I believe we should not add a Functor constraint, but for a different
reason. One could write
data Arr a where
I :: Unboxed.Vector Int -> Arr Int
C :: Unboxed.Vector Char -> Arr Char
This has no valid Functor instance, but it has a perfectly sensible Ord1
instance.
As for Map and HashMap, I'd be inclined to remove the "dangerous" instances
and add functions (names to be determined) people can use when they know
what they're doing. The trouble with the instances is that there's no
apparent way to express in the *class* laws what makes an argument valid or
invalid. It becomes ad hoc overloading, and I don't think most Haskellers
are really into that.
On Mar 15, 2018 7:55 PM, "Oleg Grenrus"
My hand-wavy intuition:
Eq witnesses an equality. a -> a -> Bool type isn't enough to guarantee that, so we have laws.
The Eq1 class has member
liftEq :: (a -> b -> Bool) -> f a -> f b -> Bool
the type `a -> b -> Bool` is not an equality decision procedure, but rather an isomorphism one.
It looks like for me, that liftEq gives a natural transformation from `Iso a b` to `Iso (f a) (f b)`. Does this make sense?
The liftEq2 is the same. We have to think Map as not of
Hask * Hask -> Hask (wrong)
Functor but
OrdHask * Hask -> Hask (OrdHask: Ord-types and monotone functions)
Then, comparing Map k () with Map (Down k) () with \k (Down k') = k == k' is not well defined, as that "isomorphism candidate" doesn't respect ordering. (as an example, for k = Integer, \k (Down k') = k == negate k' would work, or even \n m -> n == succ m, for n m :: Integer)
Similar argument can be used on (Eq k, Hashable k) requirement of HashMap k v, with constraints giving an additional Hashable structure. The motivational example is being able to compare
HashMap Text Foo and HashMap BusinessId Foo'
directly, where
newtype BusinessId = BusinessId Text deriving newtype (Eq, Hashable)
As Hashable is somewhat arbitrary, I cannot think of other use-cases (preserving Hashable is next to impossible otherwise then via newtype deriving). However, for Map there might be A, B such that `Map A v` and `Map B v` are comparable, i.e. there is monotone f :: A -> B, and
compareAB a b = f a `compare` b
which we can use as a first argument for liftCompare2 (Ord2). (There is mapKeysMonotonic which can be used to achieve the same effect! unordered-containers could have similar unsafe function too). That said, I didn't have such use case myself (yet!?).
When writing the instances, I was thinking what's (a -> b -> Ordering), and at this point I have to wave hands even more. I don't know how to complete the following sentence
The ??? to total order is as isomorphism to equality.
As a side-note: we have - `~` witnessing nominal equality - `Coercible` witnessing structural equality - It would be very cool to being to say `CoercibleInstance Hashable`, which is satisfied when `Hashable` is `newtype` derived. Is it roles, refining kinds, or something else, I don't know. But I feel it would be useful. It can be used to give `mapKeysMonotonic` a safe type (at least in some cases!) Maybe if `Constraint ~ Type`, we could simply require `Coercible (Hashable k) (Hashable k')`, but how it would fit the roles?
So I do agree, that Eq1 f has functorial feel and it's "natural", this is what its type tells. But if you imply that we should add `Functor` or `Bifunctor` super-classes, then I disagree, based on above arguments. Yes, the functions are unsafe to use (to get meaningful results), but I see a value for them.
An example of legitimate (in above sence) instance of Eq1 which isn't a functor is Eq1 Set. As long as `eq :: a -> b -> Bool` respects the ordering of `a` and `b`, we can compare `Set a` with `Set b`.
Cheers, Oleg
I was looking at the Eq2 instances for Data.Map and Data.HashMap, and the Eq1 instances for Set and HashSet, and I realized that they're a bit ... weird. My instinct is to remove these instances immediately, but I figure I should first check with the community (and Oleg, who added them to begin with) to make sure they don't make some sort of sense I don't understand. In particular, these instances compare keys in the order in which they appear in the container. That order may be completely unrelated to the given key comparison function.
Data.Map example: suppose I have a Map k () and a Map (Down k) (), where Down is from Data.Ord. If I call liftEq2 (\x (Down y) -> x == y) (==), I will get what looks to me like a totally meaningless result.
Data.HashMap example: suppose I have a HashMap Int () and a Hashmap String (). If I call liftEq2 (\x y -> show x == y) (==), that won't return True even if the strings in the second map are actually the results of applying show to the numbers in the first map.
Intuitively, I think Eq1 f only makes sense if the shape of f x does not depend on the values of type x, and Eq2 p only makes sense if the shape of p x y does not depend on the values of types x and y. Is there a way to formalize this intuition with class laws? I believe that in the case of a Functor, parametricity will guarantee that
liftEq eq (f <$> xs) (g <$> ys) == liftEq (\x y -> eq (f x) (g y)) xs ys
Are there *any* legitimate instances of Eq1 or Ord1 that are not Functors? Are there *any* legitimate instances of Eq2 or Ord2 that are not Bifunctors? My intuition says no. We might wish we could write instances for unboxed arrays or vectors, but I believe that is totally impossible anyway.
David
On 15.03.2018 23:48, David Feuer wrote:
I was looking at the Eq2 instances for Data.Map and Data.HashMap, and the Eq1 instances for Set and HashSet, and I realized that they're a bit ... weird. My instinct is to remove these instances immediately, but I figure I should first check with the community (and Oleg, who added them to begin with) to make sure they don't make some sort of sense I don't understand. In particular, these instances compare keys in the order in which they appear in the container. That order may be completely unrelated to the given key comparison function.
Data.Map example: suppose I have a Map k () and a Map (Down k) (), where Down is from Data.Ord. If I call liftEq2 (\x (Down y) -> x == y) (==), I will get what looks to me like a totally meaningless result.
Data.HashMap example: suppose I have a HashMap Int () and a Hashmap String (). If I call liftEq2 (\x y -> show x == y) (==), that won't return True even if the strings in the second map are actually the results of applying show to the numbers in the first map.
Intuitively, I think Eq1 f only makes sense if the shape of f x does not depend on the values of type x, and Eq2 p only makes sense if the shape of p x y does not depend on the values of types x and y. Is there a way to formalize this intuition with class laws? I believe that in the case of a Functor, parametricity will guarantee that
liftEq eq (f <$> xs) (g <$> ys) == liftEq (\x y -> eq (f x) (g y)) xs ys
Are there *any* legitimate instances of Eq1 or Ord1 that are not Functors? Are there *any* legitimate instances of Eq2 or Ord2 that are not Bifunctors? My intuition says no. We might wish we could write instances for unboxed arrays or vectors, but I believe that is totally impossible anyway.
David