Re: Add a createT analogue for arrays

23 Mar 2018

      Oh, there's actually a much nicer way to write runArraysContextHet,
using runArraysHet:

  newtype S f g t = S {unS :: f t (g t)}

  newtype CS t u a = CS {unCS :: t (S u a)}

  instance (HTraversable t, Traversable' u) => HTraversable (CS t u) where
    htraverse f = fmap CS . htraverse (fmap S . traverse' f . unS) . unCS

  runArraysContextHet
    :: (HTraversable t, Traversable' u)
    => (forall s. ST s (t (S u (MutableArray s))))
    -> t (S u Array)
  runArraysContextHet m = unCS $ runArraysHet (CS <$> m)

So it seems that runArraysHet is powerful enough.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:19 AM, David Feuer  wrote:
...
I still think this is a good idea, and probably the furthest it should
go in the array package proper, but something about it has been
bothering me: the fact that I can't produce multiple arrays of
different types. I realized it's actually possible to get that too,
using something similar to the rtraverse function in vinyl.
class HTraversable (t :: (k -> Type) -> Type) where
    htraverse :: Applicative h
              => (forall x. f x -> h (g x))
              -> t f -> h (t g)
Vinyl records themselves are a bit backwards for this purpose, but one
could write
newtype FlipRec ts f = FlipRec {unFlipRec :: Rec f ts}
    instance HTraversable (FlipRec ts) where
      htraverse f (FlipRec xs) = FlipRec <$> rtraverse f xs
Anyway, HTraversable lets us write
runArraysHet :: HTraversable t
                 => (forall s. ST s (t (MutableArray s)))
                 -> t Array
    runArraysHet m = runST $ m >>= htraverse unsafeFreezeArray
which can produce arrays of multiple types in one go. We can add some
extra information/context to each array with a little more machinery:
-- The context will be expressed using Traversable' types
  class Traversable' (t :: k -> Type -> Type) where
    traverse' :: Applicative f
              => (a -> f b) -> t x a -> f (t x b)
    default traverse' :: (Applicative f, Traversable (t x))
                      => (a -> f b) -> t x a -> f (t x b)
    traverse' = traverse
-- examples
  instance Traversable' Either
  instance Traversable' (,)
newtype S f g t = S {unS :: f t (g t)}
  newtype Contextify (f :: k -> Type -> Type) (t :: (k -> Type) ->
Type) (g :: k -> Type) =
    Contextify {unContextify :: t (S f g)}
instance (HTraversable t, Traversable' u)
    => HTraversable (Contextify (u :: k -> Type -> Type) (t :: (k ->
Type) -> Type)) where
    htraverse f t = fmap Contextify $ htraverse (fmap S . traverse' f
. unS) (unContextify t)
and finally
runArraysContextHet
    :: (HTraversable t, Traversable' u)
    => (forall s. ST s (t (S u (MutableArray s))))
    -> t (S u Array)
  runArraysContextHet m =
    runST $ m >>= htraverse (fmap S . traverse' unsafeFreezeArray . unS)
Whew!
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 1:29 AM, David Feuer  wrote:
...
The vector package offers
createT :: Traversable t
  => (forall s. ST s (t (MVector s a)))
  -> t (Vector a)
This is a generalization of create, which is very similar to runSTArray in
the array package. I suggest we add functions
runSTArrays :: Traversable t
  => (forall s. ST s (t (STArray s i e)))
  -> t (Array i e)
runSTUArrays :: Traversable t
  => (forall s. ST s (t (STUArray s i e)))
  -> t (UArray i e)
Why do I think it's worth the trouble? While it's occasionally useful to
create multiple arrays of the same type in one go, I think the Maybe and
(a,) Traversable instances, and their compositions, are likely more
important. I can use (a,) to record some extra information while building an
array. I can use Maybe to give up and not produce an array. And the
compositions let me do both in different ways.