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.
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.
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