Applicative Functors
The missing functionality of functors is obvious - fmap
only works for functions that take in exactly 1 argument and apply that function to each individual element of a given data structure. But we might want to apply a function that takes multiple arguments - for example, how can we add together two values of the Maybe
type? We could write our own function specific to that need:
But that way we would have to write a new custom-made function for every function we would like to apply to two (or more) Maybe
types - for example, multiplication.
This is where Applicative Functors (or Applicatives) come into play. Applicatives generalise applying pure functions to effectful arguments (such as the Maybe
type) instead of plain values. The definition of Applicative
is:
Firstly, for a type to become an instance of Applicative
, it must be an instance of the Functor
class. The pure
method is used to transform arbitrary values into the functor data structure f a
. The (<*>)
method is very similar to that of fmap
, but in this case, the function being applied is itself wrapped into the functor data structure f (a -> b)
- this is exactly what allows us to use currying and apply functions that take an unlimited number of arguments on Applicative
data instances.
The Maybe Applicative
The effect of the Maybe
type is the possibility of failure, and we will explore the effects of some other data types later. Let's look at how the Maybe
type is made an instance of the Applicative
class in the Prelude
:
pure
wraps a value with the Just
constructor, and (<*>)
applies the function to the value if neither of the arguments has failed, otherwise, it results in Nothing
. Now we can simply calculate the sum of two Maybe
types without the need for defining a function:
We first use pure
on the addition function (+)
in order to wrap it into a Maybe
and then apply it to the two arguments. Let's take a closer look at how the application is executed and keep track of types:
The final result is of the type Maybe b
so the underlying effect of the Maybe
type - the possibility of failure - is handled by the applicative style of function application. In other words, we do not have to define any additional functions to handle specific Nothing
cases, as they are already defined in the Applicative
instance definition for Maybe
:
The List Applicative
The List
applicative is implemented in a way that the function application through (<*>)
applies the function in every possible combination of the arguments (as a Cartesian product in mathematics). So the underlying effect of the List
type is the possibility of non-deterministic results. The Applicative
instance declaration for List
is:
With that, we can apply functions on List
types through (<*>)
:
In the second example, each of the functions in the first list is a curried function that takes in one additional argument, and the result of the applicative action is applying all the functions from the first list to all the arguments of the second list.
For those curious, there is also an implementation that matches only one argument per function - ZipList (http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.11.1.0/docs/Control-Applicative.html#t:ZipList)
The IO Applicative
The IO
type refers to the impure world of Haskell, and its underlying effect is the ability to perform input/output actions. Therefore, the applicative instance of the IO
type supports the application of pure functions to impure arguments, and can also handle sequencing and extraction of result values:
pure
is simply our return
function that wraps a pure value into an IO
type, and given two impure arguments (IO
actions), (<*>)
performs the action a
to get the function f
and the action b
to get the argument x
, and finally returns f x
- the result of that function applied to the argument wrapped in the IO
type.
As was mentioned before, the use of applicative style can handle both sequencing and extraction of values, so to define a function that reads two lines of characters and returns their concatenation, instead of:
we can simply write:
Furthermore, it becomes much easier to create a function that reads an arbitrary n
number of lines and concatenates them using applicative style and recursion:
Applicative Laws
There are four laws applicative functors must follow:
The Identity
law states that applying the id
function to an argument in applicative style returns the unaltered argument, much like we saw in functors.
The Homomorphism
law states that pure
preserves function application in the sense that applying a pure function to a pure value is the same as calling pure
on the result of normal function application to that value (f x
).
The Interchange
law states that the order in which we evaluate components does not matter in the case when we apply an effectful function to a pure argument. The ($ y)
is used to supply the argument y
to the function u
. A simpler example of using ($ y)
:
The Composition
law states that function composition (.)
works with the pure
function as well, so that pure (.)
composes functions, i.e. composing functions u
and v
with pure (.)
and applying the composed function to w
gives the same result as simply applying both functions u
and v
to the argument w
.
Last updated