Explicit Binds: Effortless Efficiency with and without Trees

  • Tarmo Uustalu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7294)

Abstract

We demonstrate a simple and robust program transformation technique that can improve asymptotic time complexity of data-manipulating programs (e.g., produce a linear-time list reversal function from the obvious quadratic one). In the version of the present paper, it applies to monadic inductive datatypes and can be stated in two flavors, through a datatype representation, with an explicit (“frozen”) bind constructor and a special associated defining clause for the fold function, and in a functional form (generalized Church numerals), with a special definition of the bind function in terms of the build constructor. The technique explicates, systematizes, combines and scales a number of ideas known from the literature, achieving a new level of generality.

Keywords

Leaf Tree Program Transformation Monoid Structure Tree Transducer Explicit Substitution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi, M., Cardelli, L., Curien, P.-L., Levy, J.-J.: Explicit substitutions. J. of Funct. Program. 1(4), 375–416 (1991)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fegaras, L.: Using the parametricity theorem for program fusion. Tech. report CSE-96-001. Oregon Grad. Inst. (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghani, N., Johann, P.: Short cut fusion for effects. In: Achten, P., Koopman, P., Morazán, M. (eds.) Trends in Functional Programming, vol. 9, pp. 113–128. Intellect, Bristol (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghani, N., Uustalu, T., Vene, V.: Build, Augment and Destroy, Universally. In: Chin, W.-N. (ed.) APLAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3302, pp. 327–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghani, N., Uustalu, T., Vene, V.: Generalizing the augment combinator. In: Loidl, H.-W. (ed.) Trends in Functional Programming, vol. 5, pp. 65–78. Intellect, Bristol (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gill, A.: Cheap Deforestation for Non-strict Functional Languages. PhD thesis. University of Glasgow (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gill, A., Hutton, G.: The worker/wrapper transformation. J. of Funct. Program. 19(2), 227–251 (2009)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gill, A., Launchbury, J., Peyton Jones, S.L.: A short cut to deforestation. In: Conf. Record of 6th ACM SIGPLAN/SIGARCH Int. Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, FPCA 1993, Copenhagen, pp. 223–232. ACM Press, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hughes, J.: A novel representation of lists and its application to the function ‘reverse’. Inf. Process. Lett. 22(3), 141–144 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hutton, G., Jaskelioff, M., Gill, A.: Factorising folds for faster functions. J. of Funct. Program. 20(3-4), 353–373 (2010)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johann, P.: A generalization of short-cut fusion and its correctness proof. Higher-Order and Symb. Comput. 15(4), 273–300 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johann, P.: Short-cut fusion is correct. J. of Funct. Program. 13(4), 797–814 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jürgensen, C., Vogler, H.: Syntactic composition of top-down tree transducers is short cut fusion. Math. Struct. in Comput. Sci. 14(2), 215–282 (2004)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kmett, E.: Kan extensions 1–3. Posts on the author’s blog ‘The Comonad.Reader’ (2008), http://comonad.com/reader/
  15. 15.
    Kmett, E.: Free monads for less 1–3. Posts on the author’s blog ‘The Comonad.Reader’ (2011), http://comonad.com/reader/
  16. 16.
    Kühnemann, A.: Comparison of Deforestation Techniques for Functional Programs and for Tree Transducers. In: Middeldorp, A., Sato, T. (eds.) FLOPS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1722, pp. 114–130. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kühnemann, A., Maletti, A.: The Substitution Vanishes. In: Johnson, M., Vene, V. (eds.) AMAST 2006. LNCS, vol. 4019, pp. 173–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manzino, C., Pardo, A.: Shortcut fusion of monadic programs. J. of Univ. Comput. Sci. 14(21), 3431–3446 (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pavlovic, D.: Logic of build fusion. Techn. report KES.U.00.9. Kestrel Inst. (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peyton Jones, S.L., Launchbury, J.: Unboxed Values as First Class Citizens in a Non-strict Functional Language. In: Hughes, J. (ed.) FPCA 1991. LNCS, vol. 523, pp. 636–666. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seidel, D., Voigtländer, J.: Improvements for free. In: Massink, M., Norman, G. (eds.) Proc. of 9th Wksh. on Quantitative Aspects of Programming Languages, QAPL 2011, Saarbrücken. Electron. Proc. in Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 57, pp. 89–103. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Svenningsson, J.: Shortcut fusion for accumulating parameters & zip-like functions. In: Proc. of 7th ACM SIGPLAN Int. Conf. on Functional Programming, ICFP 2002, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 124–132. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takano, A., Meijer, E.: Shortcut deforestation in calculational form. In: Conf. Record of 7th ACM SIGPLAN/SIGARCH Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, FPCA 1995, La Jolla, pp. 306–316. ACM Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uustalu, T.: Generalizing substitution. Theor. Inform. and Appl. 37(4), 315–336 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uustalu, T., Vene, V.: The Essence of Dataflow Programming. In: Horváth, Z. (ed.) CEFP 2005. LNCS, vol. 4164, pp. 135–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Voigtländer, J.: Asymptotic Improvement of Computations over Free Monads. In: Audebaud, P., Paulin-Mohring, C. (eds.) MPC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5133, pp. 388–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Voigtländer, J.: Concatenate, reverse and map vanish for free. In: Proc. of 7th Int. Conf. on Functional Programming, ICFP 2002, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 14–25. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wadler, P.: Deforestation: transforming programs to eliminate trees. Theor. Comput. Sci. 73(2), 231–248 (1990)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wadler, P.: Recursive types for free! Unpublished note (1990)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wadler, P.: The concatenate vanishes. Unpublished note (1987, updated 1989)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wadler, P.: Theorems for free! In: Proc. of 4th Int. Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, FPCA 1989, London, pp. 347–359. ACM Press, New York (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tarmo Uustalu
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of CyberneticsTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations