## Prettier functions for wrapping and wrapping

The post *Semantic editor combinators* gave an example of a pattern that comes up a lot for me in Haskell programming.
I want to apply functions inside of a `newtype`

without cumbersome unwrapping and wrapping of the representation insides.

While chatting with Daniel Peebles in #haskell today, the realization hit me that these “higher-order wrappers” can not only make other code pretty, but can themselves be expressed more beautifully and clearly, using two of the combinators given in that post.

The example I gave was type composition, taken from the TypeCompose library:

```
newtype (g :. f) a = O { unO :: g (f a) }
```

The convenient higher-order wrappers apply n-ary function within `O`

constructors:

```
inO h (O gfa) = O (h gfa)
inO2 h (O gfa) (O gfa') = O (h gfa gfa')
...
```

Then I get to implement `Functor`

and `Applicative`

instances in the style of semantic editor combinators.

```
instance (Functor g, Functor f) => Functor (g :. f) where
fmap = inO . fmap . fmap
instance (Applicative g, Applicative f) => Applicative (g :. f) where
pure = O . pure . pure
(<*>) = (inO2 . liftA2) (<*>)
```

The point-free definitions I gave before are pretty cryptic if you’re not used to the style:

```
inO = ( O .) . (. unO)
inO2 = (inO .) . (. unO)
inO3 = (inO2 .) . (. unO)
...
```

What dawned on me today is that I can instead say what I mean plainly: `inO`

applies `unO`

to the argument and `O`

to the result.

```
inO = result O . argument unO
```

Similarly, `inO2`

applies `unO`

to the (first) argument and `inO`

to the resulting function.
Similarly for `inO3`

:

```
inO2 = result inO . argument unO
inO3 = result inO2 . argument unO
...
```

The unwrapping and wrapping don’t interact, so, we can write equivalent definitions, swapping the compositions:

```
inO2 = argument unO . result inO
```

Equivalence follows from associativity of function composition.

## Conal Elliott » Blog Archive » Sequences, segments, and signals:

[…] About « Prettier functions for wrapping and wrapping […]

5 December 2008, 12:14 am## Conal Elliott » Blog Archive » Another angle on functional future values:

[…] definitions of these helpers are very simple with the ideas from Prettier functions for wrapping and wrapping and a lovely notation from Matt Hellige’s Pointless […]

4 January 2009, 8:02 pm## conal:

In December of 2008, Matt Hellige suggested a notational refinement that I’ve been using & enjoying in my day-to-day programming ever since. See his post

Pointless Fun.Above, I suggested redefining

`inO`

to “say what I mean plainly:`inO`

applies`unO`

to the argument and`O`

to the result.”Matt’s idea is to package up this pattern of use of

`result`

and`argument`

and give it a name. And not just any name, but an infix operator that looks like an arrow and is right-associative, to mimic the notation of function types.Now

`inO`

,`inO2`

, etc have lovely, simple definitions:`inO = unO ~> O inO2 = unO ~> inO inO3 = unO ~> inO2 -- ...`

Written out,

which can be read as saying that the semantic editor combinator

`inO3`

passes three arguments through`unO`

before invoking a given editor and then the editor’s result through`O`

.This notational technique can be used in many other ways besides stripping and restoring

`newtype`

constructors. Matt’s examples include use of`id`

when arguments and/or results do not need transforming.Afterthought: SECs built up with

9 March 2010, 10:16 am`(~>)`

(or explicitly with`result`

and`argument`

) remind me vaguely of method combination in some object systems, like CLOS, but in a functional style — whereafterandbeforemethods combine with inherited methods via function composition rather than sequential execution. Even this apparent difference diminishes if one considers a standard denotational semantics of sequential executionasfunction composition. For instance, a denotation semantics for method combination might be written elegantly in terms of`argument`

,`result`

, and`(~>)`

.## Conal Elliott » Blog Archive » Another angle on zippers:

[…] inO is from Control.Compose, and is defined using the ideas from Prettier functions for wrapping and wrapping and the notational improvement from Matt Hellige’s Pointless […]

29 July 2010, 6:38 pm