[Haskell-cafe] [Haskell] ANNOUNCE: set-monad
Dan Burton
danburton.email at gmail.com
Thu Jun 21 04:21:36 CEST 2012
Hi George,
I didn't have access to my computer over the weekend, so I apologize for
not actually running the examples I provided. I was simply projecting what
I thought could reasonably be assumed about the behavior of a Set.
Data.Set.Monad's departure from those assumptions is a double-edged sword,
and so I'd just like to clarify a couple things.
Regarding antisymmetry, if I also define
instance Ord Foo where
(==) = (==) `on` a
then would that count as satisfying the law?
In any event, I find it an amusing coincidence that Data.Set.Monoid does
essentially the same thing as Foo: it retains some extra information, and
provides an Eq instance that asserts equality modulo dropping the extra
information.
So I have a question and a concern. Loading this file into ghci:
hpaste.org/70245
ghci> foo1 == foosTransform1
True
ghci> foo2 == foosTransform2
False
given x == y, where x and y are Sets, we cannot guarantee that fmap f x ==
fmap f y, due to the extra information retained for the sake of obeying
functor laws.
My question is this: how *does* the library manage to obey functor laws?
My concern is this: the aforementioned behavior should be clearly
documented in the haddocks. Presumably, people will not know about the
extra information being retained. The following, out of context (where most
debugging happens), could be quite confusing:
ghci> foosTransform1
fromList [Foo {a = 1, b = 4}]
ghci> fmap restoreA foosTransform1
fromList [Foo {a = 1, b = 1},Foo {a = 2, b = 2},Foo {a = 3, b = 3},Foo {a =
4, b = 4}]
The data seems to pop out of nowhere. Even if Ord instances like the one
for Foo shouldn't exist, they almost certainly will anyways, because the
Haskell type system doesn't prevent them. Users of the library should be
informed accordingly.
Dan Burton
801-513-1596
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM, George Giorgidze <giorgidze at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for your feedback and your question regarding the functor laws.
>
> Please try your example in GHCi and/or evaluate it by hand. The
> library does not violate the functor laws.
>
> I committed quick check properties for functor laws, as well as, laws
> for other type classes to the repo. You can give it a try. It is also
> possible, with a little bit of effort, to prove those properties by
> hand.
>
> Speaking of laws, BTW, your contrived Ord instance violates one of the
> Ord laws. The documentation for Ord says that: "The Ord class is used
> for totally ordered datatypes". Your definition violates the
> antisymmetry law [1]:
>
> If a <= b and b <= a then a == b
>
> by reporting two elements that are not equal as equal.
>
> Cheers, George
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totally_ordered
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20120620/572e7167/attachment.htm>
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list