suggestion: use lazy pattern matching for Monoid instances of tuples
Edward Kmett
ekmett at gmail.com
Mon Aug 19 16:14:54 CEST 2013
With foldMap one can have structures that get to explicitly reuse previous
intermediate results.
e.g.
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/compressed/3.0.3/doc/html/Data-Compressed-Internal-LZ78.htmlgives
you a list with a more efficient fold by using LZ78 to identify
sharing with earlier parts of the list.
With foldr you can't exploit such regularity as you can merely append one
element at a time.
Less drastically, with foldMap, you can binary search a tree structure if
the foldMap preserves the original associativity of the structure.
The lens package uses this to navigate to keys in a Zipper over a Map to a
given key in O(log n) time borrowing the asymptotics from the balance of
the underlying structure.
In my current work I'm using "sequence-algebras" and "sequence-trees" to
exploit even more structure than foldMap gives me.
I'll probably write up an article at some point soon on the School of
Haskell.
-Edward
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Petr Pudlák <petr.mvd at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is exactly how I run into the Monoid problem. My original `foldr`
> version works fine, but when I saw this Gabriel's post:
> http://www.haskellforall.com/2013/08/composable-streaming-folds.html
> the monoid variant looked cleaner and nicer so I wanted to redesign my
> idea using monoids as well. And that was precisely when I realized that (,)
> isn't lazy enough.
>
> Could you elaborate a bit when/how the asymptotic difference occurs?
>
> Best regards,
> Petr
>
> Dne 08/19/2013 02:03 PM, Edward Kmett napsal(a):
>
> If you are looking into a tackling lazy foldr, I'd recommend also
> including or considering using foldMap as a basis. It can make an
> asymptotic difference for some folds. I sent Gabriel a version in that
> style. I'll dig up a copy and send it your way as well.
>
> -Edward
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Petr Pudlák <petr.mvd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you all for the responses.
>>
>> Edward's objection is very serious, I didn't think of it.
>> Because of it I retract the proposal, this would indeed create big
>> problems. (I just wish someone invents an oracle strictness analyzer...)
>>
>> Instead, as suggested, I'll make a package with `newtype` wrappers for
>> tuples that will provide the extra-lazy monoid semantics. Any ideas for
>> what other type classes except `Monoid` (and `Semigroup`) could be
>> included? Or perhaps even other data types except tuples?
>>
>> Dne 08/18/2013 11:21 PM, Gabriel Gonzalez napsal(a):
>>
>> I'm guessing this proposal is related to this Stack Overflow answer you
>> gave:
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/a/18289075/1026598
>>
>> Note that your solution is very similar to the solution in the `foldl`
>> package I just released (also based off of the same blog post you got your
>> solution from). The key differences are that:
>>
>> * The `foldl` solution is for left folds and uses a strict tuple
>> internally to prevent space leaks
>> * Your solution is for right folds and uses an extra-lazy tuple
>> internally to promote laziness
>>
>> This suggests to me that it would be better to keep this extra-lazy tuple
>> as an internal implementation detail of a right-fold package that would be
>> the lazy analogy of `foldl`, rather than modifying the standard Haskell
>> tuple.
>>
>> Yes, this is how I encountered the problem. If I have time I'll make a
>> mirror package `foldr` based on extra-lazy tuples. (Or perhaps we could
>> merge the ideas into a single package.)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Petr
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20130819/25fd410d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Libraries
mailing list