mapM_ for bytestring

[Edward Kmett]

Actually you can implement them in terms of foldMap and they suffer
somewhat less and become slightly more defined for infinite traversals but
there is still some suffering to be had performance wise.

Snoyman has also been pursuing a monomorphic Foldable class, and there is
one (more or less) in both my monoids and reducers packages, so this is an
oft reinvented idea. ;)


On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:05 PM, John Lato <jwlato at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with everything Edward has said already.  I went through a similar
> chain of reasoning a few years ago when I started using ListLike, which
> provides a FoldableLL class (although it uses fundeps as ListLike predates
> type families).  ByteString can't be a Foldable instance, nor do I think
> most people would want it to be.
>
> Even though I would also like to see mapM_ in bytestring, it's probably
> faster to have a library with a separate monomorphic Foldable class.  So I
> just wrote one:
>
> https://github.com/JohnLato/mono-foldable
> http://hackage.haskell.org/package/mono-foldable
>
> Petr Pudlak has done some work in this area.  A big problem is that
> foldM/mapM_ are typically implemented in terms of Foldable.foldr (or
> FoldableLL), but this isn't always optimal for performance.  They really
> need to be part of the type class so that different container types can
> have specialized implementations.  I did that in mono-foldable, using
> Artyom's map implementation (Artyom, please let me know if you object to
> this!)
>
> pull requests, forks, etc all welcome.
>
> John L.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> mapM_ is actually implemented in terms of Foldable, not Traversable, and
>> its implementation in terms of folding a ByteString is actually rather slow
>> in my experience doing so inside lens and isn't much faster than the naive
>> version that was suggested at the start of this discussion.
>>
>> But as we're not monomorphizing Foldable/Traversable, this isn't a think
>> that is able to happen anyways.
>>
>> -Edward
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Henning Thielemann <
>> lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>>>
>>>  For mapM etc, personally I think a better solution would be if
>>>> ByteString and Text and other specialised containers could be an
>>>> instance of Foldable/Traversable. Those classes define mapM etc but
>>>> currently they only work for containers that are polymorphic in their
>>>> elements, so all specialised containers are excluded. I'm sure there
>>>> must be a solution to that (I'd guess with type families) and that would
>>>> be much nicer than adding mapM etc to bytestring itself. We would then
>>>> just provide efficient instances for Foldable/Traversable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to keep bytestring simple with respect to the number of type
>>> extensions. Since you must implement ByteString.mapM anyway, you can plug
>>> this into an instance definition of Traversable ByteString.
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20130911/fd7e554d/attachment.htm>