map and fmap
wnoise at ofb.net
Sun Aug 20 16:36:34 EDT 2006
On 2006-08-20, John Hughes <rjmh at cs.chalmers.se> wrote:
> From: "Jon Fairbairn" <jon.fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>> reinforce what Aaron said, if a programme works now, it'll
>> still work if map suddenly means fmap.
> Well, this isn't quite true, is it? Here's an example:
> class Foldable f where
> fold :: (a -> a -> a) -> a -> f a -> a
> instance Foldable  where
> fold = foldr
> example = fold (+) 0 (map (+1) (return 2))
> example has the value 3 (of course), but if you replace map by fmap then the
> code no longer compiles.
Solely due to the compiler no longer seeing that list is the only
intermediate type allowed. But you have to admit this code is a bit
forced. People won't be combining things quite this way, and will be
passing in values rather than bare returns.
> In any case, I'm dubious about this as a criterion. I would guess that the
> majority if compiler runs for beginners (and perhaps for the rest of us
> too!) end in a type error, not a successful compilation, so arguably the
> quality of error messages when a type-check fails is more important than
> which programs compile.
Right, like I said, we need to work on better error messages.
More information about the Haskell-prime