Proposal: Add these two handy functions to Data.List
Cale Gibbard
cgibbard at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 17:59:29 EDT 2010
I would love to have the more abstract interface you describe here as
well, but it's obviously a larger change to the base library. (I'd
also like to play the bike-shed game with the names 'down' and 'up',
preferring something more descriptive than that. Perhaps 'separate'
and 'attach'?)
----- Note: the following is a bit of a rant. This isn't really the
right place for it, but...
The obvious place to put the Comonad class is in the Prelude, but it
seems the Prelude never changes any more, enmeshed between the
competing nets of implement-first and standardise-first. Putting it in
Control.Comonad instead wouldn't hurt so much either I suppose.
Regardless, that situation saddens me, and I wish that as a community
we could devise a system for making progress on changes we'd all like
to see on that level (or most of us, anyway). I don't think the
standardisation process is the right place for it. In my opinion, it
would be important to try the implementations of these things on a
fairly large scale -- say, a sizeable fraction of the scale of
Hackage -- before committing to put them into a standard.
Python has future imports, and maybe something along those lines could
help. We already have a *fairly* decent versioning system for
packages, which includes the base package. What more infrastructure do
people think we need? Should we have a periodically-shifting fork of
the entirety of Hackage, where libraries are built against
future-Haskell vs. contemporary-Haskell, and when a critical mass of
libraries and users is reached, and a good enough period of time has
passed, we shift things along, future becoming contemporary and
contemporary becoming past?
There should be a place where we can really experiment with the
foundational libraries in a large scale and _usable_ way without so
much concern for immediately breaking existing code or interfaces.
----- Okay, enough of that.
Differentiation of datastructures is fairly fundamental, and almost
certainly does deserve to be in the base library, in my opinion. Many
of the datastructures provided by other libraries are differentiable,
and it would be worthwhile to have a common suggested interface to
that, as well as a motivating force to get people to provide those
operations.
At the same time as this, I made my little proposal in the hopes that
it could perhaps get into the libraries quickly (haha, it took *years*
before Data.List finally got a simple permutations function), and
provide some happiness in the short-term.
- Cale
On 2 July 2010 04:59, Conor McBride <conor at strictlypositive.org> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I use these also. But I'd make a suggestion: dig out the rest
> of the structure that these operations suggest.
>
> [Statutory mathematics warning: differential calculus.]
>
> They're both instances of "Hancock's cursor-down operator",
> whose type is
>
> down :: Differentiable f => f x -> f (x, D f x)
>
> where Differentiable is the class of differentiable functors
> and D is the type family which differentiates a functor to
> get the type of one-hole element-contexts.
>
> The intuitive meaning of "down" is "decorate each subobject with
> its context". When you use such an f as the pattern functor
> for a recursive type, you collect the ways you can move one
> level down in a zipper (whose root is at the top, of course).
>
> On 2 Jul 2010, at 00:48, Cale Gibbard wrote:
>
>> When working with the list monad, I often find myself in need of one
>> of the two following functions:
>>
>> -- | Produce a list of all ways of selecting an element from a list,
>> each along with the remaining elements in the list.
>> -- e.g. select [1,2,3,4] ==
>> [(1,[2,3,4]),(2,[1,3,4]),(3,[1,2,4]),(4,[1,2,3])]
>> -- This is useful for selection without replacement in the list monad
>> or list comprehensions.
>> select :: [a] -> [(a,[a])]
>> select [] = []
>> select (x:xs) = (x,xs) : [(y,x:ys) | (y,ys) <- select xs]
>
> This is "down" for lists thought of as unordered bags. For sake
> of argument, make the distinction by wrapping
>
> newtype Bag x = Bag [x]
>
> and hurrah! D Bag = Bag. As a power-series Bag x is the same
> as e-to-the-x, quotienting each possible n-tuple of x's by its
> n! possible permutations. A Bag has
>
> no elements in 0! possible orders
> 1 element in 1! possible orders
> 2 elements in 2! possible orders
> 3 elements in 3! possible orders
> and so ad infinitum...
>
>> -- | Produce a list of all ways of separating a list into an initial
>> segment, a single element, and a final segment.
>> -- e.g. separate [1,2,3,4] ==
>> [([],1,[2,3,4]),([1],2,[3,4]),([1,2],3,[4]),([1,2,3],4,[])]
>> separate :: [a] -> [([a],a,[a])]
>> separate [] = []
>> separate (x:xs) = ([],x,xs) : [(x:us,v,vs) | (us,v,vs) <- separate xs]
>
> This is "down" for lists precisely. A one hole context in a list
> is a pair of lists (the list of elements before the hole, the
> list of elements after).
>
>> It would be really nice if they were in Data.List. The first I find
>> occurring in my code moreso than the second, though just a moment ago,
>> the second of these was quite useful to a beginner on #haskell, and it
>> has come up quite a number of times before for me.
>
> Me too: I look for it, now. It does raise wider questions about lists
> versus bags. If we want to play these games, we should distinguish the
> types according to the sense in which we use them, then overload the
> operators which play the same role in each case.
>
> To fill in a bit more of the picture, "up" is your regular plugger-
> inner
>
> up :: Differentiable f => (x, D f x) -> f x
>
> and you have laws
>
> fmap fst (down xs) = xs
> fmap up (down xs) = fmap (const xs) xs
>
> [Statutory mathematics warning: comonads]
>
> If we have "up" and "down", what is "sideways"? Well, refactor the
> bits and pieces for a moment, please.
>
> newtype Id x = Id x -- Identity is far too long a name for this
> newtype (:*:) f g x = f x :*: g x -- functor pairing
> type Div f = Id :*: D f -- a pair of a thing and its context
> -- being an f with a focus
>
> class (Functor f, ...) => Differentiable f where
> type D f x
> up :: Div f x -> f x
> down :: f x -> f (Div f x)
>
> and now we need to add the constraint Comonad (Div f) to the class,
> as we should also have
>
> counit :: Div f x -> x -- discard context
> cojoin :: Div f x -> Div f (Div f x)
> -- show how to refocus a focused f by decorating each
> -- element (in focus or not) with its context
> -- i.e. "sideways"
>
> with stuff like
>
> up . cojoin = down . up
>
> Folks, if comonads make you boggle, now's yer chance to get a grip
> of them. They capture notions of things-in-context, and these
> zippery comonads provide very concrete examples.
>
> Cale, your handy functions are another surfacing of the calculus
> iceberg.
>
> The question for library designers is at what level to engage with
> this structure. In doing so, we should of course take care to
> protect Joe Programmer from the Screaming Heebie-Jeebies. I am not
> qualified to judge how best this is to be done, but I thought I
> might at least offer some of the raw data for that calculation.
>
> All the best
>
> Conor
>
>
More information about the Libraries
mailing list