# Difference between revisions of "Parameter order"

(subtract) |
(subtract) |
||

Line 62: | Line 62: | ||

Hoever when using section in most cases the first argument is omitted. |
Hoever when using section in most cases the first argument is omitted. |
||

This strongly indicates that their parameter order is unnatural in the Haskell sense. |
This strongly indicates that their parameter order is unnatural in the Haskell sense. |
||

− | However, for the subtraction there also exists <hask> |
+ | However, for the subtraction there also exists <hask>subtract</hask>, which is better for partial application. |

There are more cases where there is even no simple reason, |
There are more cases where there is even no simple reason, |

## Revision as of 09:56, 16 October 2006

The **parameter order** of Haskell functions is an important design decision when programming libraries.
The parameter order shall

- allow piping,
- be consistent across similar functions.

Parameters in Haskell are rather reversed compared to imperative or object oriented languages.
In an object oriented language, the object to work on is the very first parameter.
In a function call it is often written even before the function name, say `file`

in `file.write("bla")`

.
Strictly spoken, in Haskell it is not possible to alter objects,
but there are many functions which return a somehow altered input object.
This object should be the last parameter because then you can compose a sequence of operations on this object
using the function composition operator `.`

.
The code

```
sum . map f . filter p . scanl (*) 1
```

describes a function, which applies three transformations to a list. This can be written so easily because the list is always the last parameter.

The order of the parameters except the last one is not so critical. However you should keep in mind that also transformations on functions are perfectly ok in Haskell. That's why function operators like the differentiation and integration in functional analysis should have the parameter of the derived/integrated function at the last position and the transformed function should be the parameter before the last one.

```
integrate :: a -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a)
integrate f0 f x = ...
differentiate :: a -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a)
differentiate h f x = ...
-- continuous extension, aka function limit
continuous :: (a -> a) -> (a -> a)
continuous f x = ...
exampleTransform = differentiate h . continuous
```

The third thing to consider is that it is easily possible to fix parameters, which are at the beginning.
E.g.

```
sum = foldl (+) 0
product = foldl (*) 1
```

that's why we can consider the parameter order of `foldl`

to be a good one.
We also see in this example that it is easily possible to generate a function
with the first parameters fixed and that functions shall be prepared for this.

## Bad examples

Sometimes library writers have infix usage of functions in mind.
See for instance `Data.Bits`

and Cons of syntactic sugar.
Unfortunately the order of arguments which seems to be natural for many programmers is reversed
with respect to the one, we encourage above.
Maybe this only indicates that parameter order should be reverse, at all,
meaning that the name of the called function comes after the arguments (Reverse Polish Notation).

The operators `(-)`

, `(/)`

, `div`

, `mod`

are adaptions of the mathematical tradition,
e.g. `a `div` b`

, `a `mod` b`

.
Hoever when using section in most cases the first argument is omitted.
This strongly indicates that their parameter order is unnatural in the Haskell sense.
However, for the subtraction there also exists `subtract`

, which is better for partial application.

There are more cases where there is even no simple reason,
why the parameter order was chosen in an unnatural way.
Cf. `Data.Map.lookup`

, `Data.Map.findWithDefault`

, `Data.Map.lookupIndex`

, `Data.Map.findIndex`

.

## The rule of thumb

What do we learn from all this considerations?

The more important the parameter, the more frequently it changes, the closer shall it be at the end of the parameter list. If there is some recursion involved, probably the parameter, on which you recurse, is the one which should be at the last position.