No, it's because automatically derived Ord only defines "compare", which is
automatically strict in both arguments because it has to tell EQ from LT or
GT. Then the other methods are defined in terms of that. I don't think
having (<=) et al be potentially lazy would hurt performance much.
On Thu, May 7, 2020, 08:26 David Feuer
I believe this is all about strictness analysis. If these were lazy, then users would have to be very careful to force the lazy arguments when they don't need that laziness to avoid building unnecessary thunks.
On Thu, May 7, 2020, 9:03 AM Simon Jakobi via Libraries < libraries@haskell.org> wrote:
Hi!
Generally, when using libraries, I expect functions to be as lazy as possible, unless they are documented to have different strictness properties. My impression was that this rule of thumb is fairly widely accepted. If this is not a good rule to work with, please do correct me!
In any case, I noticed that many instances of Ord in base are an exception to that rule: (>=), max, etc. tend to evaluate both arguments, although a result could often be produced based on the value of only one argument.
For example (True >= x) could return True without evaluating x, but it doesn't.
The most blatant and trivial example would be () where the ordering can be determined without looking at any argument. However:
$ ghci GHCi, version 8.10.1: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
() >= undefined *** Exception: Prelude.undefined CallStack (from HasCallStack): error, called at libraries/base/GHC/Err.hs:79:14 in base:GHC.Err undefined, called at <interactive>:13:7 in interactive:Ghci1 undefined >= () *** Exception: Prelude.undefined CallStack (from HasCallStack): error, called at libraries/base/GHC/Err.hs:79:14 in base:GHC.Err undefined, called at <interactive>:14:1 in interactive:Ghci1
The code where I first noticed the issue looked a bit like this:
data Const = Type | Kind | Sort deriving (Eq, Ord, Show)
f :: NonEmpty Const -> Const f = maximum
Ideally f would stop traversing the list once it encounters the first Sort. Yet it doesn't:
f (Sort :| [undefined]) *** Exception: Prelude.undefined
Redefining the Ord instance is trickier than expected too:
instance Ord Const where Type <= _ = True Kind <= Kind = True Kind <= Sort = True Sort <= Sort = True _ <= _ = False
This is insufficient to fix max, since its default implementation is biased towards the second argument:
max x y = if x <= y then y else x
max Sort undefined *** Exception: Prelude.undefined
So I customize max:
max Type x = x max Kind Sort = Kind max Kind _ = Kind max Sort _ = Sort
(f (Sort :| [undefined])) still fails!
This turns out be due to NonEmpty's Foldable instance relying on the default definition for maximum:
maximum :: forall a . Ord a => t a -> a maximum = fromMaybe (errorWithoutStackTrace "maximum: empty structure") . getMax . foldMap (Max #. (Just :: a -> Maybe a))
The problem here is that Maybe's Semigroup instance is strict in both arguments!
So I have to define
f = foldr1 max
…to finally get
f (Sort :| [undefined]) Sort
So my questions are:
Why are derived Ord instances and most Ord instances in base so surprisingly strict?
How come the entire tooling around Ord seems so biased towards strict Ord implementations?
Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries