TBH, I can't recall what the argument was against "Functor" either; I think
it had something to do with potentially confusing users of other libraries?
Functor
|_NullaryFunctor
|_UnaryFunctor
|_BinaryFunctor
*is* the current state. :) Now, when I woke up this morning I did so with
another concept floating around in my brain (it may be crazy, or not work):
interface Arity {
}
interface Argumented<A extends Arity> {
}
interface Unary<A> extends Arity {
}
interface UnaryFunction<A, T> extends Argumented<Unary<A>> {
}
Bear in mind the goal is to be able to inspect the type of a functor to
determine its arity (momentarily disregarding the fact that this goal is
seeming less worth the trouble all the while :P ). This approach would
make that a bit more complex, but still seemingly doable.
Thoughts?
Matt
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Benedikt Ritter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
>
> 2013/2/12 Bruno P. Kinoshita <[email protected]>
>
> > Hi Benedikt,
> >
> > Thanks for taking a look at the github repo and for posting your thoughts
> > here.
> >
> > If I understand it correctly, your concern is:
> >
> > - In the github repo, a BinaryFunction is a Binary, and a Binary is an
> > Arity.
> >
> > - But at same time, it is intuitive that a BinaryFunction "has" an arity,
> > which is binary.
>
>
> > Is that right? If so, I think it's a question of changing the
> > nomenclature. The issue started because in functional languages like
> > Haskell, a functor has a broader meaning (e.g.: a list is a functor in
> > Haskell [1]).
> >
>
> Yes, I guess it boils down to this :)
> As Matt has pointed out, there does not seem to be a name for the superset
> of things that have an arity and "SomethingThatHasArity" really is a bad
> name :)
>
>
> >
> > Maybe we could revert this changes, or find a better name? I thought
> about
> > something like Operation or Operator, but in project lambda, the
> interface
> > BinaryOperator extends BiFunction [2]. So maybe it would be confusing
> too,
> > if the user was used to Java 8 (assuming both interfaces are released
> with
> > Java 8).
>
>
> Yes, this may confuse users. Better prevent collisions with core java
> terminology.
>
>
> > What do you think? Back to Functors (and maybe document the difference
> > from haskell and [functor]?), or do you have some other name in mind?
> > Academics papers might be a good place to find a better name.
> >
>
> Sorry, as I'm no expert on functional programming I don't know the
> terminology in that domain. The question is, what is the superset of
> Predicates, Functions and Procedures (those are the concepts in [functor]
> that have an arity, right?).
>
> This superset seems to be "functor". I haven't understood yet, why you
> think it is a bad name.
>
> Again: If it practical to just call it Arity, then you should go ahead
> (pragmatism wins over oo purism ;-)
>
> Benedikt
>
>
> >
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > [1] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Applicative_Functors
> > [2]
> >
> http://download.java.net/lambda/b76/docs/api/java/util/function/BinaryOperator.html
> >
> > Bruno P. Kinoshita
> > http://kinoshita.eti.br
> > http://tupilabs.com
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Benedikt Ritter <[email protected]>
> > > To: Commons Developers List <[email protected]>
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:45 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [functor] Change default arity of Function, Predicate and
> > Procedure
> > >
> > > Hi Matt,
> > >
> > > 2013/2/12 Matt Benson <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >> Hi Benedikt,
> > >> So what you are pointing out is the "is a" vs. "has
> > > a" dichotomy? To an
> > >> extent, I see your point. I could argue that the semantics of the
> word
> > >> "implements" perhaps leaves a bit of so-called wiggle room on the
> > > is a/has
> > >> a subject.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now we are mixing things up. I was referring to the inheritance
> > > relationships between the interfaces.
> > >
> > > The java "implements" keyword is a different concept. Indeed, I'm
> > > not sure
> > > if it (or the notion of Interfaces) is part of the OO paradigm at all.
> > > There is an interesting paper about this topic (what are the core
> > conecpts
> > > of object orientation?) [1]...
> > >
> > > Anyway the reason I'm bringing this rather academic topic up is, that I
> > > believe that a clear object-orient design will lead to a better (=
> easier
> > > to understand) API. People will work with the API. They will browse the
> > > type hierarchy to understand how things are tied together.
> > > This will lead to situations like: "okay, I have a BinaryFunction...
> what
> > > is a BinaryFuncation? Ah, it's a Binary... what is a Binary? A Binary
> > seems
> > > to be an Arity... wait.. what?"
> > >
> > > Maybe I can make myself clearer by giving a less abstract example.
> > > Consider the following set of thinks: Cars, Trucks, Motorcycles.
> > > They all have wheels of some sort. How would you model this using
> > > Interfaces?
> > > I'm sure you wouldn't define an interface "Wheel" that is
> > > extended by Car,
> > > Truck and Motorcycle.
> > > Instead you would probably define "Vehicle" with a
> > > "getNumberOfWheels()"
> > > method and let Car, Truck and Motorcycle extend Vehicle.
> > > This is what I meant when I said "Arity is not a superset of
> > > functors". it
> > > is a property, like the number of Wheels is a property of all vehicles.
> > >
> > > Again, this is all very academic. If you see it fit to create Arity and
> > > have the different functors extend it, then do it :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >> This could devolve into a long discussion of the most
> > >> semantically correct place to use "implements Arity*" vs.
> > > "extends Arity*"
> > >> throughout the API, but the final result, IMO, is that the intent of
> > any
> > >> given concrete class is clear enough, and
> Arity|Nullary|Unary|Binary|ad
> > >> infinitum seems more convenient than e.g.
> > > "SomethingThatHasArity", etc.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I agree!
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Does that make sense?
> > >>
> > >
> > > As I said, I think pragmatism should win over OO purism :)
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Matt
> > >>
> > >
> > > Benedikt
> > >
> > > [1] http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1113040
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Benedikt Ritter <[email protected]
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Guys,
> > >> >
> > >> > I've had a look at the github repo and let me say at first that
> > > I'm no
> > >> > expert in functional programming. So maybe what I'm talking is
> > > complete
> > >> > nonsense :)
> > >> >
> > >> > From what I learned about the concept of arity at wikipedia it
> seems
> > > that
> > >> > an arity is a property of a functor.
> > >> > One could say: "A binary functor has an arity of two"
> > > (right?!)
> > >> >
> > >> > In the github repo you introduced an inheritance relationship
> between
> > >> > functors and arity.
> > >> > This maybe a good thing to do from a pracmatic POV because all
> > > functors
> > >> > share the fact that say have an arity.
> > >> >
> > >> > From an object oriented POV inheritance is more then pure reuse.
> When
> > >> > defining an inheritance relationship between concept Super and
> > concept
> > >> Sub
> > >> > we basically say "Every instance of Sub is also an instance of
> > > Super" or
> > >> > short "Every Sub is also a Super"
> > >> >
> > >> > Now coming back to functors you have introduced a relationship that
> > > says
> > >> > "Every BinaryFunction is a Binary and every Binary is an
> > > Arity".
> > >> > Keeping in mind that arity is only a property of a functor (rather
> > > than a
> > >> > superset) this seems strange (from an OO POV).
> > >> > But as I'm no expert on functional programming this maybe the
> > > right thing
> > >> > to do... :)
> > >> >
> > >> > just my 2 cents :)
> > >> > Benedikt
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > 2013/2/11 Bruno P. Kinoshita <[email protected]>
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Matt!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Great! I'll commit these changes tomorrow if there are no
> > > objections.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Bruno P. Kinoshita
> > >> > > http://kinoshita.eti.br
> > >> > > http://tupilabs.com
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > > > From: Matt Benson <[email protected]>
> > >> > > > To: Commons Developers List <[email protected]>
> > >> > > > Cc:
> > >> > > > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 8:39 PM
> > >> > > > Subject: Re: [functor] Change default arity of Function,
> > > Predicate
> > >> and
> > >> > > Procedure
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Hi Bruno,
> > >> > > > No objections here about the Arity interfaces. I see that
> > > your
> > >> > master
> > >> > > > branch also contains changes to migrate Unary* to * and * to
> > >> Nullary*.
> > >> > > > Personally I am satisfied to align with lambda/guava if
> > > noone else
> > >> > > objects.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > Matt
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Bruno P. Kinoshita <
> > >> > > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> Hi Matt, all,
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> I'm messing with [functor] in my GitHub mirror [1].
> > > You can find
> > >> the
> > >> > > >> commits in the master branch [2].
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> The Arity->Unary/Binary/Nullary interfaces look
> > > good. If there are
> > >> no
> > >> > > >> objections I would like to commit this change to the
> > > trunk in SVN.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> There are other changes that I'll omit in this
> > > commit, but will
> > >> start
> > >> > > > new
> > >> > > >> threads here in the mailing list :o)
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Thank you in advance!
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> [1] https://github.com/kinow/functor
> > >> > > >> [2] https://github.com/kinow/functor/commits/master
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Bruno P. Kinoshita
> > >> > > >> http://kinoshita.eti.br
> > >> > > >> http://tupilabs.com
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> >________________________________
> > >> > > >> > From: Bruno P. Kinoshita <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >> >To: Commons Developers List
> > > <[email protected]>; "
> > >> > > >> [email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >> >Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:58 PM
> > >> > > >> >Subject: Re: [functor] Change default arity of
> > > Function, Predicate
> > >> > and
> > >> > > >> Procedure
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >I think it makes sense and is clear what is does.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >I thought in using {arity}Operation, but in Java 8
> > > there are
> > >> > > interfaces
> > >> > > >> like BinaryOperator, and BinaryOperator extends
> > > BiFunction, so it
> > >> > > would be
> > >> > > >> confusing to users having something like interface
> > > BinaryFunction
> > >> > > extends
> > >> > > >> BinaryOperation in [functor].
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >Bruno P. Kinoshita
> > >> > > >> >http://kinoshita.eti.br
> > >> > > >> >http://tupilabs.com
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >----- Original Message -----
> > >> > > >> >> From: Matt Benson <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >> >> To: Bruno P. Kinoshita
> > > <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >> >> Cc: Commons Developers List
> > > <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:29 PM
> > >> > > >> >> Subject: Re: [functor] Change default arity of
> > > Function,
> > >> Predicate
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > >> Procedure
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >> What about:
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >> Arity (Marker)
> > >> > > >> >> |_Nullary extends Arity
> > >> > > >> >> |_Unary<A> extends Arity
> > >> > > >> >> |_Binary<L, R> extends Arity
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >> ?
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >> Matt
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Bruno P.
> > > Kinoshita <
> > >> > > >> >> [email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >>> In Haskell you define your functions and
> > > its arity.
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>> // nullary function
> > >> > > >> >>> a :: () => () -> String
> > >> > > >> >>> a = "Hello World"
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>> // unary function
> > >> > > >> >>> b :: (Integral c) => c -: String
> > >> > > >> >>> b x = "Hello Integral"
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>> I think in Clojure and Scala you can
> > > define the arity of the
> > >> > > > function
> > >> > > >> too.
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>> For the users of [functor] I think it
> > > would be easier to
> > >> > > > migrate their
> > >> > > >> >>> code to Java 8, or use it with Java 8, if
> > > both [functor] and
> > >> > > > Java 8
> > >> > > >> >>> Function classes had similar behaviour.
> > > That would be
> > >> > > > interesting
> > >> > > >> >>> especially if the lambda project provided
> > > a backport jar.
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>> [functor] and lambda project provide 1
> > > and 2 arities by
> > >> > > > default, but
> > >> > > >> >>> lambda doesn't provide nullary
> > > interfaces (or at least I
> > >> > > > couldn't
> > >> > > >> >> find them
> > >> > > >> >>> in java.util.functions).
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>> Cheers
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>> Bruno P. Kinoshita
> > >> > > >> >>> http://kinoshita.eti.br
> > >> > > >> >>> http://tupilabs.com
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > > >> >>> > From: Matt Benson
> > > <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >> >>> > To: Commons Developers List
> > >> > > > <[email protected]>; Bruno P.
> > >> > > >> >>> Kinoshita
> > > <[email protected]>
> > >> > > >> >>> > Cc:
> > >> > > >> >>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 8:57
> > > PM
> > >> > > >> >>> > Subject: Re: [functor] Change
> > > default arity of Function,
> > >> > > > Predicate
> > >> > > >> and
> > >> > > >> >>> Procedure
> > >> > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > >> >>> > What about in pure functional
> > > languages e.g. Haskell?
> > >> > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > >> >>> > Matt
> > >> > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > >> >>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:55 PM,
> > > Bruno P. Kinoshita <
> > >> > > >> >>> > [email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > >> >>> >> Hi all,
> > >> > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > >> >>> >> In Java 8 and Guava the default
> > > arity of a Function
> > >> > > > is 1, but in
> > >> > > >> >>> [functor]
> > >> > > >> >>> >> it is 0, IOW, in Java 8 and
> > > Guava a Function is by
> > >> > > > default a
> > >> > > >> >>> UnaryFunction,
> > >> > > >> >>> >> while in [functor] it is a
> > > NullaryFunction.
> > >> > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > >> >>> >> What do you guys think of
> > > changing the default
> > >> > > > arity of Function,
> > >> > > >> >>> >> Procedure and Predicate in
> > > [functor] to 1, rather
> > >> > > > than 0?
> > >> > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > >> >>> >> Cheers
> > >> > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > >> >>> >> Bruno P. Kinoshita
> > >> > > >> >>> >> http://kinoshita.eti.br
> > >> > > >> >>> >> http://tupilabs.com
> > >> > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> > > > [email protected]
> > >> > > >> >>> >> For additional commands,
> > > e-mail:
> > >> > > > [email protected]
> > >> > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > >> >>> >>
> > >> > > >> >>> >
> > >> > > >> >>>
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> >
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > [email protected]
> > >> > > >> >For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > [email protected]
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> > >> > http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> > >> > http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> > >> > http://github.com/britter
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> > > http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> > > http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> > > http://github.com/britter
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter
>
