[Haskell-cafe] Point-free style
Fritz Ruehr
fruehr at willamette.edu
Fri Feb 11 20:06:37 EST 2005
Hmm, Hugs gives me this:
(.) . (.) . (.) :: (a -> b) -> (c -> d -> e -> a) -> c -> d -> e -> b
which I think is correct, if still not transparent in its meaning.
(ghci gives me a slightly re-named and explicitly quantified
variation).
Basically, the idea is that this sort of expression, with n occurrences
of *parenthesized* dots (and n-1 unparenthesized ones interspersed) is
the "compose a 1-argument function with an n-argument function" variant
of the composition operator (in the "obvious" way). For small n, this
allows one to get around the limitations of (.) for some points-free
applications: for large n, it probably isn't worth it. (Appropriate
definitions of "small" and "large" tend to vary :) ).
-- Fritz
Example nicked from the file I attached to the last message:
(.<) = (.) . (.)
stutter = concat .< replicate
Here the use of the "<" symbol is onomatopoeic (or the graphical
homologue of that): the two "arms" of the symbol, branching out to the
right, suggest that this variant of the composition operator, (.<),
takes a 2-argument function on the right.
On Feb 11, 2005, at 12:00 AM, Ketil Malde wrote:
> ... Type signatures help, of course. E.g. with
> the previously mentioned and rather cryptic function
>
> (.) . (.) .(.)
>
> I entered it into GHCi, and got
>
> :: forall a a b c a.
> (b -> c) -> (a -> a -> a -> b) -> a -> a -> a -> c
>
> and it suddenly is much clearer what it does.
>
> -kzm
> --
> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of
> giants
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list