Fold (higher-order function)

In

of unfolds).

As structural transformations

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Folds can be regarded as consistently replacing the structural components of a data structure with functions and values.

Haskell

). One can view a fold on lists as replacing  the nil at the end of the list with a specific value, and replacing each cons with a specific function. These replacements can be viewed as a diagram:

There's another way to perform the structural transformation in a consistent manner, with the order of the two links of each node flipped when fed into the combining function:

These pictures illustrate right and left fold of a list visually. They also highlight the fact that foldr (:) [] is the identity function on lists (a shallow copy in Lisp parlance), as replacing cons with cons and nil with nil will not change the result. The left fold diagram suggests an easy way to reverse a list, foldl (flip (:)) []. Note that the parameters to cons must be flipped, because the element to add is now the right hand parameter of the combining function. Another easy result to see from this vantage-point is to write the higher-order map function in terms of foldr, by composing the function to act on the elements with cons, as:

 map f = foldr ((:) . f) []

where the period (.) is an operator denoting function composition.

This way of looking at things provides a simple route to designing fold-like functions on other algebraic data types and structures, like various sorts of trees. One writes a function which recursively replaces the constructors of the datatype with provided functions, and any constant values of the type with provided values. Such a function is generally referred to as a catamorphism.

On lists

The folding of the list [1,2,3,4,5] with the addition operator would result in 15, the sum of the elements of the list [1,2,3,4,5]. To a rough approximation, one can think of this fold as replacing the commas in the list with the + operation, giving 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5.^[1]

In the example above, + is an

In practice, it is convenient and natural to have an initial value which in the case of a right fold is used when one reaches the end of the list, and in the case of a left fold is what is initially combined with the first element of the list. In the example above, the value 0 (the additive identity) would be chosen as an initial value, giving 1 + (2 + (3 + (4 + (5 + 0)))) for the right fold, and ((((0 + 1) + 2) + 3) + 4) + 5 for the left fold. For multiplication, an initial choice of 0 wouldn't work: 0 * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 = 0. The identity element for multiplication is 1. This would give us the outcome 1 * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 = 120 = 5!.

Linear vs. tree-like folds

The use of an initial value is necessary when the combining function f  is asymmetrical in its types (e.g. a → b → b), i.e. when the type of its result is different from the type of the list's elements. Then an initial value must be used, with the same type as that of f 's result, for a linear chain of applications to be possible. Whether it will be left- or right-oriented will be determined by the types expected of its arguments by the combining function. If it is the second argument that must be of the same type as the result, then f  could be seen as a binary operation that associates on the right, and vice versa.

When the function is a

Whereas linear folds are

Special folds for non-empty lists

One often wants to choose the identity element of the operation f as the initial value z. When no initial value seems appropriate, for example, when one wants to fold the function which computes the maximum of its two parameters over a non-empty list to get the maximum element of the list, there are variants of foldr and foldl which use the last and first element of the list respectively as the initial value. In Haskell and several other languages, these are called foldr1 and foldl1, the 1 making reference to the automatic provision of an initial element, and the fact that the lists they are applied to must have at least one element.

These folds use type-symmetrical binary operation: the types of both its arguments, and its result, must be the same. Richard Bird in his 2010 book proposes^[2] "a general fold function on non-empty lists" foldrn which transforms its last element, by applying an additional argument function to it, into a value of the result type before starting the folding itself, and is thus able to use type-asymmetrical binary operation like the regular foldr to produce a result of type different from the list's elements type.

Implementation

Linear folds

Using Haskell as an example, foldl and foldr can be formulated in a few equations.

 foldl :: (b -> a -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
 foldl f z []     = z
 foldl f z (x:xs) = foldl f (f z x) xs

If the list is empty, the result is the initial value. If not, fold the tail of the list using as new initial value the result of applying f to the old initial value and the first element.

 foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
 foldr f z []     = z
 foldr f z (x:xs) = f x (foldr f z xs)

If the list is empty, the result is the initial value z. If not, apply f to the first element and the result of folding the rest.

Tree-like folds

Lists can be folded over in a tree-like fashion, both for finite and for indefinitely defined lists:

foldt f z []     = z
foldt f z [x]    = f x z
foldt f z xs     = foldt f z (pairs f xs)
 
foldi f z []     = z
foldi f z (x:xs) = f x (foldi f z (pairs f xs))
 
pairs f (x:y:t)  = f x y : pairs f t
pairs _ t        = t

In the case of foldi function, to avoid its runaway evaluation on indefinitely defined lists the function f must not always demand its second argument's value, at least not all of it, or not immediately (see example below).

Folds for non-empty lists

foldl1 f [x]      = x
foldl1 f (x:y:xs) = foldl1 f (f x y : xs)

foldr1 f [x]      = x
foldr1 f (x:xs)   = f x (foldr1 f xs)

foldt1 f [x]      = x
foldt1 f (x:y:xs) = foldt1 f (f x y : pairs f xs)
 
foldi1 f [x]      = x
foldi1 f (x:xs)   = f x (foldi1 f (pairs f xs))

Evaluation order considerations

In the presence of

Reversing a list is also tail-recursive (it can be implemented using rev = foldl (\ys x -> x : ys) []). On finite lists, that means that left-fold and reverse can be composed to perform a right fold in a tail-recursive way (cf.  1+>(2+>(3+>0)) == ((0<+3)<+2)<+1), with a modification to the function f so it reverses the order of its arguments (i.e., foldr f z == foldl (flip f) z . foldl (flip (:)) []), tail-recursively building a representation of expression that right-fold would build. The extraneous intermediate list structure can be eliminated with the continuation-passing style technique, foldr f z xs == foldl (\k x-> k . f x) id xs z; similarly, foldl f z xs == foldr (\x k-> k . flip f x) id xs z ( flip is only needed in languages like Haskell with its flipped order of arguments to the combining function of foldl unlike e.g., in Scheme where the same order of arguments is used for combining functions to both foldl and foldr).

Another technical point is that, in the case of left folds using lazy evaluation, the new initial parameter is not being evaluated before the recursive call is made. This can lead to stack overflows when one reaches the end of the list and tries to evaluate the resulting potentially gigantic expression. For this reason, such languages often provide a stricter variant of left folding which forces the evaluation of the initial parameter before making the recursive call. In Haskell this is the foldl' (note the apostrophe, pronounced 'prime') function in the Data.List library (one needs to be aware of the fact though that forcing a value built with a lazy data constructor won't force its constituents automatically by itself). Combined with tail recursion, such folds approach the efficiency of loops, ensuring constant space operation, when lazy evaluation of the final result is impossible or undesirable.

Examples

Using a

λ> foldr (\x y -> concat ["(",x,"+",y,")"]) "0" (map show [1..13])
"(1+(2+(3+(4+(5+(6+(7+(8+(9+(10+(11+(12+(13+0)))))))))))))"
 
λ> foldl (\x y -> concat ["(",x,"+",y,")"]) "0" (map show [1..13])
"(((((((((((((0+1)+2)+3)+4)+5)+6)+7)+8)+9)+10)+11)+12)+13)"
 
λ> foldt (\x y -> concat ["(",x,"+",y,")"]) "0" (map show [1..13])
"(((((1+2)+(3+4))+((5+6)+(7+8)))+(((9+10)+(11+12))+13))+0)"
 
λ> foldi (\x y -> concat ["(",x,"+",y,")"]) "0" (map show [1..13])
"(1+((2+3)+(((4+5)+(6+7))+((((8+9)+(10+11))+(12+13))+0))))"

Infinite tree-like folding is demonstrated e.g., in recursive primes production by unbounded sieve of Eratosthenes in Haskell:

primes = 2 : _Y ((3 :) . minus [5,7..] . foldi (\(x:xs) ys -> x : union xs ys) [] 
                       . map (\p-> [p*p, p*p+2*p..]))
_Y g = g (_Y g)     -- = g . g . g . g . ...

where the function union operates on ordered lists in a local manner to efficiently produce their set union, and minus their set difference.

A finite prefix of primes is concisely defined as a folding of set difference operation over the lists of enumerated multiples of integers, as

primesTo n = foldl1 minus [[2*x,3*x..n] | x <- [1..n]]

For finite lists, e.g., merge sort (and its duplicates-removing variety, nubsort) could be easily defined using tree-like folding as

mergesort xs = foldt merge [] [[x] | x <- xs]
nubsort   xs = foldt union [] [[x] | x <- xs]

with the function

Functions head and last could have been defined through folding as

head = foldr (\x r -> x) (error "head: Empty list")
last = foldl (\a x -> x) (error "last: Empty list")

In various languages

Universality

Fold is a

 g [] = v
 g (x:xs) = f x (g xs)

then g can be expressed as^[13]

 g = foldr f v

Also, in a

 y f = foldr (\_ -> f) undefined (repeat undefined)

• Aggregate function
• Iterated binary operation
• Catamorphism, a generalization of fold
• Homomorphism
• Map (higher-order function)
• Prefix sum
• Recursive data type
• Reduction operator
• Structural recursion

References