I am always interested in learning new languages, a fact that keeps me on my toes and makes me (I believe) a better programmer. My attempts at conquering Haskell come and go - twice so far - and I decided it was time to try again. 3rd time's the charm, right?

Nope. I re-read my old notes... and get disappointed :-(

The problem that made me lose faith last time, was an easy one: permutations of integers. i.e. from a list of integers, to a list of lists - a list of their permutations:

[int] -> [[int]]

This is in fact a generic problem, so replacing 'int' above with 'a', would still apply.

From my notes:

I code it first on my own, I succeed. Hurrah!

I send my solution to a good friend of mine - Haskell guru, it usually helps to learn from gurus - and he sends me this, which I am told, "expresses the true power of the language, the use of generic facilities to code your needs". All for it, I recently drank the kool-aid, let's go:

permute :: [a] -> [[a]] permute = foldr (concatMap.ins) [[]] where ins x [] = [[x]] ins x (y:ys) = (x:y:ys):[ y:res | res <- ins x ys]

Hmm. Let's break this down:

bash$ cat b.hs ins x [] = [[x]] ins x (y:ys) = (x:y:ys):[ y:res | res <- ins x ys] bash$ ghci Prelude> :load b.hs [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( b.hs, interpreted ) Ok, modules loaded: Main. *Main> ins 1 [2,3] [[1,2,3],[2,1,3],[2,3,1]]

OK, so far, so good. Took me a minute to understand the second line of "ins", but OK: It places the 1st arg in all possible positions in the list. Cool.

Now, to understand the foldr and concatMap. in "Real world Haskell", the DOT was explained...

(f . g) x

...as just another syntax for...

f (g x)

And in the code the guru sent, DOT was used from a foldr, with the "ins" function as the fold "collapse":

*Main> let g=concatMap . ins *Main> g 1 [[2,3]] [[1,2,3],[2,1,3],[2,3,1]]

OK, since I want to understand how the DOT is used by the guru, I try the equivalent expression according to the DOT definition, (f . g) x = f (g x) ...

*Main> concatMap (ins 1 [[2,3]]) <interactive>:1:11: Couldn't match expected type `a -> [b]' against inferred type `[[[t]]]' In the first argument of `concatMap', namely `(ins 1 [[2, 3]])' In the expression: concatMap (ins 1 [[2, 3]]) In the definition of `it': it = concatMap (ins 1 [[2, 3]])

What!?! Why? OK, I check concatMap's signature, and find that it needs a lambda and a list, but that's just a human thinking; how does GHC cope? According to the definition of DOT above...

(f.g)x = f(g x),

...what I did was valid, replace-wise:

(concatMap . ins) x y = concatMap (ins x y)

Scratching head...

*Main> concatMap (ins 1) [[2,3]] [[1,2,3],[2,1,3],[2,3,1]]

So... The DOT explanation was apparently too simplistic... DOT must be somehow clever enough to understand that we in fact wanted "ins" to get curri-ed away and "eat" the first argument - thus becoming a function that only wants to operate on [t] (and "intersperse" them with '1' in all possible positions).

But where was this specified? How did GHC knew to do this, when we invoked:

*Main> (concatMap . ins) 1 [[2,3]] [[1,2,3],[2,1,3],[2,3,1]]

Did the "ins" signature somehow conveyed this... "eat my first argument" policy?

*Main> :info ins ins :: t -> [t] -> [[t]] -- Defined at b.hs:1:0-2

I don't see nothing special - "ins" is a function that takes a 't', a list of 't', and proceeds to create a list with all "interspersals". Nothing about "eat your first argument and curry it away".

So there... I am baffled. I understand (after an hour of looking at the code!) what goes on, but... God almighty... Perhaps GHC makes attempts to see how many arguments it can "peel off"?

let's try with no argument "curried" into "ins", oh gosh, boom, let's try with one argument "curried" into "ins", yep, works, that must be it, proceed)

Again - yikes...

And since I am always comparing the languages I am learning with what I already know, how would "ins" look in Python?

a=[2,3] print [a[:x]+[1]+a[x:] for x in xrange(len(a)+1)] [[1, 2, 3], [2, 1, 3], [2, 3, 1]]

Be honest, now... which is simpler?

I mean, I know I am a newbie in Haskell, but I feel like an idiot... Looking at 4 lines of code for an hour, and ending up assuming that the compiler... tries various interpretations until it finds something that "clicks"?

To quote from Lethal weapon, "I am too old for this"...