Proposal: make liftF a method of MonadFree
Carter Schonwald
carter.schonwald at gmail.com
Sat Jul 17 14:50:40 UTC 2021
Ok cool. These both make sense to me then. and sound like a good idea!
It would be nice to know what public instances would break as is with the
change: and if they do, how many need the extra constraint david suggests
on their instance. As long as those are easy to rectify and we get such a
nice asymptotic win, this sounds great!
An idea I’ve mentioned before is that
a simple "fast" way to to approximate / see where things might be impacted
is the following work flow:
> cabal list --simple | awk '{print ($1)}' | uniq | time xargs -P20 -n1
cabal get
and then grep around for uses of MonadFree to see what might be impacted by
such a change
its a really simple way to evaluate an "over approximation" in terms of
usage of an interface, or namespace/syntax (by no means complete, esp since
the above only pulls down the most recent version of every package), but
also pretty zippy all things considered
On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 10:20 AM Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 5:32 AM Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about having the class head be
>>
>> Monad m, Functor f=> … MonadFree f m ..
>> ?
>>
>
> Requiring f to be a Functor would be too strong. Plenty of these are not.
>
>
>> Is the motivation here to have a more performant liftF?
>>
>> What are some examples of more efficient implementations for current
>> instances and what’s the performance delta?
>>
>
> Often the difference can be a walk of the entire structure. I'm not
> allergic to the idea of just adding the method to the class as proposed, it
> already has a superclass, so it is already a record internally, etc.
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 6:53 PM David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Another flavor would be to leave liftF alone and add a method that does
>>> the same thing with a different name. This would preserve performance
>>> characteristics for instances like FT, for situations where the current
>>> implementation is faster.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 4:55 PM David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have
>>>>
>>>> class Monad m => MonadFree f m | m -> f where
>>>> wrap :: f (m a) -> m a
>>>>
>>>> liftF :: (Functor f, MonadFree f m) => f a -> m a
>>>> liftF = wrap . fmap pure
>>>>
>>>> I propose we change this to
>>>>
>>>> class Monad m => MonadFree f m | m -> f where
>>>> wrap :: f (m a) -> m a
>>>>
>>>> liftF :: f a -> m a
>>>> default liftF :: Functor f => f a -> m a
>>>> liftF = wrap . fmap pure
>>>>
>>>> and add a function
>>>>
>>>> defaultWrap :: MonadFree f m => f (m a) -> m a
>>>> defaultWrap = join . liftF
>>>>
>>>> This change is not strictly backwards compatible. Some instances might,
>>>> hypothetically, have to add a Functor constraint. For example, the classic
>>>> Control.Monad.Free and Control.Monad.Trans.Free would need them. However,
>>>> those instances already have (currently redundant) Functor constraints, so
>>>> that doesn't seem like a big deal.
>>>>
>>>> An alternative would be to hew more strictly to backwards compatibility
>>>> by placing a Functor f constraint on liftF. This seems a bit sad for
>>>> "freer" instances that don't need it. For example, we have
>>>>
>>>> newtype FT f m a = FT
>>>> { runFT :: forall r. (a -> m r) -> (forall x. (x -> m r) -> f x -> m
>>>> r) -> m r }
>>>>
>>>> for which
>>>>
>>>> liftF :: f a -> FT f m a
>>>> liftF fa = FT $ \pur bndf -> bndf pur fa
>>>>
>>>> Pull request at https://github.com/ekmett/free/pull/208
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> Libraries at haskell.org
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20210717/0de14829/attachment.html>
More information about the Libraries
mailing list