) y) ((\d->d*100) y)) 5 -- \y -> (f y) (g y)
(\y -> (\b->(y+3)+b) (y*100)) 5
(\y -> (y+3)+(y*100)) 5
(5+3)+(5*100)
where <$> is fmap or just function composition ., and <*> is ap if you know how it behaves on monads.
Let us first take a look how fmap and (<*>) are defined for a function:
instance Functor ((->) r) where
fmap = (.)
instance Applicative ((->) a) where
pure = const
(<*>) f g x = f x (g x)
liftA2 q f g x = q (f x) (g x)
The expression we aim to evaluate is:
(+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
or more verbose:
((+) <$> (+3)) <*> (*100) $ 5
If we thus evaluate (<$>), which is an infix synonym for fmap, we thus see that this is equal to:
(+) . (+3)
so that means our expression is equivalent to:
((+) . (+3)) <*> (*100) $ 5
Next we can apply the sequential application. Here f is thus equal to (+) . (+3) and g is (*100). This thus means that we construct a function that looks like:
\x -> ((+) . (+3)) x ((*100) x)
We can now simplify this and rewrite this into:
\x -> ((+) (x+3)) ((*100) x)
and then rewrite it to:
\x -> (+) (x+3) ((*100) x)
We thus have constructed a function that looks like:
\x -> (x+3) + 100 * x
or simpler:
\x -> 101 * x + 3
If we then calculate:
(\x -> 101*x + 3) 5
then we of course obtain:
101 * 5 + 3
and thus:
505 + 3
which is the expected:
508
For any applicative,
a <$> b <*> c = liftA2 a b c
For functions,
liftA2 a b c x
= a (b x) (c x) -- by definition;
= (a . b) x (c x)
= ((a <$> b) <*> c) x
Thus
(+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
=
liftA2 (+) (+3) (*100) 5
=
(+) ((+3) 5) ((*100) 5)
=
(5+3) + (5*100)
(the long version of this answer follows.)
Pure math has no time. Pure Haskell has no time. Speaking in verbs ("applicative functor applies" etc.) can be confusing ("applies... when?...").
Instead, (<*>) is a combinator which combines a "computation" (denoted by an applicative functor) carrying a function (in the context of that type of computations) and a "computation" of the same type, carrying a value (in like context), into one combined "computation" that carries out the application of that function to that value (in such context).
"Computation" is used to contrast it with a pure Haskell "calculations" (after Philip Wadler's "Calculating is better than Scheming" paper, itself referring to David Turner's Kent Recursive Calculator language, one of predecessors of Miranda, the (main) predecessor of Haskell).
"Computations" might or might not be pure themselves, that's an orthogonal issue. But mainly what it means, is that "computations" embody a generalized function call protocol. They might "do" something in addition to / as part of / carrying out the application of a function to its argument. Or in types,
( $ ) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
(<$>) :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
(<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
(=<<) :: (a -> f b) -> f a -> f b
With functions, the context is application (another one), and to recover the value -- be it a function or an argument -- the application to a common argument is to be performed.
(bear with me, we're almost there).
The pattern a <$> b <*> c is also expressible as liftA2 a b c. And so, the "functions" applicative functor "computation" type is defined by
liftA2 h x y s = let x' = x s -- embellished application of h to x and y
y' = y s in -- in context of functions, or Reader
h x' y'
-- liftA2 h x y = let x' = x -- non-embellished application, or Identity
-- y' = y in
-- h x' y'
-- liftA2 h x y s = let (x',s') = x s -- embellished application of h to x and y
-- (y',s'') = y s' in -- in context of
-- (h x' y', s'') -- state-passing computations, or State
-- liftA2 h x y = let (x',w) = x -- embellished application of h to x and y
-- (y',w') = y in -- in context of
-- (h x' y', w++w') -- logging computations, or Writer
-- liftA2 h x y = [h x' y' | -- embellished application of h to x and y
-- x' <- x, -- in context of
-- y' <- y ] -- nondeterministic computations, or List
-- ( and for Monads we define `liftBind h x k =` and replace `y` with `k x'`
-- in the bodies of the above combinators; then liftA2 becomes liftBind: )
-- liftA2 :: (a -> b -> c) -> f a -> f b -> f c
-- liftBind :: (a -> b -> c) -> f a -> (a -> f b) -> f c
-- (>>=) = liftBind (\a b -> b) :: f a -> (a -> f b) -> f b
And in fact all the above snippets can be just written with ApplicativeDo as liftA2 h x y = do { x' <- x ; y' <- y ; pure (h x' y') } or even more intuitively as
liftA2 h x y = [h x' y' | x' <- x, y' <- y], with Monad Comprehensions, since all the above computation types are monads as well as applicative functors. This shows by the way that (<*>) = liftA2 ($), which one might find illuminating as well.
Indeed,
> :t let liftA2 h x y r = h (x r) (y r) in liftA2
:: (a -> b -> c) -> (t -> a) -> (t -> b) -> (t -> c)
> :t liftA2 -- the built-in one
liftA2 :: Applicative f => (a -> b -> c) -> f a -> f b -> f c
i.e. the types match when we take f a ~ (t -> a) ~ (->) t a, i.e. f ~ (->) t.
And so, we're already there:
(+) <$> (+3) <*> (*100) $ 5
=
liftA2 (+) (+3) (*100) 5
=
(+) ((+3) 5) ((*100) 5)
=
(+) (5+3) (5*100)
=
(5+3) + (5*100)
It's just how liftA2 is defined for this type, Applicative ((->) t) => ...:
instance Applicative ((->) t) where
pure x t = x
liftA2 h x y t = h (x t) (y t)
There's no need to define (<*>). The source code says:
Minimal complete definition
pure, ((<*>) | liftA2)
So now you've been wanting to ask for a long time, why is it that a <$> b <*> c is equivalent to liftA2 a b c?
The short answer is, it just is. One can be defined in terms of the other -- i.e. (<*>) can be defined via liftA2,
g <*> x = liftA2 id g x -- i.e. (<*>) = liftA2 id = liftA2 ($)
-- (g <*> x) t = liftA2 id g x t
-- = id (g t) (x t)
-- = (id . g) t (x t) -- = (id <$> g <*> x) t
-- = g t (x t)
(which is exactly as it is defined in the source),
and it is a law that every Applicative Functor must follow, that h <$> g = pure h <*> g.
Lastly,
liftA2 h g x == pure h <*> g <*> x
-- h g x == (h g) x
because <*> associates to the left: it is infixl 4 <*>.
I know that "haskells dot" question was answered couple times before on stackoverflow but I came across a example that shows me I still don't fully get it. Let's say I have functions
f :: Integer -> Integer
f x = x
g x = \y -> y
Now, as far as I know dot works like function composition -> f (g x) = (f . g) x
. So
(f . g) 4 5
shuld returns 5. Because g takes two arguments and returns second one, and f is simply identity. However it doesn't, Im getting Couldn't match type error. I have a feeling that haskell parses this expresion to something like ((f . g) 4) 5. But I need deeper explanation
As mentioned in the question, we have:
(f . g) x = f (g x)
Hence, in particular
(f . g) 4 = f (g 4) (*)
from which we have
(f . g) 4 5
= -- application associates to the left
((f . g) 4) 5
= -- equation (*) above
(f (g 4)) 5 =
= -- application associates to the left
f (g 4) 5
We can now see that the last argument 5 is being left as the second argument of f, and not passed to g.
It is useful to remember that Haskell functions are curried: technically, there's no such a thing as a function which takes two arguments. A function having type a -> b -> c is actually a unary function returning a unary function, even if we like to think of that as a binary function.
The composition operator works on unary functions as well: f . g composes the unary functions f and g. If f is "binary", it is treated as a unary function returning a function. This makes it take an additional argument, as shown above. If g is "binary", its returned function is passed to f.
So, using the above definitions:
f x = x
g x = \y -> y
we get:
(f . g) 4 5
= -- done above
f (g 4) 5
= -- associativity
(f (g 4)) 5
= -- definition of f
(g 4) 5
= -- definition of g
(\y -> y) 5
= -- beta reduction
5
main = print $(f . g) 4 5
f x = x
g x = \y -> y
Compiles nicely and when run prints 5. I'm using GHC 8.0.1.
Maybe you'd rather provide a complete minimal etc. example?
I tried to make the following function definition:
relativelyPrime x y = gcd x y == 1
point-free:
relativelyPrime = (== 1) . gcd
However, this gives me the following error:
Couldn't match type ‘Bool’ with ‘a -> Bool’
Expected type: (a -> a) -> a -> Bool
Actual type: (a -> a) -> Bool
Relevant bindings include
relativelyPrime :: a -> a -> Bool (bound at 1.hs:20:1)
In the first argument of ‘(.)’, namely ‘(== 1)’
In the expression: (== 1) . gcd
In an equation for ‘relativelyPrime’:
relativelyPrime = (== 1) . gcd
I don't quite understand. gcd takes two Ints/Integer, returns one Ints/Integer, then that one Int/Integer is checked for equality to '1'. I don't see where my error is.
It doesn't work because gcd requires two inputs whereas function composition only provides gcd one input. Consider the definition of function composition:
f . g = \x -> f (g x)
Hence, the expression (== 1) . gcd is equivalent to:
\x -> (== 1) (gcd x)
This is not what you want. You want:
\x y -> (== 1) (gcd x y)
You could define a new operator to compose a unary function with a binary function:
f .: g = \x y -> f (g x y)
Then, your expression becomes:
relativelyPrime = (== 1) .: gcd
In fact, the (.:) operator can be defined in terms of function composition:
(.:) = (.) . (.)
It looks kind of like an owl, but they are indeed equivalent. Thus, another way to write the expression:
relativelyPrime = ((== 1) .) . gcd
If you want to understand what's happening then see: What does (f .) . g mean in Haskell?
as you commented on it - if you really want a point-free version you can first use uncurry gcd to transform gcd into a version that accepts a single input (a tuple):
Prelude> :t uncurry gcd
uncurry gcd :: Integral c => (c, c) -> c
then check with (== 1) and finally curry it again for the original signature:
relativeelyPrime = curry ((== 1) . (uncurry gcd))
your version did not work just because gcd produces a function if given only the first argument and this is no legal input for (== 1) which awaits a number.
I need to write on a module to be run on GHCi, with a function composition to the same function. This (The classic fog(x) = f(g(x))) runs:
(.) f g = (\x -> f (g x)).
The problem appears when I try to write it like this
(.) f f = (\x -> f (f x)). (fof(x) = f(f(x)))
GHCi says:
"Conflicting definitions for `f'
Bound at: Lab1.hs:27:9
Lab1.hs:27:12"
Line 27:9 appear on the first time f and line 27:12 appear f again.
Why doesn't Haskell understand (.) f f = (\x -> f (f x))?
In Haskell, arguments to a function must have unique names. Using the same name for another argument is not allowed. This is because
foo x y = ... === foo = (\x-> (\y-> ...))
and if y where replaced with x, the second x would just shadow the first inside the ... body: there would be no way to reference the first x from there.
You can just define twice f x = f (f x):
Prelude> :t twice
twice :: (t -> t) -> t -> t
Prelude> twice (+1) 4
6
Alternatively, f (f x) = (.) f f x = join (.) f x:
Prelude Control.Monad> :t join (.)
join (.) :: (b -> b) -> b -> b
join is defined in Control.Monad. For functions, it holds that join g x = g x x. It is also known as W combinator.
E.g. print $ join (.) (+1) 4 prints 6.
As the error message says, you have conflicting definitions for f in the definition (.) f f = (\x -> f (f x)). You are binding the name f to both the first and second arguments to (.), so ghci doesn't know which argument to use when evaluating the expression f x.
There is nothing wrong with defining (.) using the pattern (.) f g, and then calling it with two arguments that happen to be the same.
I'm trying to understand what the dot operator is doing in this Haskell code:
sumEuler = sum . (map euler) . mkList
The entire source code is below.
My understanding
The dot operator is taking the two functions sum and the result of map euler and the result of mkList as the input.
But, sum isn't a function it is the argument of the function, right? So what is going on here?
Also, what is (map euler) doing?
Code
mkList :: Int -> [Int]
mkList n = [1..n-1]
euler :: Int -> Int
euler n = length (filter (relprime n) (mkList n))
sumEuler :: Int -> Int
sumEuler = sum . (map euler) . mkList
Put simply, . is function composition, just like in math:
f (g x) = (f . g) x
In your case, you are creating a new function, sumEuler that could also be defined like this:
sumEuler x = sum (map euler (mkList x))
The style in your example is called "point-free" style -- the arguments to the function are omitted. This makes for clearer code in many cases. (It can be hard to grok the first time you see it, but you will get used to it after a while. It is a common Haskell idiom.)
If you are still confused, it may help to relate . to something like a UNIX pipe. If f's output becomes g's input, whose output becomes h's input, you'd write that on the command-line like f < x | g | h. In Haskell, . works like the UNIX |, but "backwards" -- h . g . f $ x. I find this notation to be quite helpful when, say, processing a list. Instead of some unwieldy construction like map (\x -> x * 2 + 10) [1..10], you could just write (+10) . (*2) <$> [1..10]. (And, if you want to only apply that function to a single value; it's (+10) . (*2) $ 10. Consistent!)
The Haskell wiki has a good article with some more detail: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Pointfree
The . operator composes functions. For example,
a . b
Where a and b are functions is a new function that runs b on its arguments, then a on those results. Your code
sumEuler = sum . (map euler) . mkList
is exactly the same as:
sumEuler myArgument = sum (map euler (mkList myArgument))
but hopefully easier to read. The reason there are parens around map euler is because it makes it clearer that there are 3 functions being composed: sum, map euler and mkList - map euler is a single function.
sum is a function in the Haskell Prelude, not an argument to sumEuler. It has the type
Num a => [a] -> a
The function composition operator . has type
(b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
So we have
euler :: Int -> Int
map :: (a -> b ) -> [a ] -> [b ]
(map euler) :: [Int] -> [Int]
mkList :: Int -> [Int]
(map euler) . mkList :: Int -> [Int]
sum :: Num a => [a ] -> a
sum . (map euler) . mkList :: Int -> Int
Note that Int is indeed an instance of the Num typeclass.
The . operator is used for function composition. Just like math, if you have to functions f(x) and g(x) f . g becomes f(g(x)).
map is a built-in function which applies a function to a list. By putting the function in parentheses the function is treated as an argument. A term for this is currying. You should look that up.
What is does is that it takes a function with say two arguments, it applies the argument euler. (map euler) right? and the result is a new function, which takes only one argument.
sum . (map euler) . mkList is basically a fancy way of putting all that together. I must say, my Haskell is a bit rusty but maybe you can put that last function together yourself?
Dot Operator in Haskell
I'm trying to understand what the dot operator is doing in this Haskell code:
sumEuler = sum . (map euler) . mkList
Short answer
Equivalent code without dots, that is just
sumEuler = \x -> sum ((map euler) (mkList x))
or without the lambda
sumEuler x = sum ((map euler) (mkList x))
because the dot (.) indicates function composition.
Longer answer
First, let's simplify the partial application of euler to map:
map_euler = map euler
sumEuler = sum . map_euler . mkList
Now we just have the dots. What is indicated by these dots?
From the source:
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
(.) f g = \x -> f (g x)
Thus (.) is the compose operator.
Compose
In math, we might write the composition of functions, f(x) and g(x), that is, f(g(x)), as
(f ∘ g)(x)
which can be read "f composed with g".
So in Haskell, f ∘ g, or f composed with g, can be written:
f . g
Composition is associative, which means that f(g(h(x))), written with the composition operator, can leave out the parentheses without any ambiguity.
That is, since (f ∘ g) ∘ h is equivalent to f ∘ (g ∘ h), we can simply write f ∘ g ∘ h.
Circling back
Circling back to our earlier simplification, this:
sumEuler = sum . map_euler . mkList
just means that sumEuler is an unapplied composition of those functions:
sumEuler = \x -> sum (map_euler (mkList x))
The dot operator applies the function on the left (sum) to the output of the function on the right. In your case, you're chaining several functions together - you're passing the result of mkList to (map euler), and then passing the result of that to sum.
This site has a good introduction to several of the concepts.