recursion - Why is foldl defined in a strange way in Racket?

Question

In Haskell, like in many other functional languages, the function foldl is defined such that, for example, foldl (-) 0 [1,2,3,4] = -10.

This is OK, because foldl (-) 0 [1, 2,3,4] is, by definition, ((((0 - 1) - 2) - 3) - 4).

But, in Racket, (foldl - 0 '(1 2 3 4)) is 2, because Racket "intelligently" calculates like this: (4 - (3 - (2 - (1 - 0)))), which indeed is 2.

Of course, if we define auxiliary function flip, like this:

(define (flip bin-fn)
  (lambda (x y)
    (bin-fn y x)))

then we could in Racket achieve the same behavior as in Haskell: instead of (foldl - 0 '(1 2 3 4)) we can write: (foldl (flip -) 0 '(1 2 3 4))

The question is: Why is foldl in racket defined in such an odd (nonstandard and nonintuitive) way, differently than in any other language?

Answer 1

• The Haskell definition is not uniform. In Racket, the function to both folds have the same order of inputs, and therefore you can just replace foldl by foldr and get the same result. If you do that with the Haskell version you'd get a different result (usually) — and you can see this in the different types of the two.

  (In fact, I think that in order to do a proper comparison you should avoid these toy numeric examples where both of the type variables are integers.)

• This has the nice byproduct where you're encouraged to choose either foldl or foldr according to their semantic differences. My guess is that with Haskell's order you're likely to choose according to the operation. You have a good example for this: you've used foldl because you want to subtract each number — and that's such an "obvious" choice that it's easy to overlook the fact that foldl is usually a bad choice in a lazy language.

• Another difference is that the Haskell version is more limited than the Racket version in the usual way: it operates on exactly one input list, whereas Racket can accept any number of lists. This makes it more important to have a uniform argument order for the input function).

• Finally, it is wrong to assume that Racket diverged from "many other functional languages", since folding is far from a new trick, and Racket has roots that are far older than Haskell (or these other languages). The question could therefore go the other way: why is Haskell's foldl defined in a strange way? (And no, (-) is not a good excuse.)

Historical update:

Since this seems to bother people again and again, I did a little bit of legwork. This is not definitive in any way, just my second-hand guessing. Feel free to edit this if you know more, or even better, email the relevant people and ask. Specifically, I don't know the dates where these decisions were made, so the following list is in rough order.

• First there was Lisp, and no mention of "fold"ing of any kind. Instead, Lisp has reduce which is very non-uniform, especially if you consider its type. For example, :from-end is a keyword argument that determines whether it's a left or a right scan and it uses different accumulator functions which means that the accumulator type depends on that keyword. This is in addition to other hacks: usually the first value is taken from the list (unless you specify an :initial-value). Finally, if you don't specify an :initial-value, and the list is empty, it will actually apply the function on zero arguments to get a result.

  All of this means that reduce is usually used for what its name suggests: reducing a list of values into a single value, where the two types are usually the same. The conclusion here is that it's serving a kind of a similar purpose to folding, but it's not nearly as useful as the generic list iteration construct that you get with folding. I'm guessing that this means that there's no strong relation between reduce and the later fold operations.

• The first relevant language that follows Lisp and has a proper fold is ML. The choice that was made there, as noted in newacct's answer below, was to go with the uniform types version (ie, what Racket uses).

• The next reference is Bird & Wadler's ItFP (1988), which uses different types (as in Haskell). However, they note in the appendix that Miranda has the same type (as in Racket).

• Miranda later on switched the argument order (ie, moved from the Racket order to the Haskell one). Specifically, that text says:

  WARNING - this definition of foldl differs from that in older versions of Miranda. The one here is the same as that in Bird and Wadler (1988). The old definition had the two args of `op' reversed.

• Haskell took a lot of stuff from Miranda, including the different types. (But of course I don't know the dates so maybe the Miranda change was due to Haskell.) In any case, it's clear at this point that there was no consensus, hence the reversed question above holds.

• OCaml went with the Haskell direction and uses different types

• I'm guessing that "How to Design Programs" (aka HtDP) was written at roughly the same period, and they chose the same type. There is, however, no motivation or explanation — and in fact, after that exercise it's simply mentioned as one of the built-in functions.

  Racket's implementation of the fold operations was, of course, the "built-ins" that are mentioned here.

• Then came SRFI-1, and the choice was to use the same-type version (as Racket). This decision was question by John David Stone, who points at a comment in the SRFI that says

  Note: MIT Scheme and Haskell flip F's arg order for their reduce and fold functions.

  Olin later addressed this: all he said was:

  Good point, but I want consistency between the two functions. state-value first: srfi-1, SML state-value last: Haskell

  Note in particular his use of state-value, which suggests a view where consistent types are a possibly more important point than operator order.