What is the difference between the dot (.) and the dollar sign ($)?
As I understand it, they are both syntactic sugar for not needing to use parentheses.
The $ operator is for avoiding parentheses. Anything appearing after it will take precedence over anything that comes before.
For example, let's say you've got a line that reads:
putStrLn (show (1 + 1))
If you want to get rid of those parentheses, any of the following lines would also do the same thing:
putStrLn (show $ 1 + 1)
putStrLn $ show (1 + 1)
putStrLn $ show $ 1 + 1
The primary purpose of the . operator is not to avoid parentheses, but to chain functions. It lets you tie the output of whatever appears on the right to the input of whatever appears on the left. This usually also results in fewer parentheses, but works differently.
Going back to the same example:
putStrLn (show (1 + 1))
(1 + 1) doesn't have an input, and therefore cannot be used with the . operator.
show can take an Int and return a String.
putStrLn can take a String and return an IO ().
You can chain show to putStrLn like this:
(putStrLn . show) (1 + 1)
If that's too many parentheses for your liking, get rid of them with the $ operator:
putStrLn . show $ 1 + 1
They have different types and different definitions:
infixr 9 .
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)
(f . g) x = f (g x)
infixr 0 $
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
f $ x = f x
($) is intended to replace normal function application but at a different precedence to help avoid parentheses. (.) is for composing two functions together to make a new function.
In some cases they are interchangeable, but this is not true in general. The typical example where they are is:
f $ g $ h $ x
==>
f . g . h $ x
In other words in a chain of $s, all but the final one can be replaced by .
Also note that ($) is the identity function specialised to function types. The identity function looks like this:
id :: a -> a
id x = x
While ($) looks like this:
($) :: (a -> b) -> (a -> b)
($) = id
Note that I've intentionally added extra parentheses in the type signature.
Uses of ($) can usually be eliminated by adding parenthesis (unless the operator is used in a section). E.g.: f $ g x becomes f (g x).
Uses of (.) are often slightly harder to replace; they usually need a lambda or the introduction of an explicit function parameter. For example:
f = g . h
becomes
f x = (g . h) x
becomes
f x = g (h x)
($) allows functions to be chained together without adding parentheses to control evaluation order:
Prelude> head (tail "asdf")
's'
Prelude> head $ tail "asdf"
's'
The compose operator (.) creates a new function without specifying the arguments:
Prelude> let second x = head $ tail x
Prelude> second "asdf"
's'
Prelude> let second = head . tail
Prelude> second "asdf"
's'
The example above is arguably illustrative, but doesn't really show the convenience of using composition. Here's another analogy:
Prelude> let third x = head $ tail $ tail x
Prelude> map third ["asdf", "qwer", "1234"]
"de3"
If we only use third once, we can avoid naming it by using a lambda:
Prelude> map (\x -> head $ tail $ tail x) ["asdf", "qwer", "1234"]
"de3"
Finally, composition lets us avoid the lambda:
Prelude> map (head . tail . tail) ["asdf", "qwer", "1234"]
"de3"
The short and sweet version:
($) calls the function which is its left-hand argument on the value which is its right-hand argument.
(.) composes the function which is its left-hand argument on the function which is its right-hand argument.
One application that is useful and took me some time to figure out from the very short description at Learn You a Haskell: Since
f $ x = f x
and parenthesizing the right hand side of an expression containing an infix operator converts it to a prefix function, one can write ($ 3) (4 +) analogous to (++ ", world") "hello".
Why would anyone do this? For lists of functions, for example. Both:
map (++ ", world") ["hello", "goodbye"]
map ($ 3) [(4 +), (3 *)]
are shorter than
map (\x -> x ++ ", world") ["hello", "goodbye"]
map (\f -> f 3) [(4 +), (3 *)]
Obviously, the latter variants would be more readable for most people.
Haskell: difference between . (dot) and $ (dollar sign)
What is the difference between the dot (.) and the dollar sign ($)?. As I understand it, they are both syntactic sugar for not needing to use parentheses.
They are not syntactic sugar for not needing to use parentheses - they are functions, - infixed, thus we may call them operators.
Compose, (.), and when to use it.
(.) is the compose function. So
result = (f . g) x
is the same as building a function that passes the result of its argument passed to g on to f.
h = \x -> f (g x)
result = h x
Use (.) when you don't have the arguments available to pass to the functions you wish to compose.
Right associative apply, ($), and when to use it
($) is a right-associative apply function with low binding precedence. So it merely calculates the things to the right of it first. Thus,
result = f $ g x
is the same as this, procedurally (which matters since Haskell is evaluated lazily, it will begin to evaluate f first):
h = f
g_x = g x
result = h g_x
or more concisely:
result = f (g x)
Use ($) when you have all the variables to evaluate before you apply the preceding function to the result.
We can see this by reading the source for each function.
Read the Source
Here's the source for (.):
-- | Function composition.
{-# INLINE (.) #-}
-- Make sure it has TWO args only on the left, so that it inlines
-- when applied to two functions, even if there is no final argument
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
(.) f g = \x -> f (g x)
And here's the source for ($):
-- | Application operator. This operator is redundant, since ordinary
-- application #(f x)# means the same as #(f '$' x)#. However, '$' has
-- low, right-associative binding precedence, so it sometimes allows
-- parentheses to be omitted; for example:
--
-- > f $ g $ h x = f (g (h x))
--
-- It is also useful in higher-order situations, such as #'map' ('$' 0) xs#,
-- or #'Data.List.zipWith' ('$') fs xs#.
{-# INLINE ($) #-}
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
f $ x = f x
Conclusion
Use composition when you do not need to immediately evaluate the function. Maybe you want to pass the function that results from composition to another function.
Use application when you are supplying all arguments for full evaluation.
So for our example, it would be semantically preferable to do
f $ g x
when we have x (or rather, g's arguments), and do:
f . g
when we don't.
... or you could avoid the . and $ constructions by using pipelining:
third xs = xs |> tail |> tail |> head
That's after you've added in the helper function:
(|>) x y = y x
My rule is simple (I'm beginner too):
do not use . if you want to pass the parameter (call the function), and
do not use $ if there is no parameter yet (compose a function)
That is
show $ head [1, 2]
but never:
show . head [1, 2]
A great way to learn more about anything (any function) is to remember that everything is a function! That general mantra helps, but in specific cases like operators, it helps to remember this little trick:
:t (.)
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
and
:t ($)
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
Just remember to use :t liberally, and wrap your operators in ()!
All the other answers are pretty good. But there’s an important usability detail about how ghc treats $, that the ghc type checker allows for instatiarion with higher rank/ quantified types. If you look at the type of $ id for example you’ll find it’s gonna take a function whose argument is itself a polymorphic function. Little things like that aren’t given the same flexibility with an equivalent upset operator. (This actually makes me wonder if $! deserves the same treatment or not )
The most important part about $ is that it has the lowest operator precedence.
If you type info you'll see this:
λ> :info ($)
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
-- Defined in ‘GHC.Base’
infixr 0 $
This tells us it is an infix operator with right-associativity that has the lowest possible precedence. Normal function application is left-associative and has highest precedence (10). So $ is something of the opposite.
So then we use it where normal function application or using () doesn't work.
So, for example, this works:
λ> head . sort $ "example"
λ> e
but this does not:
λ> head . sort "example"
because . has lower precedence than sort and the type of (sort "example") is [Char]
λ> :type (sort "example")
(sort "example") :: [Char]
But . expects two functions and there isn't a nice short way to do this because of the order of operations of sort and .
I think a short example of where you would use . and not $ would help clarify things.
double x = x * 2
triple x = x * 3
times6 = double . triple
:i times6
times6 :: Num c => c -> c
Note that times6 is a function that is created from function composition.
Related
Hi I have task for writing a function that takes a list of functions from Int -> Int and a single Int and checks if any function when applied to that Int gives a result which is greater than 5.
This is my solution :
foo :: [Int -> Int] -> Int -> Bool
foo ls = any (>5) . f ls
where f ls v = map ($ v) ls
I would like to know is there a way to write this in single line (without using where or let) with eta reducing last argument (now it is eta reduced but it is not in single line). I tried something like this :
foo ls = any (>5) . flip map ls
But now the problem is call of function that looks like this for it to work
foo [(+3), (*4), (+1)] ($2)
I would like to avoid writin $ for last argument. I tried something like this (and similar to this) :
foo ls = any (>5) . flip map ls ($)
But I always get some kind of error. Be aware that I must not change the type signature, thus the flip.
Is there a way? Sure. Is it readable? No. Haskell's design pushes you away from some common mistakes, like unnecessary mutability or hidden use of (necessary) mutable state. But it makes it exciting to follow the path of other mistakes, like making code point-free in a manner harmful to readability and maintainability.
The thing about point-free definitions is that converting to them is a completely mechanical process (so long as pattern matching isn't involved in the starting definition). There are tools to do it automatically.
Start by writing the definition fully eta-expanded:
foo ls x = any (>5) (map ($ x) ls)
Then throw it into your favorite tool for doing the conversion. http://pointfree.io/ is an online service that will do it.
And it spits out the totally unreadable:
foo = (any (> 5) .) . flip (map . flip id)
Don't use that. It's not worth it.
But maybe you only wanted to eta-contract away one argument, and this is too much? Well, you can do that by cheating a little bit, and pretending the first argument is a value in scope, not an argument, and throwing the following definition in:
foo x = any (>5) (map ($ x) ls)
It returns foo = any (> 5) . flip map ls . flip id, which you then insert the argument back into:
foo ls = any (> 5) . flip map ls . flip id
This is mildly better, thanks to lacking sections of the (.) operator. But it still has flip id in it, which is obfuscation at its simplest.
Don't do it. Exercise restraint. Write code that's easy to read and modify.
Actually, your last trial in the question
foo ls = any (>5) . flip map ls ($)
is already very close to solution.
The only one problem is, considers the definition of ($):
($)::(a -> b) -> a -> b
the first argument of ($) is a function (a->b), but in your case, need be a value a, so just flip ($) swap the order of the arguments of ($) and put it back as:
foo ls = any (>5) . flip map ls . flip ($)
is the function that you want.
Starting with a fully non-reduced definition:
foo ls v = any (>5) (map (\f -> f v) ls)
We can use lambdabot to have a fully eta-reduced solution:
foo = (any (> 5) .) . flip (map . flip id)
However, this looks awful, and should not be recommended to do.
Since you have an applicative list at hand you may simply apply it with the applicative operator <*> as [(+3), (*4), (+1)] <*> [2] to obtain the list of results such as [5,8,3]. Now it's the any :: Foldable t => (a -> Bool) -> t a -> Bool function that comes handy. So all together
checker x = any (>5) $ [(+3), (*4), (+1)] <*> [x]
should do the job. If you need the pointfree version than it would be like
checker = any (>5) . ([(+3), (*4), (+1)] <*>) . pure
What is the difference between the dot (.) and the dollar sign ($)?
As I understand it, they are both syntactic sugar for not needing to use parentheses.
The $ operator is for avoiding parentheses. Anything appearing after it will take precedence over anything that comes before.
For example, let's say you've got a line that reads:
putStrLn (show (1 + 1))
If you want to get rid of those parentheses, any of the following lines would also do the same thing:
putStrLn (show $ 1 + 1)
putStrLn $ show (1 + 1)
putStrLn $ show $ 1 + 1
The primary purpose of the . operator is not to avoid parentheses, but to chain functions. It lets you tie the output of whatever appears on the right to the input of whatever appears on the left. This usually also results in fewer parentheses, but works differently.
Going back to the same example:
putStrLn (show (1 + 1))
(1 + 1) doesn't have an input, and therefore cannot be used with the . operator.
show can take an Int and return a String.
putStrLn can take a String and return an IO ().
You can chain show to putStrLn like this:
(putStrLn . show) (1 + 1)
If that's too many parentheses for your liking, get rid of them with the $ operator:
putStrLn . show $ 1 + 1
They have different types and different definitions:
infixr 9 .
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c)
(f . g) x = f (g x)
infixr 0 $
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
f $ x = f x
($) is intended to replace normal function application but at a different precedence to help avoid parentheses. (.) is for composing two functions together to make a new function.
In some cases they are interchangeable, but this is not true in general. The typical example where they are is:
f $ g $ h $ x
==>
f . g . h $ x
In other words in a chain of $s, all but the final one can be replaced by .
Also note that ($) is the identity function specialised to function types. The identity function looks like this:
id :: a -> a
id x = x
While ($) looks like this:
($) :: (a -> b) -> (a -> b)
($) = id
Note that I've intentionally added extra parentheses in the type signature.
Uses of ($) can usually be eliminated by adding parenthesis (unless the operator is used in a section). E.g.: f $ g x becomes f (g x).
Uses of (.) are often slightly harder to replace; they usually need a lambda or the introduction of an explicit function parameter. For example:
f = g . h
becomes
f x = (g . h) x
becomes
f x = g (h x)
($) allows functions to be chained together without adding parentheses to control evaluation order:
Prelude> head (tail "asdf")
's'
Prelude> head $ tail "asdf"
's'
The compose operator (.) creates a new function without specifying the arguments:
Prelude> let second x = head $ tail x
Prelude> second "asdf"
's'
Prelude> let second = head . tail
Prelude> second "asdf"
's'
The example above is arguably illustrative, but doesn't really show the convenience of using composition. Here's another analogy:
Prelude> let third x = head $ tail $ tail x
Prelude> map third ["asdf", "qwer", "1234"]
"de3"
If we only use third once, we can avoid naming it by using a lambda:
Prelude> map (\x -> head $ tail $ tail x) ["asdf", "qwer", "1234"]
"de3"
Finally, composition lets us avoid the lambda:
Prelude> map (head . tail . tail) ["asdf", "qwer", "1234"]
"de3"
The short and sweet version:
($) calls the function which is its left-hand argument on the value which is its right-hand argument.
(.) composes the function which is its left-hand argument on the function which is its right-hand argument.
One application that is useful and took me some time to figure out from the very short description at Learn You a Haskell: Since
f $ x = f x
and parenthesizing the right hand side of an expression containing an infix operator converts it to a prefix function, one can write ($ 3) (4 +) analogous to (++ ", world") "hello".
Why would anyone do this? For lists of functions, for example. Both:
map (++ ", world") ["hello", "goodbye"]
map ($ 3) [(4 +), (3 *)]
are shorter than
map (\x -> x ++ ", world") ["hello", "goodbye"]
map (\f -> f 3) [(4 +), (3 *)]
Obviously, the latter variants would be more readable for most people.
Haskell: difference between . (dot) and $ (dollar sign)
What is the difference between the dot (.) and the dollar sign ($)?. As I understand it, they are both syntactic sugar for not needing to use parentheses.
They are not syntactic sugar for not needing to use parentheses - they are functions, - infixed, thus we may call them operators.
Compose, (.), and when to use it.
(.) is the compose function. So
result = (f . g) x
is the same as building a function that passes the result of its argument passed to g on to f.
h = \x -> f (g x)
result = h x
Use (.) when you don't have the arguments available to pass to the functions you wish to compose.
Right associative apply, ($), and when to use it
($) is a right-associative apply function with low binding precedence. So it merely calculates the things to the right of it first. Thus,
result = f $ g x
is the same as this, procedurally (which matters since Haskell is evaluated lazily, it will begin to evaluate f first):
h = f
g_x = g x
result = h g_x
or more concisely:
result = f (g x)
Use ($) when you have all the variables to evaluate before you apply the preceding function to the result.
We can see this by reading the source for each function.
Read the Source
Here's the source for (.):
-- | Function composition.
{-# INLINE (.) #-}
-- Make sure it has TWO args only on the left, so that it inlines
-- when applied to two functions, even if there is no final argument
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
(.) f g = \x -> f (g x)
And here's the source for ($):
-- | Application operator. This operator is redundant, since ordinary
-- application #(f x)# means the same as #(f '$' x)#. However, '$' has
-- low, right-associative binding precedence, so it sometimes allows
-- parentheses to be omitted; for example:
--
-- > f $ g $ h x = f (g (h x))
--
-- It is also useful in higher-order situations, such as #'map' ('$' 0) xs#,
-- or #'Data.List.zipWith' ('$') fs xs#.
{-# INLINE ($) #-}
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
f $ x = f x
Conclusion
Use composition when you do not need to immediately evaluate the function. Maybe you want to pass the function that results from composition to another function.
Use application when you are supplying all arguments for full evaluation.
So for our example, it would be semantically preferable to do
f $ g x
when we have x (or rather, g's arguments), and do:
f . g
when we don't.
... or you could avoid the . and $ constructions by using pipelining:
third xs = xs |> tail |> tail |> head
That's after you've added in the helper function:
(|>) x y = y x
My rule is simple (I'm beginner too):
do not use . if you want to pass the parameter (call the function), and
do not use $ if there is no parameter yet (compose a function)
That is
show $ head [1, 2]
but never:
show . head [1, 2]
A great way to learn more about anything (any function) is to remember that everything is a function! That general mantra helps, but in specific cases like operators, it helps to remember this little trick:
:t (.)
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
and
:t ($)
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
Just remember to use :t liberally, and wrap your operators in ()!
All the other answers are pretty good. But there’s an important usability detail about how ghc treats $, that the ghc type checker allows for instatiarion with higher rank/ quantified types. If you look at the type of $ id for example you’ll find it’s gonna take a function whose argument is itself a polymorphic function. Little things like that aren’t given the same flexibility with an equivalent upset operator. (This actually makes me wonder if $! deserves the same treatment or not )
The most important part about $ is that it has the lowest operator precedence.
If you type info you'll see this:
λ> :info ($)
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
-- Defined in ‘GHC.Base’
infixr 0 $
This tells us it is an infix operator with right-associativity that has the lowest possible precedence. Normal function application is left-associative and has highest precedence (10). So $ is something of the opposite.
So then we use it where normal function application or using () doesn't work.
So, for example, this works:
λ> head . sort $ "example"
λ> e
but this does not:
λ> head . sort "example"
because . has lower precedence than sort and the type of (sort "example") is [Char]
λ> :type (sort "example")
(sort "example") :: [Char]
But . expects two functions and there isn't a nice short way to do this because of the order of operations of sort and .
I think a short example of where you would use . and not $ would help clarify things.
double x = x * 2
triple x = x * 3
times6 = double . triple
:i times6
times6 :: Num c => c -> c
Note that times6 is a function that is created from function composition.
I am a beginner at Haskell and I am trying to grasp it.
I am having the following problem:
I have a function that gets 5 parameters, lets say
f x y w z a = x - y - w - z - a
And I would like to apply it while only changing the variable x from 1 to 10 whereas y, w, z and a will always be the same. The implementation I achieved was the following but I think there must be a better way.
Let's say I would like to use:
x from 1 to 10
y = 1
w = 2
z = 3
a = 4
Accordingly to this I managed to apply the function as following:
map ($ 4) $ map ($ 3) $ map ($ 2) $ map ($ 1) (map f [1..10])
I think there must be a better way to apply a lot of missing parameters to partially applied functions without having to use too many maps.
All the suggestions so far are good. Here's another, which might seem a bit weird at first, but turns out to be quite handy in lots of other situations.
Some type-forming operators, like [], which is the operator which maps a type of elements, e.g. Int to the type of lists of those elements, [Int], have the property of being Applicative. For lists, that means there is some way, denoted by the operator, <*>, pronounced "apply", to turn lists of functions and lists of arguments into lists of results.
(<*>) :: [s -> t] -> [s] -> [t] -- one instance of the general type of <*>
rather than your ordinary application, given by a blank space, or a $
($) :: (s -> t) -> s -> t
The upshot is that we can do ordinary functional programming with lists of things instead of things: we sometimes call it "programming in the list idiom". The only other ingredient is that, to cope with the situation when some of our components are individual things, we need an extra gadget
pure :: x -> [x] -- again, one instance of the general scheme
which wraps a thing up as a list, to be compatible with <*>. That is pure moves an ordinary value into the applicative idiom.
For lists, pure just makes a singleton list and <*> produces the result of every pairwise application of one of the functions to one of the arguments. In particular
pure f <*> [1..10] :: [Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> Int]
is a list of functions (just like map f [1..10]) which can be used with <*> again. The rest of your arguments for f are not listy, so you need to pure them.
pure f <*> [1..10] <*> pure 1 <*> pure 2 <*> pure 3 <*> pure 4
For lists, this gives
[f] <*> [1..10] <*> [1] <*> [2] <*> [3] <*> [4]
i.e. the list of ways to make an application from the f, one of the [1..10], the 1, the 2, the 3 and the 4.
The opening pure f <*> s is so common, it's abbreviated f <$> s, so
f <$> [1..10] <*> [1] <*> [2] <*> [3] <*> [4]
is what would typically be written. If you can filter out the <$>, pure and <*> noise, it kind of looks like the application you had in mind. The extra punctuation is only necessary because Haskell can't tell the difference between a listy computation of a bunch of functions or arguments and a non-listy computation of what's intended as a single value but happens to be a list. At least, however, the components are in the order you started with, so you see more easily what's going on.
Esoterica. (1) in my (not very) private dialect of Haskell, the above would be
(|f [1..10] (|1|) (|2|) (|3|) (|4|)|)
where each idiom bracket, (|f a1 a2 ... an|) represents the application of a pure function to zero or more arguments which live in the idiom. It's just a way to write
pure f <*> a1 <*> a2 ... <*> an
Idris has idiom brackets, but Haskell hasn't added them. Yet.
(2) In languages with algebraic effects, the idiom of nondeterministic computation is not the same thing (to the typechecker) as the data type of lists, although you can easily convert between the two. The program becomes
f (range 1 10) 2 3 4
where range nondeterministically chooses a value between the given lower and upper bounds. So, nondetermism is treated as a local side-effect, not a data structure, enabling operations for failure and choice. You can wrap nondeterministic computations in a handler which give meanings to those operations, and one such handler might generate the list of all solutions. That's to say, the extra notation to explain what's going on is pushed to the boundary, rather than peppered through the entire interior, like those <*> and pure.
Managing the boundaries of things rather than their interiors is one of the few good ideas our species has managed to have. But at least we can have it over and over again. It's why we farm instead of hunting. It's why we prefer static type checking to dynamic tag checking. And so on...
Others have shown ways you can do it, but I think it's useful to show how to transform your version into something a little nicer. You wrote
map ($ 4) $ map ($ 3) $ map ($ 2) $ map ($ 1) (map f [1..10])
map obeys two fundamental laws:
map id = id. That is, if you map the identity function over any list, you'll get back the same list.
For any f and g, map f . map g = map (f . g). That is, mapping over a list with one function and then another one is the same as mapping over it with the composition of those two functions.
The second map law is the one we want to apply here.
map ($ 4) $ map ($ 3) $ map ($ 2) $ map ($ 1) (map f [1..10])
=
map ($ 4) . map ($ 3) . map ($ 2) . map ($ 1) . map f $ [1..10]
=
map (($ 4) . ($ 3) . ($ 2) . ($ 1) . f) [1..10]
What does ($ a) . ($ b) do? \x -> ($ a) $ ($ b) x = \x -> ($ a) $ x b = \x -> x b a. What about ($ a) . ($ b) . ($ c)? That's (\x -> x b a) . ($ c) = \y -> (\x -> x b a) $ ($ c) y = \y -> y c b a. The pattern now should be clear: ($ a) . ($ b) ... ($ y) = \z -> z y x ... c b a. So ultimately, we get
map ((\z -> z 1 2 3 4) . f) [1..10]
=
map (\w -> (\z -> z 1 2 3 4) (f w)) [1..10]
=
map (\w -> f w 1 2 3 4) [1..10]
=
map (\x -> ($ 4) $ ($ 3) $ ($ 2) $ ($ 1) $ f x) [1..10]
In addition to what the other answers say, it might be a good idea to reorder the parameters of your function, especially x is usually the parameter that you vary over like that:
f y w z a x = x - y - w - z - a
If you make it so that the x parameter comes last, you can just write
map (f 1 2 3 4) [1..10]
This won't work in all circumstances of course, but it is good to see what parameters are more likely to vary over a series of calls and put them towards the end of the argument list and parameters that tend to stay the same towards the start. When you do this, currying and partial application will usually help you out more than they would otherwise.
Assuming you don't mind variables you simply define a new function that takes x and calls f. If you don't have a function definition there (you can generally use let or where) you can use a lambda instead.
f' x = f x 1 2 3 4
Or with a lambda
\x -> f x 1 2 3 4
Currying won't do you any good here, because the argument you want to vary (enumerate) isn't the last one. Instead, try something like this.
map (\x -> f x 1 2 3 4) [1..10]
The general solution in this situation is a lambda:
\x -> f x 1 2 3 4
however, if you're seeing yourself doing this very often, with the same argument, it would make sense to move that argument to be the last argument instead:
\x -> f 1 2 3 4 x
in which case currying applies perfectly well and you can just replace the above expression with
f 1 2 3 4
so in turn you could write:
map (f 1 2 3 4) [1..10]
This question already has answers here:
What does $ mean/do in Haskell?
(2 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Websocket snippet has a statement that has dollar sign inside closed parens like this,
any ($ fst client)
Since haskellers use $ sign instead of parens, why do we need parens here?
Why is there a $ symbol between parens?
I tried to see if $ is a function by doing
Prelude>:t $
But it threw the error, parse error on input $
In Haskell, operators are just normal functions that have names made up of symbols and used infix by default. You can use them just like a normal identifier by wrapping them in parentheses:
λ> :t (+)
(+) :: Num a => a -> a -> a
$ is just an operator like this itself. It represents function application and is defined as follows:
f $ x = f x
You can get its type just like (+):
λ> :t ($)
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
Haskell operators can also be partially applied like normal functions, by wrapping them in parentheses with arguments to one side. For example, (+ 1) is the same as \ x -> x + 1 and (1 +) is the same as \x -> 1 + x.
This applies to $ too, so ($ fst client) is the same as \ f -> f $ fst client or just \ f -> f (fst client). The code snippet you have checks if any of a list of functions returns true given fst client.
($ fst client) is an operator section (just like (+ 1) or (* 2)) - it partially applies the operator to its right operand. A more verbose way to write it would be (\f -> f $ fst client).
So you're applying any to a function that takes another function and applies that function to the argument fst client.
This question already has answers here:
What does $ mean/do in Haskell?
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
This happens in the situation you want to apply bunch of functions to the same variable, it may look like this:
map (\f->f 4) [odd, even]
but from LYAH using $ make it very neat
map ($ 4) [odd, even]
why does it work. first I type it in ghci like $ 4 odd, it failed, then I type ($ 4) odd, which works fine. then I check the type of ($ 4) using :t which shows ($ 4) :: Num a => (a -> b) -> b, odd is odd :: Integral a => a -> Bool. It seems make sense, but still not clear to me.
Can anyone explain it clearly, is it another common usage of $, and is there other more usage of $.
Anatomy of the operator
The $ application operator is in the form:
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
It's often seen in situation when you want to avoid a trailing pair of parenthesis:
func a (b + c)
is equal to:
func a $ b + c
The magic behind this is simply explained in its fixity declaration:
infixr 0
This means: everything that is after $ will be grouped into a single entity, just like if they where enclosed in parenthesis.
Of course this can be also "nested" like so:
func a $ b + other $ c - d
which means:
func a (b + other (c - d))
Application operator as function
Your case is very interesting and, in my experience, not used very often.
Let's analyze this:
map ($ 4) [odd, even]
We know that map's type is:
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
The behavior, if someone forgot, is: take the first argument (a function from a to b) and apply it to every a in the second argument list, finally return the resulting list.
You can see ($ 4) as "pass 4 as argument to something". Which means that:
($ 4) func
is the same as:
func $ 4
So:
map ($ 4) [odd, even]
means:
[($ 4) odd, ($ 4) even]
[(odd $ 4), (even $ 4)]
[False, True]
Why (func $) is not necessary
You could argue that, just like you can do (/ 4) and (2 /) which respectively means "divide something by 4" and "divide 2 by something", you could do ($ 4) and (func $) and you would be right.
In fact:
(func $) 4
is the same as:
func $ 4
func 4
which is the same as:
($ 4) func
But the reality is that:
map (func $) [...]
would be unnecessary, since the first argument of map is always applied to each argument to the list, making the above the same as:
map func [...]
Infix operators like *, ++, or $ typically take two arguments as in
x ++ y
When one argument is missing, and they are put between parentheses, they instead form a section:
(x ++)
(++ y)
These sections are equivalent to, respectively,
\y -> x ++ y
\x -> x ++ y
i.e., they stand for the function that maps the "missing argument" to the result. For instance,
map ("A"++) ["a","b"] == [ "Aa","Ab" ]
map (++"A") ["a","b"] == [ "aA","bA" ]
Operator $ is not special in this respect. We have
(f $)
($ x)
which stands for
\x -> f $ x
\f -> f $ x
The first is not very useful, since (f $) is \x -> f $ x which is (eta-)equivalent to just f (*). The second is instead useful.
(*) To be picky, seq can distinguish between undefined and (undefined $), but this is a minor difference in practice.
$ 4 odd: This won't work because operators must be surrounded by parentheses when not used in infix form. If you were to do ($) 4 odd, this wouldn't work because argument order is incorrect, you want 4 to be the second argument. You could write ($) odd 4 though.
($ 4) odd: This does work because it's using operator sections, and here the 4 is provided as the second argument to $. It's like (++ "world") "hello " being the same as "hello " ++ "world".
When you have ($ 4) :: Num a => (a -> b) -> b, and odd :: Integral a => a -> Bool, you just need to line up the types. Since every Integral a is also a Num a, we can just "upgrade" (constrain) the Num to Integral for this to work:
($ 4) :: Integral a => (a -> b) -> b
odd :: Integral a => a -> Bool
So a ~ a and b ~ Bool, so you can say that
($ 4) :: Integral a => (a -> Bool) -> Bool
So applying it to odd gives us
($ 4) odd :: Bool
This is because ($ 4) odd is the same as odd $ 4. Looking at the definition of $:
f $ x = f x
We can say that
odd $ 4 = odd 4
Which evaluates to False.