How to implement a function using bind (>>=) - list

I wrote a filter function:
f :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
f p xs = case xs of
[] -> []
x : xs' -> if p x
then x : f p xs'
else f p xs'
To understand bind, I want to implement this using bind.
What I was thinking about:
f p xs = xs >>= (\x xs -> if p x then x : f p xs else f p xs)
But I get this error:
* Couldn't match expected type `[a]' with actual type `[a] -> [a]'
* The lambda expression `\ x xs -> ...' has two arguments,
but its type `a -> [a]' has only one
In the second argument of `(>>=)', namely
`(\ x xs -> if p x then x : f p xs else f p xs)'
In the expression:
xs >>= (\ x xs -> if p x then x : f p xs else f p xs)
* Relevant bindings include
xs :: [a] (bound at <interactive>:104:5)
p :: a -> Bool (bound at <interactive>:104:3)
f :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a] (bound at <interactive>:104:1)
Successfully did it using foldr:
f p xs = foldr (\x xs -> if p x then x : f p xs else f p xs) [] xs
What's going wrong?

To understand bind, i want to implement this as bind.
There is no bind here. The bind is added in case of a do expression. The above is not a do-expression, so there is no bind here.
You can however write this with bind, like:
f p xs = xs >>= \x -> if p x then [x] else []
but this is not a literal mapping of the original function, we simply make use of the instance Monad [] implementation here. Nevertheless, your f is just filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a] here.

To understand bind, first implement the no-op:
id_list xs = concat [ [x] | x <- xs ] = [ y | x <- xs, y <- [x ] ]
Now for the filter, augment it as
filter p xs = concat [ [x | p x] | x <- xs ] = [ y | x <- xs, y <- [x | p x] ]
How is this code using bind, you ask? If we're using MonadComprehensions, it does.
The explicit do-notation re-write is straightforward:
id_list xs = do { x <- xs ; y <- [ x ] ; return y }
filter p xs = do { x <- xs ; y <- [ x | p x] ; return y }
And of course, for lists,
[x] == return x
[x | p x] == if p x then return x else mzero
mzero == []
concat == join
This brings us back to an explicitly recursive way to code filter as
filter p [] = []
filter p (x:xs) = [x | p x] ++ filter p xs
With bind, we think in terms of transforming each element of the list individually, into the list of results (none, one, or several) for that one input element. Your foldr-based code breaks this.
So, the code itself is just
filter_bind p xs = xs >>= (\x -> [x | p x])
because we have
xs >>= f == join (fmap f xs)
== concat (map f xs)
== concat [ f x | x <- xs ]
== foldr (++) []
[ f x | x <- xs ]
with the last snippet corresponding to the explicitly recursive definition above.
See also
How does the List monad work in this example?
Haskell Monad - How does Monad on list work?
etc.

Related

Understanding function which implements foldr and foldl

There is some case where I don't understand how foldr and foldl are used in function.
Here is a couple of example, I then explain why I don't understand them:
-- Two implementation of filter and map
map' f = foldr (\x acc -> (f x):acc) []
map'' f xs = foldl (\acc x -> acc ++ [(f x)]) [] xs
filter' f xs = foldr(\x acc -> if(f x) then x:acc else acc) [] xs
filter'' f = foldl(\acc x -> if(f x) then acc++[x] else acc) []
Why does map'' makes the use of xs but non map'? Shouldn't map' need a list for the list comprehension formula as well?
Same case for filter' vs filter''.
Here is an implementation which insert elements in a sorted sequence:
insert e [] = [e]
insert e (x:xs)
| e > x = x: insert e xs
| otherwise = e:x:xs
sortInsertion xs = foldr insert [] xs
sortInsertion'' xs = foldl (flip insert) [] xs
Why are the argument for insert flipped in sortInsertion ([] xs) (empty list and list) compare to the definition of insert(e []) (element and empty list)
Why does map'' makes the use of xs but non map'? Shouldn't map' need a list for the list comprehension formula as well? Same case for filter' vs filter''.
This is called “eta-reduction” and it’s a common way of omitting redundant parameter names (“point-free style”). Essentially whenever you have a function whose body is just an application of a function to its argument, you can reduce away the argument:
add :: Int -> Int -> Int
add x y = x + y
-- “To add x and y, call (+) on x and y.”
add :: (Int) -> (Int) -> (Int)
add x y = ((+) x) y
-- “To add x, call (+) on x.”
add :: (Int) -> (Int -> Int)
add x = (+) x
-- “To add, call (+).”
add :: (Int -> Int -> Int)
add = (+)
More precisely, if you have f x = g x where x does not appear in g, then you can write f = g.
A common mistake is then wondering why f x = g . h x can’t be written as f = g . h. It doesn’t fit the pattern because the (.) operator is the top-level expression in the body of f: it’s actually f x = (.) g (h x). You can write this as f x = (((.) g) . h) x and then reduce it to f = (.) g . h or f = fmap g . h using the Functor instance for ->, but this isn’t considered very readable.
Why are the argument for insert flipped in sortInsertion
The functional parameters of foldr and foldl have different argument order:
foldr :: Foldable t => (a -> b -> b) -> b -> t a -> b
foldl :: Foldable t => (b -> a -> b) -> b -> t a -> b
Or, with more verbose type variable names:
foldr
:: (Foldable container)
=> (element -> accumulator -> accumulator)
-> accumulator -> container element -> accumulator
foldl
:: (Foldable container)
=> (accumulator -> element -> accumulator)
-> accumulator -> container element -> accumulator
This is just a mnemonic for the direction that the fold associates:
foldr f z [a, b, c, d]
==
f a (f b (f c (f d z))) -- accumulator on the right (second argument)
foldl f z [a, b, c, d]
==
f (f (f (f z a) b) c) d -- accumulator on the left (first argument)
That is partial function application.
map' f = foldr (\x acc -> (f x):acc) []
is just the same as
map' f xs = foldr (\x acc -> (f x):acc) [] xs
if you omit xs on both sides.
However, beside this explanation, I think you need a beginner book for Haskell. Consider LYAH.

Understanding the list monad [duplicate]

In order to understand Monad, I came up with the following definitions:
class Applicative' f where
purea :: a -> f a
app :: f (a->b) -> f a -> f b
class Applicative' m => Monadd m where
(>>|) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
instance Applicative' [] where
purea x = [x]
app gs xs = [g x | g <- gs, x <- xs]
instance Monadd [] where
(>>|) xs f = [ y | x <-xs, y <- f x]
It works as expected:
(>>|) [1,2,3,4] (\x->[(x+1)])
[2,3,4,5]
I am not sure how it is working though.
For example:
[ y | y <- [[1],[2]]]
[[1],[2]]
How does application (\x->([x+1]) to each list element of [1,2,3] result in [2,3,4] and not [[2],[3],[4]]
Or quite simply my confusion seems to stem from not understanding how this statement [ y | x <-xs, y <- f x] actually works
Wadler, School of Haskell, LYAH, HaskellWiki, Quora and many more describe the list monad.
Compare:
(=<<) :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b for lists with
concatMap :: (a -> [b]) -> [a] -> [b] for m = [].
The regular (>>=) bind operator has the arguments flipped, but is otherwise just an infix concatMap.
Or quite simply my confusion seems to stem from not understanding how this statement actually works:
(>>|) xs f = [ y | x <- xs, y <- f x ]
Since list comprehensions are equivalent to the Monad instance for lists, this definition is kind of cheating. You're basically saying that something is a Monadd in the way that it's a Monad, so you're left with two problems: Understanding list comprehensions, and still understanding Monad.
List comprehensions can be de-sugared for a better understanding:
Removing syntactic sugar: List comprehension in Haskell
In your case, the statement could be written in a number of other ways:
Using do-notation:
(>>|) xs f = do x <- xs
y <- f x
return y
De-sugared into using the (>>=) operator:
(>>|) xs f = xs >>= \x ->
f x >>= \y ->
return y
This can be shortened (one rewrite per line):
(>>|) xs f = xs >>= \x -> f x >>= \y -> return y -- eta-reduction
≡ (>>|) xs f = xs >>= \x -> f x >>= return -- monad identity
≡ (>>|) xs f = xs >>= \x -> f x -- eta-reduction
≡ (>>|) xs f = xs >>= f -- prefix operator
≡ (>>|) xs f = (>>=) xs f -- point-free
≡ (>>|) = (>>=)
So from using list comprehensions, you haven't really declared a new definition, you're just relying on the existing one. If you wanted, you could instead define your instance Monadd [] without relying on existing Monad instances or list comprehensions:
Using concatMap:
instance Monadd [] where
(>>|) xs f = concatMap f xs
Spelling that out a little more:
instance Monadd [] where
(>>|) xs f = concat (map f xs)
Spelling that out even more:
instance Monadd [] where
(>>|) [] f = []
(>>|) (x:xs) f = let ys = f x in ys ++ ((>>|) xs f)
The Monadd type class should have something similar to return. I'm not sure why it's missing.
Monads are often easier understood with the “mathematical definition”, than with the methods of the Haskell standard class. Namely,
class Applicative' m => Monadd m where
join :: m (m a) -> m a
Note that you can implement the standard version in terms of this, vice versa:
join mma = mma >>= id
ma >>= f = join (fmap f ma)
For lists, join (aka concat) is particularly simple:
join :: [[a]] -> [a]
join xss = [x | xs <- xss, x <- xs] -- xss::[[a]], xs::[a]
-- join [[1],[2]] ≡ [1,2]
For the example you find confusing, you'd have
[1,2,3,4] >>= \x->[(x+1)]
≡ join $ fmap (\x->[(x+1)]) [1,2,3,4]
≡ join [[1+1], [2+1], [3+1], [4+1]]
≡ join [[2],[3],[4],[5]]
≡ [2,3,4,5]
List comprehensions are just like nested loops:
xs >>| foo = [ y | x <- xs, y <- foo x]
-- = for x in xs:
-- for y in (foo x):
-- yield y
Thus we have
[1,2,3,4] >>| (\x -> [x, x+10])
=
[ y | x <- [1,2,3,4], y <- (\x -> [x, x+10]) x]
=
[ y | x <- [1] ++ [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[ y | x <- [1], y <- [x, x+10]] ++ [ y | x <- [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]] -- (*)
=
[ y | y <- [1, 1+10]] ++ [ y | x <- [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[ y | y <- [1]] ++ [ y | y <- [11]] ++ [ y | x <- [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[1] ++ [11] ++ [ y | x <- [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[1, 11] ++ [2, 12] ++ [ y | x <- [3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[1, 11] ++ [2, 12] ++ [3, 13] ++ [ y | x <- [4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[1, 11] ++ [2, 12] ++ [3, 13] ++ [4, 14]
The crucial step is marked (*). You can take it as the definition of what list comprehensions are.
A special case is when the foo function returns a singleton list, like in your question. Then it is indeed tantamount to mapping, as each element in the input list is turned into one (transformed) element in the output list.
But list comprehensions are more powerful. An input element can also be turned conditionally into no elements (working as a filter), or several elements:
[ a, [a1, a2] ++ concat [ [a1, a2], [ a1, a2,
b, ==> [b1] ++ == [b1], == b1,
c, [] ++ [],
d ] [d1, d2] [d1, d2] ] d1, d2 ]
The above is equivalent to
concat (map foo [a,b,c,d])
=
foo a ++ foo b ++ foo c ++ foo d
for some appropriate foo.
concat is list monad's join, and map is list monad's fmap. In general, for any monad,
m >>= foo = join (fmap foo m)
The essence of Monad is: from each entity "in" a "structure", conditionally producing new elements in the same kind of structure, and splicing them in-place:
[ a , b , c , d ]
/ \ | | / \
[ [a1, a2] , [b1] , [] , [d1, d2] ] -- fmap foo = [foo x | x <- xs]
-- = [y | x <- xs, y <- [foo x]]
[ a1, a2 , b1 , d1, d2 ] -- join (fmap foo) = [y | x <- xs, y <- foo x ]

Haskell Monad - How does Monad on list work?

In order to understand Monad, I came up with the following definitions:
class Applicative' f where
purea :: a -> f a
app :: f (a->b) -> f a -> f b
class Applicative' m => Monadd m where
(>>|) :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
instance Applicative' [] where
purea x = [x]
app gs xs = [g x | g <- gs, x <- xs]
instance Monadd [] where
(>>|) xs f = [ y | x <-xs, y <- f x]
It works as expected:
(>>|) [1,2,3,4] (\x->[(x+1)])
[2,3,4,5]
I am not sure how it is working though.
For example:
[ y | y <- [[1],[2]]]
[[1],[2]]
How does application (\x->([x+1]) to each list element of [1,2,3] result in [2,3,4] and not [[2],[3],[4]]
Or quite simply my confusion seems to stem from not understanding how this statement [ y | x <-xs, y <- f x] actually works
Wadler, School of Haskell, LYAH, HaskellWiki, Quora and many more describe the list monad.
Compare:
(=<<) :: Monad m => (a -> m b) -> m a -> m b for lists with
concatMap :: (a -> [b]) -> [a] -> [b] for m = [].
The regular (>>=) bind operator has the arguments flipped, but is otherwise just an infix concatMap.
Or quite simply my confusion seems to stem from not understanding how this statement actually works:
(>>|) xs f = [ y | x <- xs, y <- f x ]
Since list comprehensions are equivalent to the Monad instance for lists, this definition is kind of cheating. You're basically saying that something is a Monadd in the way that it's a Monad, so you're left with two problems: Understanding list comprehensions, and still understanding Monad.
List comprehensions can be de-sugared for a better understanding:
Removing syntactic sugar: List comprehension in Haskell
In your case, the statement could be written in a number of other ways:
Using do-notation:
(>>|) xs f = do x <- xs
y <- f x
return y
De-sugared into using the (>>=) operator:
(>>|) xs f = xs >>= \x ->
f x >>= \y ->
return y
This can be shortened (one rewrite per line):
(>>|) xs f = xs >>= \x -> f x >>= \y -> return y -- eta-reduction
≡ (>>|) xs f = xs >>= \x -> f x >>= return -- monad identity
≡ (>>|) xs f = xs >>= \x -> f x -- eta-reduction
≡ (>>|) xs f = xs >>= f -- prefix operator
≡ (>>|) xs f = (>>=) xs f -- point-free
≡ (>>|) = (>>=)
So from using list comprehensions, you haven't really declared a new definition, you're just relying on the existing one. If you wanted, you could instead define your instance Monadd [] without relying on existing Monad instances or list comprehensions:
Using concatMap:
instance Monadd [] where
(>>|) xs f = concatMap f xs
Spelling that out a little more:
instance Monadd [] where
(>>|) xs f = concat (map f xs)
Spelling that out even more:
instance Monadd [] where
(>>|) [] f = []
(>>|) (x:xs) f = let ys = f x in ys ++ ((>>|) xs f)
The Monadd type class should have something similar to return. I'm not sure why it's missing.
Monads are often easier understood with the “mathematical definition”, than with the methods of the Haskell standard class. Namely,
class Applicative' m => Monadd m where
join :: m (m a) -> m a
Note that you can implement the standard version in terms of this, vice versa:
join mma = mma >>= id
ma >>= f = join (fmap f ma)
For lists, join (aka concat) is particularly simple:
join :: [[a]] -> [a]
join xss = [x | xs <- xss, x <- xs] -- xss::[[a]], xs::[a]
-- join [[1],[2]] ≡ [1,2]
For the example you find confusing, you'd have
[1,2,3,4] >>= \x->[(x+1)]
≡ join $ fmap (\x->[(x+1)]) [1,2,3,4]
≡ join [[1+1], [2+1], [3+1], [4+1]]
≡ join [[2],[3],[4],[5]]
≡ [2,3,4,5]
List comprehensions are just like nested loops:
xs >>| foo = [ y | x <- xs, y <- foo x]
-- = for x in xs:
-- for y in (foo x):
-- yield y
Thus we have
[1,2,3,4] >>| (\x -> [x, x+10])
=
[ y | x <- [1,2,3,4], y <- (\x -> [x, x+10]) x]
=
[ y | x <- [1] ++ [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[ y | x <- [1], y <- [x, x+10]] ++ [ y | x <- [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]] -- (*)
=
[ y | y <- [1, 1+10]] ++ [ y | x <- [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[ y | y <- [1]] ++ [ y | y <- [11]] ++ [ y | x <- [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[1] ++ [11] ++ [ y | x <- [2,3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[1, 11] ++ [2, 12] ++ [ y | x <- [3,4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[1, 11] ++ [2, 12] ++ [3, 13] ++ [ y | x <- [4], y <- [x, x+10]]
=
[1, 11] ++ [2, 12] ++ [3, 13] ++ [4, 14]
The crucial step is marked (*). You can take it as the definition of what list comprehensions are.
A special case is when the foo function returns a singleton list, like in your question. Then it is indeed tantamount to mapping, as each element in the input list is turned into one (transformed) element in the output list.
But list comprehensions are more powerful. An input element can also be turned conditionally into no elements (working as a filter), or several elements:
[ a, [a1, a2] ++ concat [ [a1, a2], [ a1, a2,
b, ==> [b1] ++ == [b1], == b1,
c, [] ++ [],
d ] [d1, d2] [d1, d2] ] d1, d2 ]
The above is equivalent to
concat (map foo [a,b,c,d])
=
foo a ++ foo b ++ foo c ++ foo d
for some appropriate foo.
concat is list monad's join, and map is list monad's fmap. In general, for any monad,
m >>= foo = join (fmap foo m)
The essence of Monad is: from each entity "in" a "structure", conditionally producing new elements in the same kind of structure, and splicing them in-place:
[ a , b , c , d ]
/ \ | | / \
[ [a1, a2] , [b1] , [] , [d1, d2] ] -- fmap foo = [foo x | x <- xs]
-- = [y | x <- xs, y <- [foo x]]
[ a1, a2 , b1 , d1, d2 ] -- join (fmap foo) = [y | x <- xs, y <- foo x ]

Implement insert in haskell with foldr

How to implement insert using foldr in haskell.
I tried:
insert'' :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> [a]
insert'' e xs = foldr (\x -> \y -> if x<y then x:y else y:x) [e] xs
No dice.
I have to insert element e in list so that it goes before first element that is larger or equal to it.
Example:
insert'' 2.5 [1,2,3] => [1.0,2.0,2.5,3.0]
insert'' 2.5 [3,2,1] => [2.5,3.0,2.0,1.0]
insert'' 2 [1,2,1] => [1,2,2,1]
In last example first 2 is inserted one.
EDIT:
Thanks #Lee.
I have this now:
insert'' :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> [a]
insert'' e xs = insert2 e (reverse xs)
insert2 e = reverse . snd . foldr (\i (done, l) -> if (done == False) && (vj e i) then (True, e:i:l) else (done, i:l)) (False, [])
where vj e i = e<=i
But for this is not working:
insert'' 2 [1,3,2,3,3] => [1,3,2,2,3,3]
insert'' 2 [1,3,3,4] => [1,3,2,3,4]
insert'' 2 [4,3,2,1] => [4,2,3,2,1]
SOLUTION:
insert'' :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> [a]
insert'' x xs = foldr pom poc xs False
where
pom y f je
| je || x > y = y : f je
| otherwise = x : y : f True
poc True = []
poc _ = [x]
Thanks #Pedro Rodrigues (It just nedded to change x>=y to x>y.)
(How to mark this as answered?)
You need paramorphism for that:
para :: (a -> [a] -> r -> r) -> r -> [a] -> r
foldr :: (a -> r -> r) -> r -> [a] -> r
para c n (x : xs) = c x xs (para c n xs)
foldr c n (x : xs) = c x (foldr c n xs)
para _ n [] = n
foldr _ n [] = n
with it,
insert v xs = para (\x xs r -> if v <= x then (v:x:xs) else (x:r)) [v] xs
We can imitate paramorphisms with foldr over init . tails, as can be seen here: Need to partition a list into lists based on breaks in ascending order of elements (Haskell).
Thus the solution is
import Data.List (tails)
insert v xs = foldr g [v] (init $ tails xs)
where
g xs#(x:_) r | v <= x = v : xs
| otherwise = x : r
Another way to encode paramorphisms is by a chain of functions, as seen in the answer by Pedro Rodrigues, to arrange for the left-to-right information flow while passing a second copy of the input list itself as an argument (replicating the effect of tails):
insert v xs = foldr g (\ _ -> [v]) xs xs
where
g x r xs | v > x = x : r (tail xs) -- xs =#= (x:_)
| otherwise = v : xs
-- visual aid to how this works, for a list [a,b,c,d]:
-- g a (g b (g c (g d (\ _ -> [v])))) [a,b,c,d]
Unlike the version in his answer, this does not copy the rest of the list structure after the insertion point (which is possible because of paramorphism's "eating the cake and having it too").
Here's my take at it:
insert :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> [a]
insert x xs = foldr aux initial xs False
where
aux y f done
| done || x > y = y : f done
| otherwise = x : y : f True
initial True = []
initial _ = [x]
However IMHO using foldr is not the best fit for this problem, and for me the following solution is easier to understand:
insert :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
insert x [] = [x]
insert x z#(y : ys)
| x <= y = x : z
| otherwise = y : insert x ys
I suppose fold isn't handy here. It always processes all elements of list, but you need to stop then first occurence was found.
Of course it is possible, but you probable don't want to use this:
insert' l a = snd $ foldl (\(done, l') b -> if done then (True, l'++[b]) else if a<b then (False, l'++[b]) else (True, l'++[a,b])) (False, []) l

Cartesian product of infinite lists in Haskell

I have a function for finite lists
> kart :: [a] -> [b] -> [(a,b)]
> kart xs ys = [(x,y) | x <- xs, y <- ys]
but how to implement it for infinite lists? I have heard something about Cantor and set theory.
I also found a function like
> genFromPair (e1, e2) = [x*e1 + y*e2 | x <- [0..], y <- [0..]]
But I'm not sure if it helps, because Hugs only gives out pairs without ever stopping.
Thanks for help.
Your first definition, kart xs ys = [(x,y) | x <- xs, y <- ys], is equivalent to
kart xs ys = xs >>= (\x ->
ys >>= (\y -> [(x,y)]))
where
(x:xs) >>= g = g x ++ (xs >>= g)
(x:xs) ++ ys = x : (xs ++ ys)
are sequential operations. Redefine them as alternating operations,
(x:xs) >>/ g = g x +/ (xs >>/ g)
(x:xs) +/ ys = x : (ys +/ xs)
[] +/ ys = ys
and your definition should be good to go for infinite lists as well:
kart_i xs ys = xs >>/ (\x ->
ys >>/ (\y -> [(x,y)]))
testing,
Prelude> take 20 $ kart_i [1..] [101..]
[(1,101),(2,101),(1,102),(3,101),(1,103),(2,102),(1,104),(4,101),(1,105),(2,103)
,(1,106),(3,102),(1,107),(2,104),(1,108),(5,101),(1,109),(2,105),(1,110),(3,103)]
courtesy of "The Reasoned Schemer". (see also conda, condi, conde, condu).
another way, more explicit, is to create separate sub-streams and combine them:
kart_i2 xs ys = foldr g [] [map (x,) ys | x <- xs]
where
g a b = head a : head b : g (tail a) (tail b)
this actually produces exactly the same results. But now we have more control over how we combine the sub-streams. We can be more diagonal:
kart_i3 xs ys = g [] [map (x,) ys | x <- xs]
where -- works both for finite
g [] [] = [] -- and infinite lists
g a b = concatMap (take 1) a
++ g (filter (not . null) (take 1 b ++ map (drop 1) a))
(drop 1 b)
so that now we get
Prelude> take 20 $ kart_i3 [1..] [101..]
[(1,101),(2,101),(1,102),(3,101),(2,102),(1,103),(4,101),(3,102),(2,103),(1,104)
,(5,101),(4,102),(3,103),(2,104),(1,105),(6,101),(5,102),(4,103),(3,104),(2,105)]
With some searching on SO I've also found an answer by Norman Ramsey with seemingly yet another way to generate the sequence, splitting these sub-streams into four areas - top-left tip, top row, left column, and recursively the rest. His merge there is the same as our +/ here.
Your second definition,
genFromPair (e1, e2) = [x*e1 + y*e2 | x <- [0..], y <- [0..]]
is equivalent to just
genFromPair (e1, e2) = [0*e1 + y*e2 | y <- [0..]]
Because the list [0..] is infinite there's no chance for any other value of x to come into play. This is the problem that the above definitions all try to avoid.
Prelude> let kart = (\xs ys -> [(x,y) | ls <- map (\x -> map (\y -> (x,y)) ys) xs, (x,y) <- ls])
Prelude> :t kart
kart :: [t] -> [t1] -> [(t, t1)]
Prelude> take 10 $ kart [0..] [1..]
[(0,1),(0,2),(0,3),(0,4),(0,5),(0,6),(0,7),(0,8),(0,9),(0,10)]
Prelude> take 10 $ kart [0..] [5..10]
[(0,5),(0,6),(0,7),(0,8),(0,9),(0,10),(1,5),(1,6),(1,7),(1,8)]
you can think of the sequel as
0: (0, 0)
/ \
1: (1,0) (0,1)
/ \ / \
2: (2,0) (1, 1) (0,2)
...
Each level can be expressed by level n: [(n,0), (n-1, 1), (n-2, 2), ..., (0, n)]
Doing this to n <- [0..]
We have
cartesianProducts = [(n-m, m) | n<-[0..], m<-[0..n]]