问题
The dlist package contains the DList
data type, which has lots of instances, but not Foldable
or Traversable
. In my mind, these are two of the most "list-like" type classes. Is there a performance reason that DList
is not an instance of these classes?
Also, the package does implement foldr
and unfoldr
, but none of the other folding functions.
回答1:
DList a
is a newtype wrapper around [a] -> [a]
, which has an a
in a contravariant position, so it cannot implement Foldable
or Traversable
, or even Functor
directly. The only way to implement them is to convert to and from regular lists (see the foldr
implementation), which defeats the performance advantage of difference lists.
回答2:
One alternative you should consider instead of DList
is to use Church-encoded lists. The idea is that you represent a list as an opaque value that knows how to execute a foldr
over a list. This requires using the RankNTypes
extension:
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
import Prelude
import Control.Applicative
import Data.Foldable (Foldable)
import qualified Data.Foldable as F
import Data.Traversable (Traversable)
import qualified Data.Traversable as T
-- | Laws:
--
-- > runList xs cons nil == xs
-- > runList (fromList xs) f z == foldr f z xs
-- > foldr f z (toList xs) == runList xs f z
newtype ChurchList a =
ChurchList { runList :: forall r. (a -> r -> r) -> r -> r }
-- | Make a 'ChurchList' out of a regular list.
fromList :: [a] -> ChurchList a
fromList xs = ChurchList $ \k z -> foldr k z xs
-- | Turn a 'ChurchList' into a regular list.
toList :: ChurchList a -> [a]
toList xs = runList xs (:) []
-- | We can construct an empty 'ChurchList' without using a @[]@.
nil :: ChurchList a
nil = ChurchList $ \_ z -> z
-- | The 'ChurchList' counterpart to '(:)'. Unlike 'DList', whose
-- implementation uses the regular list type, 'ChurchList' doesn't
-- rely on it at all.
cons :: a -> ChurchList a -> ChurchList a
cons x xs = ChurchList $ \k z -> k x (runList xs k z)
-- | Append two 'ChurchList's. This runs in O(1) time. Note that
-- there is no need to materialize the lists as @[a]@.
append :: ChurchList a -> ChurchList a -> ChurchList a
append xs ys = ChurchList $ \k z -> runList xs k (runList ys k z)
-- | Map over a 'ChurchList'. No need to materialize the list.
instance Functor ChurchList where
fmap f xs = ChurchList $ \k z -> runList xs (\x xs' -> k (f x) xs') z
-- | The 'Foldable' instance is trivial, given the 'ChurchList' law.
instance Foldable ChurchList where
foldr f z xs = runList xs f z
instance Traversable ChurchList where
traverse f xs = runList xs step (pure nil)
where step x rest = cons <$> f x <*> rest
The downside to this is that there is no efficient tail
operation for a ChurchList
—folding a ChurchList
is cheap, but taking repeated tails is costly...
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15589556/why-are-difference-lists-not-an-instance-of-foldable