Composing traversals

· Pablo ·

This post assumes basic knowledge on Haskell, including what Functor and Monad are.

The problem

A few months ago, I was at a functional programming conference where the following problem1 was posed at a talk

Given a container Tree, write a function update :: Tree a -> [a] -> Maybe (Tree a) that, when called as update t as, updates the leaves of t by the new tags in as (listed in preorder).

If there are not enough elements on as, just return Nothing

This post attempts to explain a concise solution to that problem. You might want to try it on your own at first and then come back and read my solution. If you think your solution is better, please send it to me!

We will need the following modules:

import Data.Tree
import Control.Monad.State
import Data.Maybe
import Data.Functor.Compose

Multi-way Trees

In order to solve the problem, we will make use of multi-way trees, also known as rose trees, which are defined as

data Tree a = Node a [Tree a]

That is, a Tree is made from the value of the root node (of type a) and a (possibly empty) list of children trees. To warm-up we will need a simple function2 that creates a singleton tree from a value.

singleton :: a -> Tree a
singleton x = Node x []

That was easy! Now, to simplify the problem a little, let’s first try writing an

unsafeUpdate :: Tree a -> [a] -> Tree a

function. If you don’t know how to approach this problem, you can think of it on imperative terms.

The following is a plausible solution on Python, assuming some tree type with methods tag and children and a predicate isLeaf that tells you whether a tree is a leaf.

def unsafeUpdate(t, as):
  if isLeaf(t):
    t.tag = as.pop(0)
  else:
    for child in t.children:
      unsafeUpdate(t,as)

As we shall see, the solution present in this post is strikingly similar in appearance to that one, yet it remains purely functional. Of course, other possibilities exist, yet I believe this one is concise, efficient and it is easily transformed into a safe version.

Purely functional State

This section introduces the State monad. If you already know about it, you may skip it.

The Control.Monad.State module can be scary-looking at first, yet we will make simple use of it. It defines a monad3 State, that can be thought of as having this definition:

newtype State s a = State {runState :: s -> (a,s) }

A value m :: State s a encapsulates a transformation that makes use of a state s, it (possibly) transforms it and obtains a value of type a. For example, a function from System.Random such as random :: StdGen -> (a, StdGen) could be encapsulated inside a randomState :: State StdGen a value that produces a random value and has as an internal state the seed of type StdGen.

By encapsulating state transformations in this way, we can remain pure while simulating computations that use some sort of state.

Unsurprisingly, for any possible type s, State s is a functor, with mapping given by

f <$> m = State $ \s -> let (a,s) = runState m s in (f a, s)

That is, we run the state modifying computation m and then apply f to its result, leaving the state unchanged.

It also is an Applicative and a Monad. For simplicity, we only show the definitions of pure and >>=, leaving <*> as an exercise4.

pure x is the computation that returns x, leaving the state unchanged.

pure x = State $ \s -> (x,s)

The bind operator is a bit more complicated; on this setting its type would be

>>= :: State s a -> (a -> State s b) -> State s b

that is, it takes a computation that would produce a value of type a, runs it and applies the given function.

Its definition is equivalent to

m >>= f = State $ \s ->
  let (a, s') = runState m s
  in runState (f a) s'

State also defines a set of functions that allow us to get and manipulate the internal state, and to get the final value of the computation. We will use (with simplified type signatures):

If you feel like you need further examples on State before moving on, you can check the Wikibooks tutorial.

The base case

We are now ready to write a skeleton of the unsafeUpdate function, and to write a the base case.

As you might expect, the idea is to write it in terms of a function using State. The internal state will be the list of remaining new leaves, and thus we want to write a function with type

unsafeUpdateSt :: Tree a -> State [a] (Tree a)

By using what we learned in the last section, we could then write:

unsafeUpdate = evalState . unsafeUpdateSt

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. If we look at the base case on the Python version we want to simulate the line t.tag = as.pop(0), that is, extracting the first value of the as list and returning it.

Let’s try and write a version of pop (named unsafePop) using the State monad. What would its type be? We don’t really need to specify the index here, since we will only take the first element, hence, it is just a State value. The internal state would be the list of tags [a] and the result of the computation would be the first element of the list, with type a. Therefore:

unsafePop :: State [a] a

Now, using do notation we can write the function easily: we first get the internal state, then we delete the first element from it and lastly we return this element:

unsafePop = do
  xs <- get
  modify tail
  pure (head xs)

That almost looks like imperative code!

Now, for tackling the base case, we just need to get a State [a] (Tree a) from that State [a] a value, therefore:

unsafeUpdateSt (Node _ []) = singleton <$> unsafePop

The inductive case will need further machinery.

List traversals

If we look at the Python code, we can see that the gist of the inductive case is to apply the function unsafeUpdateSt recursively to the list of children,

for child in t.children:
  unsafeUpdate(t,as)

and pass the list of remaining new tags around.

Of course, there are no for loops on Haskell, (at least not exactly) so we need to resort to (implicit) recursion. Now, the usual way to apply a function to a list is by treating the list as a functor and using the map function, whose definition (with : written in prefix notation) is

map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
map _     []  = []
map f  (x:xs) = (:) (f x) (map f xs)

yet in this case or function unsafeUpdateSt :: Tree a -> State [a] (Tree a) has a type that looks more like a -> f b for a certain container f (namely, State [a]) and thus map is not useful in this situation5. A generalization is needed.

The Traversable class provides just that generalization (and much more). We will use it only on lists, but it can be used on any Functor that supports an iterator-like interface (for example, most data structures on the containers library). Its type (specialized to lists) is

traverse :: (Applicative f) => (a -> f b) -> [a] -> f [b]

Its definition6 is pretty straightforward, namely,

traverse -     [] = pure []
traverse f (x:xs) = (:) <$> f x <*> traverse f xs

which (excluding the use of <*> and <$>) looks very much like the map definition. It is a generalization since we can use the Identity functor to get back

map f = runIdentity . traverse (Identity . f)

Using this function we can apply unsafeUpdateSt recursively to the list of children and then reconstruct the tree by mapping the Node function appropriately. That is,

unsafeUpdateSt (Node x children) = Node x <$> traverse unsafeUpdateSt children

This feels very similar to the imperative code! In fact, the Data.Traversable module defines for = flip traversable so we could define

unsafeUpdateSt (Node x children) = Node x <$> for children unsafeUpdateSt

So, to recall, we can define unsafeUpdate in terms of unsafePop as:

unsafeUpdateSt :: Tree a -> State [a] (Tree a)
unsafeUpdateSt (Node _ []) = singleton <$> unsafePop
unsafeUpdateSt (Node x children) = Node x <$> traverse unsafeUpdateSt children

unsafeUpdate :: Tree a -> [a] -> Tree a
unsafeUpdate = evalState . unsafeUpdateSt

Now on to the actual problem!

Composing functors

The Data.Functor.Compose module defines the Compose newtype,

newtype Compose f g a = Compose { getCompose :: f (g a) }

This type allows us to compose two type constructors (with kind f, g :: Type -> Type) into a new one.

The interesting feature that Compose allows is to define instances for Functor, Applicative or Traversable for the composition of two Functors/Applicatives/Traversables.

As an example, suppose f, g :: Type -> Type are both functors. Then Compose f g is also a functor, where the fmap is given by

fmap :: (a -> b) -> Compose f g a -> Compose f g b
fmap f (Compose x) = Compose (fmap (fmap f) x)

where the first fmap is the one for f and the second the one for g.

Similar instances can be defined for Applicative and Traversable (check the source code if you are curious!).

How can we take advantage of Compose for our problem? Let’s start by refining the pop function. Recall from the previous sections that we defined a function unsafePop :: State [a] a.

The problem with this function is that it is unsafe: if the state is the empty list, the function will throw an error. To solve this, we change the type to State [a] (Maybe a), returning Nothing if there are no remaining elements in the list.

We wrap it up with the Compose constructor, having

pop :: Compose (State [a]) Maybe a
pop = Compose $ do
  xs <- get
  modify' (drop 1)
  pure (listToMaybe xs)

Now, our unsafeUpdateSt function can be used as is for the safe version of the function. We only need to replace the unsafePop function by pop:

updateSt :: Tree a -> Compose (State [a]) Maybe (Tree a)
updateSt (Node _ []) = singleton <$> pop
updateSt (Node x children) = Node x <$> traverse updateSt children

Notice that both <$> and traverse here are using the instance of Functor and Traversable for the type Compose (State [a]) Maybe.

Finally, the solution to our problem will be to unwrap the one provided by updateSt.

update :: Tree a -> [a] -> Maybe (Tree a)
update = evalState . getCompose . updateSt

As you can see, once we had the unsafe version, creating the safe one was just a matter of updating the pop function appropriately and dealing with the wrapping and unwrapping of Compose.

Conclusions

In this post we have seen a possible solution to a problem dealing with trees using Haskell.

The use of Compose, Traversable and Functor allowed us to translate an imperative-looking solution into purely functional code, producing a concise yet complete solution. Furthermore, the solution could be built step-by-step, by considering a simplified problem first.

This might not be the best most efficient solution for this problem7, but it is an excellent way to present such type-classes’ usefulness.

As I said at the beginning, any improvements or alternative solutions are welcome. Until next time!

  1. That was not the exact statement; the point of the talk was to show how to use dependent types to statically avoid the possibility of not having the correct number of tags on the list, but this version is better suited for the purpose of this post. It also used binary trees while we will use multi-way trees. 

  2. The Data.Tree module already includes such function on the Applicative instance (i.e., the pure function), but I think that makes the code slightly more confusing (since Tree’s behavior as an Applicative is far from trivial). 

  3. Well, technically a class of monads, so as to allow for the use of “monad transformers”, but we will not make use of transformers on this post. 

  4. Although at present time it might be more beginner-friendly to restrict the talk to Monads and use return instead of pure, the “Monad of no return” proposal seems likely to be accepted, thus in the long term sticking to pure is the right choice. return is also discouraged in other Haskell-inspired languages such as Idris. 

  5. If you have used monads (specially if you did so before the Burning Bridges proposal of GHC 7.10 was put in place) it is likely that you have met with mapM. Although mapM can be used for defining unsafeUpdateSt, it will not be applicable (directly) in the safe version of update, because of the Monad restriction. Furthermore, I believe it should be discouraged in favor of traverse, since in current versions of GHC mapM is just traverse with a restricted type. 

  6. One should use foldr here and that is what the Prelude does but for didactic purposes I chose this definition. 

  7. In particular, although I have not checked it, it seems likely that you would need to deal with laziness to avoid a space leak.