I do not understand why the signature of foldl is like that.
Standard ML of New Jersey v110.79 [built: Tue Aug 8 23:21:20 2017]
- foldl;
val it = fn : ('a * 'b -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'a list -> 'b
In particular, the arrows -> should've been asterisk * like the following:
val it = fn : ('a * 'b -> 'b) * 'b * 'a list -> 'b
And the reason is because foldl takes the following:
Function ('a * 'b -> 'b) that compares & returns one of two strings; assuming acc is 'b, thus, returning acc
acc & 'a list to compare them.
Finally, returning the base 'b which is acc.
* entails it to be a tuple, and which necessitates that all the components of the tuple will have to be provided... -> entails currying, which allows partial application. Both are 2 different semantics.
Also, it is interesting that you write
...foldl takes a function that compares two strings....
foldl is generic and quite polymorphic, so why will it work only with string. A particular function application may work over string data, but not the function definition itself.
I quite often find myself in a need to use point-free functional compositon for functions with multiple params with methods like that:
compose2 :: ∀ a b c r. (c -> r) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> b -> r
compose2 g f a b = g (f a b)
compose3 :: ∀ a b c d r. (d -> r) -> (a -> b -> c -> d) -> a -> b -> c -> r
compose3 g f a b c = g (f a b c)
I see no standard lib offering such methods directly, are there some other more simple means to get the same result?
Searching on Pursuit by your type signatures reveals a library called purescript-point-free that offers both compose2 and compose3, operator aliases for them, and many more.
The signature of foldl in SML/NJ 110.75 is
foldl;
val it = fn : ('a * 'b -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'a list -> 'b
Also if I give:
foldl (op -) 2 [1];
I will take as answer ~1 instead of 1
Can you confirm my findings?
From the basis library: http://www.standardml.org/Basis/list.html#SIG:LIST.foldl:VAL
foldl f init [x1, x2, ..., xn]
returns
f(xn,...,f(x2, f(x1, init))...)
or init if the list is empty.
thus in foldl (op -) 2 [1] the result is the evaluation of xn - init or 1 - 2
What makes this particular example a bit harder to understand is that (op -) is a non-associative infix operator. So the f in the basis library definition gets moved between xn and init.
The signature is only for static type checking, and it is worth remembering that 'a and 'b may be of the same type.
The official site shows the following function
square = (x) -> x * x
Then you can do something like
square(4)
Is it possible to do the above in a single line using anonymous function? I'm thinking of something like the following
(f = do (x) -> x * x) (4)
My code doesn't compile but I'm hoping the intent is clear enough
I'm not sure what the application for this is but you can substitute the definition of square for square if you wrap it in parentheses:
((x) -> x*x)(4) #evaluates to 16
drop do may work fine:
#alert (f = (x) -> x * x) (4)
(f = (x) -> x * x) (4)
and use pure anonymous function:
#alert ((x) -> x * x) (4)
((x) -> x * x) (4)
Given a function with at least n arguments, I want to rotate the first argument so that it becomes the nth argument. For example (in untyped lambda calculus):
r(λa. a) = λa. a
r(λa. λb. a b) = λb. λa. a b
r(λa. λb. λc. a b c) = λb. λc. λa. a b c
r(λa. λb. λc. λd. a b c d) = λb. λc. λd. λa. a b c d
And so on.
Can you write r in a generic way? What if you know that n >= 2?
Here's the problem stated in Scala:
trait E
case class Lam(i: E => E) extends E
case class Lit(i: Int) extends E
case class Ap(e: E, e: E) extends E
The rotation should take Lam(a => Lam(b => Lam(c => Ap(Ap(a, b), c)))) and return Lam(b => Lam(c => Lam(a => Ap(Ap(a, b), c)))), for example.
The trick is to tag the "final" value of the functions involved, since to normal haskell, both a -> b and a -> (b->c) are just functions of a single variable.
If we do that, though, we can do this.
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies,FlexibleInstances,FlexibleContexts #-}
module Rotate where
data Result a = Result a
class Rotate f where
type After f
rotate :: f -> After f
instance Rotate (a -> Result b) where
type After (a -> Result b) = a -> Result b
rotate = id
instance Rotate (a -> c) => Rotate (a -> b -> c) where
type After (a -> b -> c) = b -> After (a -> c)
rotate = (rotate .) . flip
Then, to see it in action:
f0 :: Result a
f0 = Result undefined
f1 :: Int -> Result a
f1 = const f0
f2 :: Char -> Int -> Result a
f2 = const f1
f3 :: Float -> Char -> Int -> Result a
f3 = const f2
f1' :: Int -> Result a
f1' = rotate f1
f2' :: Int -> Char -> Result a
f2' = rotate f2
f3' :: Char -> Int -> Float -> Result a
f3' = rotate f3
It's probably impossible without violating the ‘legitimacy’ of HOAS, in the sense that the E => E must be used not just for binding in the object language, but for computation in the meta language. That said, here's a solution in Haskell. It abuses a Literal node to drop in a unique ID for later substitution. Enjoy!
import Control.Monad.State
-- HOAS representation
data Expr = Lam (Expr -> Expr)
| App Expr Expr
| Lit Integer
-- Rotate transformation
rot :: Expr -> Expr
rot e = case e of
Lam f -> descend uniqueID (f (Lit uniqueID))
_ -> e
where uniqueID = 1 + maxLit e
descend :: Integer -> Expr -> Expr
descend i (Lam f) = Lam $ descend i . f
descend i e = Lam $ \a -> replace i a e
replace :: Integer -> Expr -> Expr -> Expr
replace i e (Lam f) = Lam $ replace i e . f
replace i e (App e1 e2) = App (replace i e e1) (replace i e e2)
replace i e (Lit j)
| i == j = e
| otherwise = Lit j
maxLit :: Expr -> Integer
maxLit e = execState (maxLit' e) (-2)
where maxLit' (Lam f) = maxLit' (f (Lit 0))
maxLit' (App e1 e2) = maxLit' e1 >> maxLit' e2
maxLit' (Lit i) = get >>= \k -> when (i > k) (put i)
-- Output
toStr :: Integer -> Expr -> State Integer String
toStr k e = toStr' e
where toStr' (Lit i)
| i >= k = return $ 'x':show i -- variable
| otherwise = return $ show i -- literal
toStr' (App e1 e2) = do
s1 <- toStr' e1
s2 <- toStr' e2
return $ "(" ++ s1 ++ " " ++ s2 ++ ")"
toStr' (Lam f) = do
i <- get
modify (+ 1)
s <- toStr' (f (Lit i))
return $ "\\x" ++ show i ++ " " ++ s
instance Show Expr where
show e = evalState (toStr m e) m
where m = 2 + maxLit e
-- Examples
ex2, ex3, ex4 :: Expr
ex2 = Lam(\a -> Lam(\b -> App a (App b (Lit 3))))
ex3 = Lam(\a -> Lam(\b -> Lam(\c -> App a (App b c))))
ex4 = Lam(\a -> Lam(\b -> Lam(\c -> Lam(\d -> App (App a b) (App c d)))))
check :: Expr -> IO ()
check e = putStrLn(show e ++ " ===> \n" ++ show (rot e) ++ "\n")
main = check ex2 >> check ex3 >> check ex4
with the following result:
\x5 \x6 (x5 (x6 3)) ===>
\x5 \x6 (x6 (x5 3))
\x2 \x3 \x4 (x2 (x3 x4)) ===>
\x2 \x3 \x4 (x4 (x2 x3))
\x2 \x3 \x4 \x5 ((x2 x3) (x4 x5)) ===>
\x2 \x3 \x4 \x5 ((x5 x2) (x3 x4))
(Don't be fooled by the similar-looking variable names. This is the rotation you seek, modulo alpha-conversion.)
Yes, I'm posting another answer. And it still might not be exactly what you're looking for. But I think it might be of use nonetheless. It's in Haskell.
data LExpr = Lambda Char LExpr
| Atom Char
| App LExpr LExpr
instance Show LExpr where
show (Atom c) = [c]
show (App l r) = "(" ++ show l ++ " " ++ show r ++ ")"
show (Lambda c expr) = "(λ" ++ [c] ++ ". " ++ show expr ++ ")"
So here I cooked up a basic algebraic data type for expressing lambda calculus. I added a simple, but effective, custom Show instance.
ghci> App (Lambda 'a' (Atom 'a')) (Atom 'b')
((λa. a) b)
For fun, I threw in a simple reduce method, with helper replace. Warning: not carefully thought out or tested. Do not use for industrial purposes. Cannot handle certain nasty expressions. :P
reduce (App (Lambda c target) expr) = reduce $ replace c (reduce expr) target
reduce v = v
replace c expr av#(Atom v)
| v == c = expr
| otherwise = av
replace c expr ap#(App l r)
= App (replace c expr l) (replace c expr r)
replace c expr lv#(Lambda v e)
| v == c = lv
| otherwise = (Lambda v (replace c expr e))
It seems to work, though that's really just me getting sidetracked. (it in ghci refers to the last value evaluated at the prompt)
ghci> reduce it
b
So now for the fun part, rotate. So I figure I can just peel off the first layer, and if it's a Lambda, great, I'll save the identifier and keep drilling down until I hit a non-Lambda. Then I'll just put the Lambda and identifier right back in at the "last" spot. If it wasn't a Lambda in the first place, then do nothing.
rotate (Lambda c e) = drill e
where drill (Lambda c' e') = Lambda c' (drill e') -- keep drilling
drill e' = Lambda c e' -- hit a non-Lambda, put c back
rotate e = e
Forgive the unimaginative variable names. Sending this through ghci shows good signs:
ghci> Lambda 'a' (Atom 'a')
(λa. a)
ghci> rotate it
(λa. a)
ghci> Lambda 'a' (Lambda 'b' (App (Atom 'a') (Atom 'b')))
(λa. (λb. (a b)))
ghci> rotate it
(λb. (λa. (a b)))
ghci> Lambda 'a' (Lambda 'b' (Lambda 'c' (App (App (Atom 'a') (Atom 'b')) (Atom 'c'))))
(λa. (λb. (λc. ((a b) c))))
ghci> rotate it
(λb. (λc. (λa. ((a b) c))))
One way to do it with template haskell would be like this:
With these two functions:
import Language.Haskell.TH
rotateFunc :: Int -> Exp
rotateFunc n = LamE (map VarP vars) $ foldl1 AppE $ map VarE $ (f:vs) ++ [v]
where vars#(f:v:vs) = map (\i -> mkName $ "x" ++ (show i)) [1..n]
getNumOfParams :: Info -> Int
getNumOfParams (VarI _ (ForallT xs _ _) _ _) = length xs + 1
Then for a function myF with a variable number of parameters you could rotate them this way:
$(return $ rotateFunc $ read $(stringE . show =<< (reify 'myF >>= return . getNumOfParams))) myF
There most certainly are neater ways of doing this with TH, I am very new to it.
OK, thanks to everyone who provided an answer. Here is the solution I ended up going with. Taking advantage of the fact that I know n:
rot :: Int -> [Expr] -> Expr
rot 0 xs = Lam $ \x -> foldl App x (reverse xs)
rot n xs = Lam $ \x -> rot (n - 1) (x : xs)
rot1 n = rot n []
I don't think this can be solved without giving n, since in the lambda calculus, a term's arity can depend on its argument. I.e. there is no definite "last" argument. Changed the question accordingly.
I think you could use the techniques described int the paper An n-ary zipWith in Haskell for this.
Can you write r in a generic way?
What if you know n?
Haskell
Not in plain vanilla Haskell. You'd have to use some deep templating magic that someone else (much wiser than I) will probably post.
In plain Haskell, let's try writing a class.
class Rotatable a where
rotate :: a -> ???
What on earth is the type for rotate? If you can't write its type signature, then you probably need templates to program at the level of generality you are looking for (in Haskell, anyways).
It's easy enough to translate the idea into Haskell functions, though.
r1 f = \a -> f a
r2 f = \b -> \a -> f a b
r3 f = \b -> \c -> \a -> f a b c
etc.
Lisp(s)
Some Lispy languages have the apply function (linked: r5rs), which takes a function and a list, and applies the elements of the list as arguments to the function. I imagine in that case it wouldn't be so hard to just un-rotate the list and send it on its way. I again defer to the gurus for deeper answers.