Archive for September 2010

Memoizing polymorphic functions via unmemoization

Last year I wrote two posts on memoizing polymorphic functions. The first post gave a solution of sorts that uses a combination of patricia trees (for integer-keyed maps), stable names, and type equality proofs. The second post showed how to transform some functions that do not quite fit the required form so that they do fit.

Dan Piponi wrote a follow-up post Memoizing Polymorphic Functions with High School Algebra and Quantifiers showing a different approach that was more in the spirit of type-directed functional memoization, as it follows purely from mathematical properties, free of the deeply operational magic of stable names. Recently, I finally studied and worked with Dan’s post enough to understand what he did. It’s very clever and beautiful!

This post re-presents Dan’s elegant insight as I understand it, via some examples that helped it come together for me.

Continue reading ‘Memoizing polymorphic functions via unmemoization’ »

Fixing broken isomorphisms — details for non-strict memoization, part 2

The post Details for non-strict memoization, part 1 works out a systematic way of doing non-strict memoization, i.e., correct memoization of non-strict (and more broadly, non-hyper-strict) functions. As I mentioned at the end, there was an awkward aspect, which is that the purported “isomorphisms” used for regular types are not quite isomorphisms.

For instance, functions from triples are memoized by converting to and from nested pairs:

untriple ∷ (a,b,c) -> ((a,b),c)
untriple (a,b,c) = ((a,b),c)
triple ∷ ((a,b),c) -> (a,b,c)
triple ((a,b),c) = (a,b,c)

Then untriple and triple form an embedding/projection pair, i.e.,

triple ∘ untriple ≡ id
untriple ∘ triple ⊑ id

The reason for the inequality is that the nested-pair form permits (⊥,c), which does not correspond to any triple.

untriple (triple (,c)) ≡ untriple ⊥ ≡ ⊥

Can we patch this problem by simply using an irrefutable (lazy) pattern in the definition of triple, i.e., triple (~(a,b),c) = (a,b,c)? Let’s try:

untriple (triple (,c)) ≡ untriple (,,c)((,),c)

So isomorphism fails and so does even the embedding/projection property.

Similarly, to deal with regular algebraic data types, I used a class that describes regular data types as repeated applications of a single, associated pattern functor (following A Lightweight Approach to Datatype-Generic Rewriting):

class Functor (PF t) ⇒ Regular t where
  type PF t ∷ **
  unwrap ∷ t → PF t t
  wrap   ∷ PF t t → t

Here unwrap converts a value into its pattern functor form, and wrap converts back. For example, here is the Regular instance I had used for lists:

instance Regular [a] where
  type PF [a] = Const () :+: Const a :*: Id
  unwrap []     = InL (Const ())
  unwrap (a:as) = InR (Const a :*: Id as)
  wrap (InL (Const ()))          = []
  wrap (InR (Const a :*: Id as)) = a:as

Again, we have an embedding/projection pair, rather than a genuine isomorphism:

wrap ∘ unwrap ≡ id
unwrap ∘ wrap ⊑ id

The inequality comes from ⊥ values occurring in PF [a] [a] at type Const () [a], (), (Const a :*: Id) [a], Const a [a], or Id [a].

Continue reading ‘Fixing broken isomorphisms — details for non-strict memoization, part 2’ »

Lazier functional programming, part 2

In Lazier functional programming, part 1, I suggested that some of the standard tools of lazy functional programming are not as lazy as they might be, including even if-then-else. Generalizing from boolean conditionals, I posed the puzzle of how to define a lazier either function, which encapsulates case analysis for sum types. The standard definition:

data Either a b = Left a | Right b
either :: (a → c)(b → c)Either a b → c
either f g (Left  x) = f x
either f g (Right y) = g y

The comments to part 1 fairly quickly converged to something close to the laxer definition I had in mind:

eitherL f g = const (f ⊥ ⊓ g ⊥)either f g

which is a simple generalization of Luke Palmer‘s laxer if-then-else (reconstructed from memory):

bool c a b = (a ⊓ b)(if c then a else b)

Continue reading ‘Lazier functional programming, part 2’ »

Lazier functional programming, part 1

This post is inspired by a delightful insight from Luke Palmer. I’ll begin with some motivation, and then propose a puzzle.

Consider the following definition of our familiar conditional:

ifThenElse :: Bool → a → a → a
ifThenElse True  t f = t
ifThenElse False t f = f

In a strict language, where there are only two boolean values, these two clauses have a straightforward reading. (The reading is less straightforward when patterns overlap, as mentioned in Lazier function definitions by merging partial values.) In a non-strict language like Haskell, there are three distinct boolean values, not two. Besides True and False, Bool also has a value ⊥, pronounced “bottom” for being at the bottom of the information ordering. For an illustration and explanation of information ordering, see Merging partial values.

Note: In Haskell code, ⊥ is sometimes denoted by “undefined“, which can be confusing, because the meaning is defined precisely. There are many other ways to denote ⊥ in Haskell, and it is impossible to determine whether or not an arbitrary Haskell expression denotes ⊥. I’ll generally use “⊥” in place of “undefined” in this post, as well as for the corresponding semantic value.

The two-clause definition above only addresses two of the three possible boolean values explicitly. What, if anything, does it say indirectly about the meaning of an application like “ifThenElse ⊥ 3 5“?

The Haskell language standard gives an operational answer to this question. Clauses are examined, using pattern matching to select a clause and instantiate that clause’s variables. In case more than one clause matches, the earlier one is chosen.

Pattern matching has three possible outcomes:

  • A single substitution, providing variable bindings that specialize the patterns in a clause’s left-hand side (LHS) to coincide with the actual call. The matching uses semantic, not syntactic, equality and can require forcing evaluation of previously unevaluated thunks (delayed computations).
  • Proof of the nonexistence of such a substitution.
  • Neither conclusion, due to an error or nontermination during evaluation.

In this example, the effort to match True against ⊥ leads to the third outcome. For Haskell as currently defined, the result of the application in such a case is then defined to be ⊥ also. Which is to say that ifThenElse is strict (in its first argument).

So strictness is the Haskell answer, but is it really the answer we want? Are there alternatives that might better fit the spirit of non-strict functional programming?

Continue reading ‘Lazier functional programming, part 1’ »