Recursion Schemes, Part II: A Mob of Morphisms

On the last episode of this very-infrequently-updated analysis of Programming with Bananas, Lenses, Envelopes, and Barbed Wire, we took a look at how to represent and traverse nested structures. This time, we’ll start getting into the meat of the paper1. We’ll define two simple recursion schemes, explore how they relate to each other, and I’ll offer up some example sitations (both real-world and contrived) of situations that admit the use of recursion schemes.

We’ll start by defining a simple syntax tree, as we did last time.

{-# LANGUAGE DeriveFunctor #-}

data Expr a  
  = Literal { intVal :: Int }
  | Ident   { name :: String  }
  | Index   { target :: a, idx :: a }
  | Unary   { op :: String, target :: a }
  | Binary  { lhs :: a, op :: String, rhs :: a }
  | Call    { func :: a, args :: [a] }
  | Paren   { target :: a }
  deriving (Show, Eq, Functor)

We define two root constructors to represent the leaf nodes of the tree (Literal and Ident, wrapping Int and String values respectively) and five other constructors. Every position in which subexpressions may appear – the left-hand and right-hand sides to a binary operation, the target of a unary operation, the function and arguments in a function invocation – is represented by a value of type a, in terms of which Expr is defined2.

We use the DeriveFunctor GHC extension to provide a definition of the Functor typeclass for Expr, which provides us with an fmap function. fmap f, applied to a given Expr, applies f to each subexpression a, and is the identity function when passed a Literal or Ident value, as they contain no subexpressions.

At this point, we can represent expressions with no subexpressions with the type Expr (); for expressions at most one level of subexpressions, we can use Expr (Expr ()); for two, Expr (Expr (Expr ()), and so on and so forth. What we want is to represent an arbitrarily-nested Expr – in essence, an Expr (Expr (Expr (Expr ...))) – but, since Haskell doesn’t support infinite types, we have to resort to a least-fixed-point combinator. We call this combinator Term, with an In constructor and an out accessor function.

newtype Term f = In { out :: f (Term f) }

Now we represent arbitrarily-nestable Exprs with values of type Term Expr, obtained by applying the In constructor with a constructor from Expr3:

ten, add, call :: Term Expr  
ten  = In (Literal { intVal = 10 })  
add  = In (Ident { name = "add" })  
call = In (Call { func = add, args = [ten, ten]}) -- add(10, 10)

Using the >>> operator for left-to-right function composition, we expressed a generalized bottom-up traversal capable of operating on any data type that implements the Functor typeclass.

bottomUp :: Functor a => (Term a -> Term a) -> Term a -> Term a  
bottomUp fn =  
  out                    -- 1) unpack a `Term a` into an `a (Term a)`
  >>> fmap (bottomUp fn) -- 2) recurse, with fn, into the subterms
  >>> In                 -- 3) repack the `a (Term a)` into a `Term a`
  >>> fn                 -- 4) finally, apply fn to the packed `Term a`

While this is a pleasing and concise representation of bottom-up transformations, it’s not as powerful as it could be: specifically, fn is limited to taking and returning a value of type Term f. We could not use bottomUp to count the total number of subexpressions in a tree (going from Exprs to Ints), nor could we transform this tree to a DOM representation (Node), nor could we render a term into a pretty-printed representation (Doc).

This is a direct result of the third step above: after recursing into the data structure with fn in step #2, we stuff it into a Term using the In constructor in step #3 before passing it to fn. This forces fn to both take and return a Term. What if we wrote a version of bottomUp that omitted that particular call to In? Would it typecheck?

It does:

mystery fn =  
  out                   -- 1) unpack the Term
  >>> fmap (mystery fn) -- 2) recursively apply `fn`
  >>> fn                -- 3) apply `fn`

Loading this function in ghci and querying its type yields the following result:

λ> :t mystery  
mystery :: Functor f => (f a -> a) -> Term f -> a

Cool. How does this work?


Let’s take a closer look at that first parameter:

Functor f => (f a -> a)

This is a function type, taking as input a container4 f of values of type a and returning a bare value of type a. If we wanted to write a countNodes function that counts (as an Int) the number of subexpressions within a given Term Expr, f would be equal to Expr (which has a Functor instance), and a would be Int.

countNodes :: Expr Int -> Int

The crucial element of understanding this function is its first parameter, here Expr Int. It captures an Expr in the process of transformation – because subexpressions (the lhs and rhs field of Binary, the func and args fields of Call) were represented as values of the parameterized type a, we can capture the bottom-up nature of transformation in the type itself. This means that each case for countNodes is easy to express: merely add 1 to the sum of all the contained subexpressions.

countNodes (Unary _ arg)         = arg + 1  
countNodes (Binary left _ right) = left + right + 1  
countNodes (Call fn args)        = fn + sum args + 1  
countNodes (Index it idx)        = it + idx + 1  
countNodes (Paren arg)           = arg + 1

And our base case for this transformation falls out easily: Literal and Ident have no subexpressions, so they just return 1:

countNodes (Literal _) = 1  
countNodes (Ident   _) = 1

Applying mystery countNodes to our example add(10, 10) datum should yield 4. Does it?

λ> mystery countNodes call  


I had a major mental block in understanding when, in fact, the countNodes function was actually called, and how mystery managed to recurse as deeply as possible into the passed structure. The key lies in the invocation of fmap within mystery:

fmap (mystery fn)

Because fmap f applies f to each subexpression within an Expr, mystery starts out by recursing as deeply as possible into the Term it is passed, since it calls itself recursively with fmap. It’s almost magical how mystery “knows” how to stop recursing – but it lies in the definition of fmap. fmap mystery is the identity function over Literal and Ident values, as they do not contain any subexpressions. At this point, mystery stops recursing, applies the function f, and returns into its previous invocations. As the stack unwinds, fn gets applied to the next-highest node in the tree, then the next, then the next, until all the original Expr values are gone and we yield only an a. It all comes down to the capabilities of fmap – from a straightforward purpose and declaration emerges a deep and subtle way to fold over a structure.

Indeed, functions of type f a -> a are so ubiquitous that we refer to them by their own name:

type Algebra f a = f a -> a

When you see a value of type Algebra f a, know that it’s a function from a container f to a collapsed value a. We could rewrite the type signature of the above countNodes function to use it:

countNodes :: Algebra Expr Int

The use of the term “algebra” to in this context may seen a bit discomfiting. Most people use the term “algebra” to describe manipulating numerical expressions (as well as the associated drudgery of childhood math courses). Why are we overloading this term to represent a class of functions?

The etymology of “algebra” can shed some light on this—it stems from the Arabic root جبر, jabr, which means “restoration” or “reunion”. An algebra is a function that reunites a container of a’s—an f a—into a single accumulated a value.


So, now that we have a grasp on what an algebra is and why we’re calling it that, let’s rewrite the type signature of mystery using the Algebra type synonym.

mystery :: (Functor f) => Algebra f a -> Term f -> a

This mystery function is known as a catamorphism, usually given the name cata:

cata :: (Functor f) => Algebra f a -> Term f -> a  
cata f = out >>> fmap (cata f) >>> f

Again, though the term “catamorphism” may seem needlessly arcane, its etymology both simplifies and clarifies its purpose: the “cata” in “catamorphism” is the same “cata” in “catastrophe”, “catabolism”, and “catalyst”—from the Greek κατα, meaning “downwards”, “into”, or “collapse”. Just as a catastophe is an unlucky event that tears things down, and catabolism is the collapse of muscle fibers, a catamorphism uses an algebra (a reunion) to collapse a container of values into a single value.

If you’re reminded of the fold operation on lists, you’re on the right track: a list fold (specifically foldr5) is merely a catamorphism limited to operate on lists (the [] type, the archetypal Functor). That’s the essence of catamorphisms: they’re generalized fold operations, applicable to any functor—not just lists—all without having to write a line of boilerplate traversals and without sacrificing a mote of type safety.

Another excellent example of catamorphisms is pretty-printers for trees. If the representation you require of a tree type can be expressed in a purely bottom-up manner – that is to say, it requires no information about the original structure of the tree being transformed – you can express pretty-printing functions in a truly wonderfully concise manner. (Spoiler alert: later on, we’ll figure out how to do this even when you need access to the original structure.) We can describe a pretty-printing algebra from Expr to Doc, an abstract document type provided by the Text.PrettyPrint module.

import Text.PrettyPrint (Doc)  
import qualified Text.PrettyPrint as P

prettyPrint :: Algebra Expr Doc

Again, expanding the type synonym yields us a function type, going from Exprs with values of type Doc as their subexpressions, out to a final Doc value. These values represent the leaves of the nodes that have already been pretty-printed.

prettyPrint :: Expr Doc -> Doc

Our base cases are straightforward:

prettyPrint (Literal i) = i  
prettyPrint (Ident s) = P.text s

And our inductively-defined cases are beautifully clutter-free:

prettyPrint (Call f as)     = f <> P.parens (P.punctuate "," as)   -- f(a,b...)  
prettyPrint (Index it idx)  = it <> P.brackets idx                 -- a[b]  
prettyPrint (Unary op it)   = (P.text op) <> it                    -- op x  
prettyPrint (Binary l op r) = l <> (P.text op) <> r                -- lhs op rhs  
prettyPrint (Paren exp)     = P.parens exp                         -- (op)

Applying prettyPrint to our example call datum should yield a nice representation:

λ> cata prettyPrint call  

One final detail: we can represent our bottomUp function in terms of cata. Indeed, bottomUp f is just cata f, with the additional step of stuffing the accumulator value into a Term with In before handing it off to f:

bottomUp f = cata (In >>> f)


In the last post, we defined a corresponding topDown method, the opposite of bottomUp. Furthermore, we did so by “reversing the arrows” in bottomUp: we changed the left-to-right composition operator >>> to its flipped <<< (which is equivalent to the . operator), and we flipped around all invocations of out to In and In to out.

bottomUp f = out >>> fmap (bottomUp f) >>> In  >>> f  
topDown  f = In  <<< fmap (topDown  f) <<< out <<< f

By applying this “reversing the arrows” trick, we managed to express the duality between bottom-up and top-down traversals. So what happens if we do the same to our definition of cata? Does it typecheck?

cata f = out >>> fmap (cata f) >>> f

-- reverse the arrows: >>> becomes <<<. and out becomes In

what f = In <<< fmap (what f) <<< f

You’re damn right it does. What’s its type signature?

what :: (Functor f) => (a -> f a) -> a -> Term f

Just as when we yielded a top-down traversal by reversing a bottom-up one, we yield an unfold when we reverse the arrows in our generalized fold function. Again, let’s take a look at the type of the first parameter, the unfolding function:

Functor f => (a -> f a)

Similar to our Algebra type a -> f a, right? Exactly the same, except the direction of the function arrow has reversed: whereas algebras are mappings from f a to a, this new function type maps as to f as. We call this function type a coalgebra.

type Coalgebra f a = a -> f a

We call the what an anamorphism – the “ana” prefix, meaning “building”, is the opposite of “cata”. Just like cata generalized fold from lists to any Functor, ana generalizes unfold to any Functor.

ana :: (Functor f) => Coalgebra f a -> a -> Term f  
ana = f = In <<< fmap (ana f) <<< f

If we thought about algebras as reunions, we can think about coalgebras as disassembly or dispersion. We’re taking one established a value and stuffing it inside a context f. If that f is Maybe, then we’re allowing for the possibility that no value will be present; if that f is [], the list monad, it means we’re allowing there to be zero or more results. (Extremely alert readers of the Typeclassopedia will notice that Algebra and Coalgebra are extraordinarily similar to the Pointed and Copointed typeclasses. Bully for you if you noticed that.)

Was That Really So Hard?

Thanks very much for Rob Rix for encouraging me to publish this.

On a personal note, I am deeply grateful for all the comments I’ve received thus far, both complimentary and constructive.

In part 3, we explore the limits of catamorphisms, and address these limits with paramorphisms and apomorphisms.

  1. By “meat of the paper”, I mean “the first two pages”. Have patience.

  2. In other words, Expr is an inductively-defined data type of kind * -> *.

  3. Packages like compdata provide Template Haskell magic to avoid the syntactic clutter associated with applying the In constructor everywhere: given our above definition of Expr, we could use the smartConstructors splice to generate iLiteral, iIdent, iUnary, etc. functions, each of which are straightforward compositions of the constructors of Expr with the In fixed-point operator.

  4. The purists in the audience are no doubt cringing at my use of “container” to describe the capabilities of a Functor. As the Typeclassopedia points out, Functors are broader than just containing values: the best phrase for a Functor f => f a is “a value a within some computational context f”. That doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, though, so I will be using ‘container’ throughout. Sorry, purists. (But I already lost you with my hand-wavy treatment of least-fixed-points and codata last time.)

  5. Digression: Some of you may be wondering “if the catamorphism applied to lists is equivalent to foldr, what’s the analogous construct for foldl?” This is somewhat of a trick question, as foldl can be expressed in terms of foldr, as Oleg demonstrates.