Re: Generalize indexing function

Might be more convenient to use an associated type family. And in practice, using types like '()' and 'Bool' as indexes is not super useful when you've already committed to using 'Int' as the (partial) index type of '[]'.

- Keith

Sent from my phone with K-9 Mail.

On April 10, 2021 10:48:42 PM UTC, Dannyu NDos <[email protected]> wrote:
>I noticed that the list indexing function, (!!), is generalizable. I'm
>showing some instances:
>
>{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses #-}
>
>import Data.Complex
>import Data.Functor.Compose
>import Data.Functor.Product
>import Data.Functor.Sum
>import Data.List.NonEmpty
>import Data.Maybe
>
>infix 9 !?
>infixl 9 !
>
>class Indexable i a where
>    (!?) :: i b -> a -> Maybe b
>
>(!) :: Indexable i a => i b -> a -> b
>x ! n = fromJust (x !? n)
>
>instance Indexable [] Int where
>    [] !? _ = Nothing
>    (x:_) !? 0 = Just x
>    (_:xs) !? n
>        | n < 0 = Nothing
>        | otherwise = xs !? (n-1)
>
>instance Indexable ((->) a) (Identity a) where
>    f !? Identity n = Just (f n)
>
>instance Indexable ((,) a) () where
>    (_,x) !? _ = Just x
>
>instance Indexable Complex Bool where
>    (x :+ _) !? False = Just x
>    (_ :+ y) !? True = Just y
>
>instance (Indexable f a, Indexable g b) => Indexable (Compose f g) (a,b)
>where
>    Compose z !? (m,n) = do
>        y <- z !? m
>        y !? n
>
>instance (Indexable f a, Indexable g b) => Indexable (Product f g) (Either
>a b) where
>    Pair x _ !? Left m = x !? m
>    Pair _ y !? Right n = y !? n
>
>instance (Indexable f a, Indexable g a) => Indexable (Sum f g) (Identity a)
>where
>    InL x !? Identity n = x !? n
>    InR y !? Identity n = y !? n
>
>instance Indexable NonEmpty Int where
>    (x :| xs) !? n = (x : xs) !? n

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries