I just realized how useful the little on
-function can be.
Ex:
orderByLength = sortBy (compare `on` length)
But unfortunately, the inferred types can be somewhat counter-intuitive.
According to the very definition
f `on` g = \x y -> f (g x) (g y)
one could e.g. replace
(==) `on` length
with
\x y -> (length x) == (length y)
But both have different types!
The first has [a] -> [a] -> Bool
whereas the second has the correct, more generic type of [a] -> [b] -> Bool
.
This disallows obviously correct terms like (on (==) length) [1, 2, 3] ["a", "b", "c"]
(which should yield True
but now even fails type-checking).
I know this restriction comes up due to the usage of first-rank types, but how to overcome this? Can someone formulate an implementation of on
that can deal correctly with polymorphic functions (using universal quantification/rank-n types)?
{-# LANGUAGE Rank2Types #-}
on' :: (a -> a -> b) -> (forall d. c d -> a) -> c e -> c f -> b
on' f g x y = f (g x) (g y)
This results in
Prelude> :t on' (==) on' (==) :: (Eq a) => (forall d. c d -> a) -> c e -> c f -> Bool Prelude> :t on' (==) length on' (==) length :: [e] -> [f] -> Bool
On the other hand, this signature also makes flip on' id
illegal, which is somewhat less than desirable.
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Language.Haskell.TH
onE f g = do
x <- newName "x"
y <- newName "y"
lamE [varP x, varP y] $ f `appE` (g `appE` varE x) `appE` (g `appE` varE y)
Prelude> :set -XTemplateHaskell Prelude> $(onE [|(==)|] [|length|]) [1,2,3] ["a","b","c"] True Prelude> $(onE [|(==)|] [|id|]) 4 5 False
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With