5
votes

In Haskell, the class Functor is declared as:

class   Functor f   where
fmap    ::  (a  ->  b)  ->  f   a   ->  f   b

Can type variables a and b be function types, or must they be non-function types?

If they can be function types, isn't it that class Functor become effectively the same as class Applicative, in terms of making fmap able to apply to functions with arbitrary number of arguments? According to what Programming in Haskell by Hutton says:

Functors abstract the idea of fmap mapping a function over each element of a structure. Applicatives generalize this idea to allow fmap mapping functions with any number of arguments to be mapped, rather than being restricted to functions with a single argument.

In applicative:

fmap0 ::  a   ->  f   a
fmap0 =   pure
fmap1 ::  (a  ->  b)  ->  f   a   ->  f   b
fmap1 g   x   =   pure    g   <*> x
fmap2 ::  (a  ->  b   ->  c)  ->  f   a   ->  f   b   ->  f   c
fmap2 g   x   y   =   pure    g   <*> x   <*> y
fmap3 ::  (a  ->  b   ->  c   ->  d)  ->  f   a   ->  f   b   ->  f   c   ->  f   d
fmap3 g   x   y   z   =   pure    g   <*> x   <*> y   <*> z

Class Applicative is declared as:

class Functor f   =>  Applicative f   where
pure  ::  a   ->  f   a
(<*>) ::  f   (a  ->  b)  ->  f   a   ->  f   b

Thanks.

3
a and b can be function types. - Willem Van Onsem
Then what can applicatives do that functors can't? See my update - Tim
Your implementation of fmap1 uses Applicative methods. This shows that just having Applicative is enough to implement Functor. But your question asks the other way: is just having Functor enough to implement Applicative? I think if you try to go the other way -- try to write down implementations of pure and (<*>) just using fmap (and pure things) on the right-hand side -- you will find yourself stuck quite quickly indeed. - Daniel Wagner
The fact that b can be a function type is why Applicative exists: fmap (+) (Just 3) == Just (+3). Applicative is what lets you apply the result of a partial application of + to another Just value. fmap (+) (Just 3) <*> Just 5 == Just (+3) <*> Just 5 == Just 8. - chepner

3 Answers

12
votes

a and b can be function types. They can be any type. In fact, a valid Functor must allow them to be any type.

To answer your Applicative question, let's try it.

fmap :: (a -> b -> c) -> f a -> f (b -> c)

Okay, great! Now I can take an f a and convert it to a f (b -> c). But.... then what? I can't apply f (b -> c) to an argument. It's not a function; it's a value of my functor type. If only we had a function with this signature...

superFmap :: f (b -> c) -> f b -> f c

But that sure does look a lot like

(<*>) :: f (b -> c) -> f b -> f c

which is a member of Applicative. Hence, we need Applicative to be able to apply this secondary result.

What the other answers said is correct. We can't implement pure either, for similar reasons. But it's important to note that we can't even get (<*>) in general, because if we could then that would imply that every Functor is Apply, which is also certainly not the case.

13
votes

Can type variables a and b be function types

– yeah, sure.

isn't it that class Functor become effectively the same as class Applicative

no, absolutely not. If you insert a function type into the a or b of the fmap signature, you get things like

fmap :: ((x -> y) -> b) -> f (x -> y) -> f b

or

fmap :: (a -> p -> q) -> f a -> f (p -> q)

but crucially, fmap always takes exactly one f _ wrapped-value and spits out exactly one such value. Applicative meanwhile allows you to accept any number of wrapped values, provided you give it the a function to process the contained values.

5
votes

Can type variables a and b be function types, or must they be non-function types?

a and b can be any type, so function types as well.

For example we can use:

fmap (+) [1,4,2,5]

Here (+) has type:

fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b       ) -> f a -> f b
(+)  :: Num c =>      c -> (c -> c)

So here b ~ c -> c, and b is thus a function.

An example where a is a function is:

fmap ($ 2) [ (1+), (2*), (3-) ]

here we have as types:

fmap :: Functor f => (a        -> b) -> f a -> f b
($ 3)  :: Num c =>    (c -> d) -> d

So a ~ (c -> d) here, here we thus apply 3 to all functions in the list.

Note that we did not add extra fmap definitions here (as in fmap1, fmap2, ...). It is just the fact that a can be substituted with a type c -> d, etc.).

If they can be function types, isn't it that class Functor become effectively the same as class Applicative.

No, since it is for example not said that pure can be implemented for a given Functor. Immagine that you for example make a data type:

type Owner = String

data Owned a = Owned Owner a

then Owned can be implemented to be an instance of Functor:

instance Functor Owned where
    fmap f (Owned o x) = Owned o (f x)

But implementing a pure :: a -> Owned a is not possible: why would be the owner of the object?