Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Post History

66%
+2 −0
Q&A How to implement `map` using the fish (>=>, Kleisli composition) operator in F#?

Is there a "cleaner" implementation similar to map's? Yes: let map f = id >=> switch f This follows from two of your other equations: map f = bind (switch f) g >=> h = g >...

posted 1mo ago by r~~‭  ·  edited 1mo ago by r~~‭

Answer
#4: Post edited by user avatar r~~‭ · 2024-04-04T04:02:38Z (about 1 month ago)
  • > Is there a "cleaner" implementation similar to `map`'s?
  • Yes:
  • ```
  • let map f = id >=> switch f
  • ```
  • This follows from two of your other equations:
  • ```
  • map f = bind (switch f)
  • g >=> h = g >> bind h
  • ```
  • So if you want to get `bind (switch f)` out of `(>=>)`, you can start by making `h = switch f`, then get rid of the superfluous composition by letting `g` be `id` and you're done.
  • ```
  • g >=> h = g >> bind h <------ (h = switch f)
  • = g >=> switch f = g >> bind (switch f)
  • = g >=> switch f = g >> map f <------ (g = id)
  • = id >=> switch f = id >> bind (switch f)
  • ```
  • > Is there a "cleaner" implementation similar to `map`'s?
  • Yes:
  • ```
  • let map f = id >=> switch f
  • ```
  • This follows from two of your other equations:
  • ```
  • map f = bind (switch f)
  • g >=> h = g >> bind h
  • ```
  • So if you want to get `bind (switch f)` out of `(>=>)`, you can start by making `h = switch f`, then get rid of the superfluous composition by letting `g` be `id` and you're done.
  • ```
  • g >=> h = g >> bind h <------ (h = switch f)
  • g >=> switch f = g >> bind (switch f)
  • g >=> switch f = g >> map f <------ (g = id)
  • id >=> switch f = id >> map f
  • id >=> switch f = map f
  • ```
#3: Post edited by user avatar toraritte‭ · 2024-04-03T16:21:24Z (about 1 month ago)
  • > Is there a "cleaner" implementation similar to `map`'s?
  • Yes:
  • ```
  • let map f = id >=> switch f
  • ```
  • This follows from two of your other equations:
  • ```
  • map f = bind (switch f)
  • g >=> h = g >> bind h
  • ```
  • So if you want to get `bind (switch f)` out of `(>=>)`, you can start by making `h = switch f`, and then you have `g >=> switch f = g >> bind (switch f) = g >> map f`. Get rid of the superfluous composition by letting `g` be `id` and you're done.
  • > Is there a "cleaner" implementation similar to `map`'s?
  • Yes:
  • ```
  • let map f = id >=> switch f
  • ```
  • This follows from two of your other equations:
  • ```
  • map f = bind (switch f)
  • g >=> h = g >> bind h
  • ```
  • So if you want to get `bind (switch f)` out of `(>=>)`, you can start by making `h = switch f`, then get rid of the superfluous composition by letting `g` be `id` and you're done.
  • ```
  • g >=> h = g >> bind h <------ (h = switch f)
  • = g >=> switch f = g >> bind (switch f)
  • = g >=> switch f = g >> map f <------ (g = id)
  • = id >=> switch f = id >> bind (switch f)
  • ```
#2: Post edited by user avatar r~~‭ · 2024-04-02T23:14:54Z (about 1 month ago)
  • > Is there a "cleaner" implementation similar to `map`'s?
  • Yes:
  • ```
  • let map f = id >=> switch f
  • ```
  • > Is there a "cleaner" implementation similar to `map`'s?
  • Yes:
  • ```
  • let map f = id >=> switch f
  • ```
  • This follows from two of your other equations:
  • ```
  • map f = bind (switch f)
  • g >=> h = g >> bind h
  • ```
  • So if you want to get `bind (switch f)` out of `(>=>)`, you can start by making `h = switch f`, and then you have `g >=> switch f = g >> bind (switch f) = g >> map f`. Get rid of the superfluous composition by letting `g` be `id` and you're done.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar r~~‭ · 2024-04-02T21:02:56Z (about 1 month ago)
> Is there a "cleaner" implementation similar to `map`'s?

Yes:

```
let map f = id >=> switch f
```