[Haskell-cafe] Byte Histogram
John Lato
jwlato at gmail.com
Tue Feb 8 13:25:00 CET 2011
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <
ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 February 2011 09:57, John Lato <jwlato at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the real problem we have with container classes has a lot more to
> do
> > with what we would use them for. That is, Haskell already has Monoid,
> > Foldable and Traversable. These three (especially Foldable) cover nearly
> > everything OOP programmers would expect out of generic container
> operations.
>
> That was what my rewrite was going to be using. The problem, however,
> is two-fold:
>
> * Dealing with types of kind * vs kind * -> *
> * Dealing with types of kind * -> * that have a restriction on the
> type parameter (e.g. Set).
>
> I was basing my approach on Ganesh's rmonad [1] library whilst taking
> into account the Functor => Applicative => Monad hierarchy when
> re-defining the classes, but the approach was very quickly becoming
> unwieldy.
>
I think the Functor => Applicative => Monad hierarchy should be orthogonal
to container design. Although many containers form useful monads, those
monads can have very different behavior (e.g. List and Set). Therefore very
few (if any) algorithms can both be usefully polymorphic with respect to the
container instance and also take advantage of the monadic structure. For
those algorithms this is useful, adding an extra Monad to the context is
entirely appropriate.
Probably more importantly, what users want from a container is often not
what the monad provides. Although the List monad is very elegant, I usually
find the semantics of ZipList more useful. This leads me to believe that
getting "singleton" and "<*>" from a class other than Applicative is the
correct approach.
Functor is generally better-suited to containers, except for types of kind *
that aren't functors. I would suggest there's a better approach than the
rmonad machinery, perhaps something like this:
> class Container c where
> type Elem c :: *
>
> class (Container cIn, Container cOut) => CMap cIn cOut where
> cmap :: (Elem cIn -> Elem cOut) -> cIn -> cOut
>
> instance (a ~ Elem (c a), b ~ Elem (c b), Functor c, Container (c a),
Container (c b)) => CMap (c a) (c b) where
> cmap = fmap
Now we have the same operation which fmap provides, only we can define it
for any container type. Better, we have an instance which is suitable for
all Functor instances, so we need only write instances for containers of
kind * (e.g. ByteString).
An annoyance with this approach is that the output type of cmap (c b) can't
be determined from the input function, so it's sometimes necessary to add
type annotations. I think this can be solved by using bidirectional fundeps
instead of associated types though.
If you design container classes so that the element type is part of the
class instance, restrictions aren't a problem. It's only when you try to
accommodate Functor etc. that workarounds such as rmonad become necessary.
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20110208/9d029d34/attachment.htm>
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list