I was thinking about unzipping operations and realized that one way to express them is by traversing in a Biapplicative functor.
import Data.Biapplicative
class Traversable2 t where
traverse2 :: Biapplicative p
=> (a -> p b c) -> t a -> p (t b) (t c)
-- Note: sequence2 :: [(a,b)] -> ([a], [b])
sequence2 :: (Traversable2 t, Biapplicative p)
=> t (p b c) -> p (t b) (t c)
sequence2 = traverse2 id
instance Traversable2 [] where
traverse2 _ [] = bipure [] []
traverse2 f (x : xs) = bimap (:) (:) (f x) <<*>> traverse2 f xs
It smells to me as though every instance of Traversable can be transformed mechanically into an instance of Traversable2. But I haven't yet found a way to actually implement traverse2 using traverse, short of converting to and from lists or perhaps playing extremely dirty tricks with unsafeCoerce. Is there a nice way to do this?
Further evidence that anything Traversable is Traversable2:
class (Functor t, Foldable t) => Traversable2 t where
traverse2 :: Biapplicative p
=> (a -> p b c) -> t a -> p (t b) (t c)
default traverse2 ::
(Biapplicative p, Generic1 t, GTraversable2 (Rep1 t))
=> (a -> p b c) -> t a -> p (t b) (t c)
traverse2 f xs = bimap to1 to1 $ gtraverse2 f (from1 xs)
class GTraversable2 r where
gtraverse2 :: Biapplicative p
=> (a -> p b c) -> r a -> p (r b) (r c)
instance GTraversable2 V1 where
gtraverse2 _ x = bipure (case x of) (case x of)
instance GTraversable2 U1 where
gtraverse2 _ _ = bipure U1 U1
instance GTraversable2 t => GTraversable2 (M1 i c t) where
gtraverse2 f (M1 t) = bimap M1 M1 $ gtraverse2 f t
instance (GTraversable2 t, GTraversable2 u) => GTraversable2 (t :*: u) where
gtraverse2 f (t :*: u) = bimap (:*:) (:*:) (gtraverse2 f t) <<*>> gtraverse2 f u
instance (GTraversable2 t, GTraversable2 u) => GTraversable2 (t :+: u) where
gtraverse2 f (L1 t) = bimap L1 L1 (gtraverse2 f t)
gtraverse2 f (R1 t) = bimap R1 R1 (gtraverse2 f t)
instance GTraversable2 (K1 i c) where
gtraverse2 f (K1 x) = bipure (K1 x) (K1 x)
instance (Traversable2 f, GTraversable2 g) => GTraversable2 (f :.: g) where
gtraverse2 f (Comp1 x) = bimap Comp1 Comp1 $ traverse2 (gtraverse2 f) x
instance Traversable2 t => GTraversable2 (Rec1 t) where
gtraverse2 f (Rec1 xs) = bimap Rec1 Rec1 $ traverse2 f xs
instance GTraversable2 Par1 where
gtraverse2 f (Par1 p) = bimap Par1 Par1 (f p)
I think I might have something that fits your bill. (Edit: It doesn't, see comments.) You can define newtypes over p () c and p b () and make them Functor instances.
Implementation
Here's your class again with default definitions. I went the route of implementing sequence2 in terms of sequenceA because it seemed simpler.
class Functor t => Traversable2 t where
{-# MINIMAL traverse2 | sequence2 #-}
traverse2 :: Biapplicative p => (a -> p b c) -> t a -> p (t b) (t c)
traverse2 f = sequence2 . fmap f
sequence2 :: Biapplicative p => t (p b c) -> p (t b) (t c)
sequence2 = traverse2 id
Now, the "right part" of the Biapplicative is
newtype R p c = R { runR :: p () c }
instance Bifunctor p => Functor (R p) where
fmap f (R x) = R $ bimap id f x
instance Biapplicative p => Applicative (R p) where
pure x = R (bipure () x)
R f <*> R x =
let f' = biliftA2 const (flip const) (bipure id ()) f
in R $ f' <<*>> x
mkR :: Biapplicative p => p b c -> R p c
mkR = R . biliftA2 const (flip const) (bipure () ())
sequenceR :: (Traversable t, Biapplicative p) => t (p b c) -> p () (t c)
sequenceR = runR . sequenceA . fmap mkR
with the "left part" much the same. The full code is in this gist.
Now we can make p (t b) () and p () (t c) and reassemble them into p (t b) (t c).
instance (Functor t, Traversable t) => Traversable2 t where
sequence2 x = biliftA2 const (flip const) (sequenceL x) (sequenceR x)
I needed to turn on FlexibleInstances and UndecidableInstances for that instance declaration. Also, somehow ghc wanted a Functor constaint.
Testing
I verified with your instance for [] that it gives the same results:
main :: IO ()
main = do
let xs = [(x, ord x - 97) | x <- ['a'..'g']]
print xs
print (sequence2 xs)
print (sequence2' xs)
traverse2' :: Biapplicative p => (a -> p b c) -> [a] -> p [b] [c]
traverse2' _ [] = bipure [] []
traverse2' f (x : xs) = bimap (:) (:) (f x) <<*>> traverse2 f xs
sequence2' :: Biapplicative p => [p b c] -> p [b] [c]
sequence2' = traverse2' id
outputs
[('a',0),('b',1),('c',2),('d',3),('e',4),('f',5),('g',6)]
("abcdefg",[0,1,2,3,4,5,6])
("abcdefg",[0,1,2,3,4,5,6])
This was a fun exercise!
The following seems to do the trick, exploiting “only” undefined. Possibly the traversable laws guarantee that this is ok, but I've not attempted to prove it.
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs, KindSignatures, TupleSections #-}
import Data.Biapplicative
import Data.Traversable
data Bimock :: (* -> * -> *) -> * -> * where
Bimock :: p a b -> Bimock p (a,b)
Bimfmap :: ((a,b) -> c) -> p a b -> Bimock p c
Bimpure :: a -> Bimock p a
Bimapp :: Bimock p ((a,b) -> c) -> p a b -> Bimock p c
instance Functor (Bimock p) where
fmap f (Bimock p) = Bimfmap f p
fmap f (Bimfmap g p) = Bimfmap (f . g) p
fmap f (Bimpure x) = Bimpure (f x)
fmap f (Bimapp gs xs) = Bimapp (fmap (f .) gs) xs
instance Biapplicative p => Applicative (Bimock p) where
pure = Bimpure
Bimpure f<*>xs = fmap f xs
fs<*>Bimpure x = fmap ($x) fs
fs<*>Bimock p = Bimapp fs p
Bimfmap g h<*>Bimfmap i xs = Bimfmap (\(~(a₁,a₂),~(b₁,b₂)) -> g (a₁,b₁) $ i (a₂, b₂))
$ bimap (,) (,) h<<*>>xs
Bimapp g h<*>xs = fmap uncurry g <*> ((,)<$>Bimock h<*>xs)
runBimock :: Biapplicative p => Bimock p (a,b) -> p a b
runBimock (Bimock p) = p
runBimock (Bimfmap f p) = bimap (fst . f . (,undefined)) (snd . f . (undefined,)) p
runBimock (Bimpure (a,b)) = bipure a b
runBimock (Bimapp (Bimpure f) xs) = runBimock . fmap f $ Bimock xs
runBimock (Bimapp (Bimfmap h g) xs)
= runBimock . fmap (\(~(a₂,a₁),~(b₂,b₁)) -> h (a₂,b₂) (a₁,b₁))
. Bimock $ bimap (,) (,) g<<*>>xs
runBimock (Bimapp (Bimapp h g) xs)
= runBimock . (fmap (\θ (~(a₂,a₁),~(b₂,b₁)) -> θ (a₂,b₂) (a₁,b₁)) h<*>)
. Bimock $ bimap (,) (,) g<<*>>xs
traverse2 :: (Biapplicative p, Traversable t) => (a -> p b c) -> t a -> p (t b) (t c)
traverse2 f s = runBimock . fmap (\bcs->(fmap fst bcs, fmap snd bcs)) $ traverse (Bimock . f) s
sequence2 :: (Traversable t, Biapplicative p)
=> t (p b c) -> p (t b) (t c)
sequence2 = traverse2 id
And even if this is safe, I wouldn't be surprised if it gives horrible performance, what with the irrefutable patterns and quadratic (or even exponential?) tuple-tree buildup.
A few observations short of a complete, original answer.
If you have a Biapplicative bifunctor, what you can do with it is apply it to something and separate it into a pair of bifunctors isomorphic to its two components.
data Helper w a b = Helper {
left :: w a (),
right :: w () b
}
runHelper :: forall p a b. Biapplicative p => Helper p a b -> p a b
runHelper x = biliftA2 const (flip const) (left x) (right x)
makeHelper :: (Biapplicative p)
=> p a b -> Helper p a b
makeHelper w = Helper (bimap id (const ()) w)
(bimap (const ()) id w)
type Separated w a b = (w a (), w () b)
It would be possible to combine the approaches of @nnnmmm and @leftroundabout by applying fmap (makeHelper . f) to the structure s, eliminating the need for undefined, but then you would need to make Helper or its replacement an instance of some typeclass with the useful operations that let you solve the problem.
If you have a Traversable structure, what you can do is sequenceA Applicative functors (in which case your solution will look like traverse2 f = fromHelper . sequenceA . fmap (makeHelper . f), where your Applicative instance builds a pair of t structures) or traverse it using a Functor (in which case your solution will look like traverse2 f = fromHelper . traverse (g . makeHelper . f) where ...). Either way, you need to define a Functor instance, since Applicative inherits from Functor. You might try to build your Functor from <<*>> and bipure id id, or bimap, or you might work on both separated variables in the same pass.
Unfortunately, to make the types work for the Functor instance, you have to paramaterize :: p b c to a type we would informally call :: w (b,c) where the one parameter is the Cartesian product of the two parameters of p. Haskell’s type system doesn’t seem to allow this without non-standard extensions, but @leftroundabout pulls this off ably with the Bimock class. using undefined to coerce both separated functors to have the same type.
For performance, what you want to do is make no more than one traversal, which produces an object isomorphic to p (t b) (t c) that you can then convert (similar to the Naturality law). You therefore want to implement traverse2 rather than sequence2 and define sequence2 as traverse2 id, to avoid traversing twice. If you separate variables and produce something isomorphic to (p (t b) (), p () (t c)), you can then recombine them as @mmmnnn does.
In practical use, I suspect you would want to impose some additional structure on the problem. Your question kept the components b and c of the Bifunctor completely free, but in practice they will usually be either covariant or contravariant functors that can be sequenced with biliftA2 or traversed together over a Bitraversable rather than Traversable t, or perhaps even have a Semigroup, Applicative or Monad instance.
A particularly efficient optimization would be if your p is isomorphic to a Monoid whose <> operation produces a data structure isomorphic to your t. (This works for lists and binary trees; Data.ByteString.Builder is an algebraic type that has this property.) In this case, the associativity of the operation lets you transform the structure into either a strict left fold or a lazy right fold.
This was an excellent question, and although I don’t have better code than @leftroundabout for the general case, I learned a lot from working on it.
One only mildly evil way to do this is using something like Magma from lens. This seems considerably simpler than leftaroundabout's solution, although it's not beautiful either.
data Mag a b t where
Pure :: t -> Mag a b t
Map :: (x -> t) -> Mag a b x -> Mag a b t
Ap :: Mag a b (t -> u) -> Mag a b t -> Mag a b u
One :: a -> Mag a b b
instance Functor (Mag a b) where
fmap = Map
instance Applicative (Mag a b) where
pure = Pure
(<*>) = Ap
traverse2 :: forall t a b c f. (Traversable t, Biapplicative f)
=> (a -> f b c) -> t a -> f (t b) (t c)
traverse2 f0 xs0 = go m m
where
m :: Mag a x (t x)
m = traverse One xs0
go :: forall x y. Mag a b x -> Mag a c y -> f x y
go (Pure t) (Pure u) = bipure t u
go (Map f x) (Map g y) = bimap f g (go x y)
go (Ap fs xs) (Ap gs ys) = go fs gs <<*>> go xs ys
go (One x) (One y) = f0 x
go _ _ = error "Impossible"
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48220977/traversing-with-a-biapplicative