pyret-for - a new way to call higher order functions

[sorawee]

Many common higher-order functions consume a function value as the first argument, and n more arguments after that, where the function value accepts n arguments, which corresponds to the arguments in the call in some way. Examples include: map, filter (only one argument), andmap, ormap (foldl and foldr have arguments in a wrong order, so they don't quite work)

Example code without pyret-for

(define things     '(("pen") ("pineapple") ("apple") ("pen")))
(define quantities '(1       2             3         5))

(andmap (λ (thing quantity)
          (or (string-contains? (first thing) "apple")
              (odd? quantity)))
        things
        quantities)

The problem is that

• It's difficult for readers to relate formal arguments of the function value to the actual arguments of the call.
• There's a lot of rightward drift.

Example code with pyret-for

(define things     '(("pen") ("pineapple") ("apple") ("pen")))
(define quantities '(1       2             3         5))

(pyret-for andmap ([thing things] [quantity quantities])
  (or (string-contains? (first thing) "apple")
      (odd? quantity)))

The pyret-for syntax, based on Pyret's for, can be used to invoke this kind of higher-order functions.

pyret-for additionally improves upon Pyret's for by allowing arbitrary match pattern.

(define things     '(("pen") ("pineapple") ("apple") ("pen")))
(define quantities '(1       2             3         5))

(pyret-for andmap ([(list thing) things] [quantity quantities])
  (or (string-contains? thing "apple")
      (odd? quantity)))

Macro

(require syntax/parse/define)

(define-syntax-parse-rule (pyret-for f:expr ([pat:expr arg:expr] ...) body:expr ...+)
  #:with (x ...) (generate-temporaries (attribute arg)) 
  (f (λ (x ...)
       (match-define pat x) ...
       body ...)
     arg ...))

Licence

MIT License / CC BY 4.0

[bennn]

Great idea! I really like how small the macro is.

I wonder if we can think of a clearer name. I like that pyret-for gives credit to Pyret and gives a hint about one good way to use this macro (for-style loops). But it doesn't say much about what's really going on ... and if we understood that, maybe we'd find other ways to use this macro.

polydot-apply ?
map-comprehension ?

[sorawee]

I'm not sure what "polydot" means.

comprehension could work, I think. I would avoid map-, since it supports more than map.

[bennn]

Oh, "polydot" is the local name for the polymorphic dotted (...) types that work for typing map fold etc. [1]. Typed Racket uses that name internally [link]. I don't know where else to find it in print.

Anyway, I was thinking that polydot-typed functions have something in common that makes them fit well with pyret-for .

But looking back at your original message, I see that filter also works well with pyret-for. So I guess "polydot" is too specific.

[1] Practical Variable Arity Polymorphism. ESOP 2009

[bennn]

Today I explained this pyret-for macro to a few people at Brown. While thinking about it, we came up with one way to generalize:

(apply/lambda f (arg-spec ...) body ...)

where arg-spec is one of:
- #:hole
- #:from [id expr]
- expr

and the sequence (arg-spec ....) has exactly one #:hole 

expands to:
(let ((g (lambda (id ...) body ...)))
  (apply f (convert/g arg-spec) ...))

where convert/g:
- replaces #:hole with g
- replaces #:from [id expr] with expr
- and leaves other expr alone

I like #:hole a lot. That'd help this macro work with foldl.

The other (non-#:from) arguments would be inputs to f that don't get passed along to the newly-built lambda.

[sorawee]

Like this?

#lang racket

(require syntax/parse/define
         (for-syntax racket/match
                     racket/list))

(begin-for-syntax
  (define-syntax-class arg-spec
    #:attributes ([tmp-id 1] gen-match-code expr)
    (pattern #:proc
             #:with (tmp-id ...) #'()
             #:with gen-match-code #'(begin)
             #:with expr #'the-function)
    (pattern [pat:expr #:from expr:expr]
             #:with (tmp-id ...) (generate-temporaries (list #'id))
             #:with gen-match-code #'(begin (match-define pat tmp-id) ...))
    (pattern expr:expr
             #:with (tmp-id ...) #'()
             #:with gen-match-code #'(begin)))

  (define (validate-proc-once args)
    (define proc-list
      (filter (λ (arg) (equal? '#:proc (syntax-e arg))) (syntax->list args)))
    (match (length proc-list)
      [1 #f]
      [0 args]
      [_ (first proc-list)])))

(define-syntax-parse-rule (apply/λ f:expr {~and args (arg:arg-spec ...+)} body:expr ...+)
  #:fail-when (validate-proc-once #'args) "#:proc must appear exactly once"
  (let ([the-function (λ ({~@ arg.tmp-id ...} ...)
                        arg.gen-match-code ...
                        body ...)])
    (f arg.expr ...)))

(apply/λ andmap (#:proc [(list x) #:from '((1) (2) (3))] [y #:from '(3 2 1)])
  (even? (+ x y)))

(define (hof offset xs proc)
  (+ offset (apply + (map proc xs))))

(apply/λ hof (100 [x #:from '(1 2 3)] #:proc)
  (* 2 x))

foldl and foldr unfortunately still couldn't be expressed with this generalization.

[bennn]

Ah! I didn't mean to make you implement it --- I thought we were just talking about possibilities.

That's awful about fold. I guess I'd want #:proc to take an (optional?) arg to give the order of parameters, but that screws up the match-define ....

;; ... something like this
(apply/λ foldl (#:proc (x* y acc) [acc #:from 0] [(list x) #:id x* #:from '((1) (2) (3))] [y #:from '(3 2 1)])
  (+ x y acc))

😞

[sorawee]

Actually, my version above also has a bug. I should check 'paren-shape for [<x> #:from <y>]. Otherwise, a function application (some-function #:from 123) will be parsed as a apply/λ binding.