Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Conor McBride <ctm <at> cs.nott.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: snoc vs cons
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe
Date: Wednesday 25th July 2007 10:37:30 UTC (over 10 years ago)
Hi folks

Scary word warning: Monoid, Monad, Applicative, Traversable, Context,
   Cursor

> Eric:
>> Does anyone know of a good article which discusses snoc vs cons  
>> lists?

Derek:
> There's no reason to; there is no difference between a snoc list and a
> cons list.

There's no technical reason to, but sometimes there are human factors.

Basically, I want the lists in my code to resemble the lists in my head.
I occasionally implement typecheckers, and it's traditional to present
the context as growing on the right as you peel off binders from the
left: I prefer to use snoc-lists for them. Keeping the code consistent
with the mental picture means I seldom need to think about which things
are in scope of what, and so on. I make fewer reverse-parity mistakes.

Amongst my standard equipment, I keep

   data Fwd x = F0 | x :> Fwd x
   data Bwd x = B0 | Bwd x :< x

They're both monoids by concatenation, and Applicative with the
zipping behaviour, ie, not the ap of the [] monad, or any other monad
for that matter.

They're both Traversable, left-to-right, and that makes them really
different:

   traverse f (x :> xs)   does the effects of   (f x)   first;
   traverse f (xs :< x)   does the effects of   (f x)   last.

If I'm representing a cursor in a list, I use (Bwd x, Fwd x), or better,
Prod Bwd Fwd x where

   data Prod f g x = f x :*: g x
   type Cursor = Prod Bwd Fwd

so that I keep the left-to-right ordering, as well as fastest access  
to the
elements nearest the cursor.

As Prod lifts monoids and preserves applicative structure, I get the
zipping structure of cursor and the splicing-in-the-middle monoid for  
free.

This is yet another example of a type being not only a data  
representation,
but also a way of organising the structure of computations over that  
data.
Or in soundbitese... types don't just contain data, types explain data.

I'll crawl back under my rock now.

Cheers

Conor
 
CD: 4ms