LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives













By Topic:










By Author:











Proportional Font





LATEX-L  October 2011

LATEX-L October 2011


Re: S combinator and such


Lars Hellström <[log in to unmask]>


Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>


Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:13:56 +0200





text/plain (339 lines)

Dongen wrote (yes, your mail got through on the list the first time):
> I've been reading this thread for a while and I've used these combinators
> to implement some simple arithmetic. (IIRC it uses Church Numerals and

For the bystanders: Church numerals effectively represent the number N as 
N-fold composition. Thus one would have

\cs_new:Npn \three #1 #2 { #1{ #1{ #1{ #2 } } } }

if I recall correctly.

> the arithmetic is called Church Arithmetic.) For example, I could write
> something like the following (rewritten for readability):
>  <numeral> X to get <numeral> copies of X, so <2> a -> aa.
>  <numeral> + <numeral> to get <numeral + numeral>, so (<1> + <2>)a -> aaa,
>  <numeral> - <numeral> to get <numeral - numeral>, and so on. This is
> all well understood.
> You can define any lambda expression (and therefore LaTeX) in terms of
> the S and K you mention. See for example [Curry:Feys:Craig:68], which
> also mentions some other names for commonly used combinators.
> These combinators are __hopelessly__ inefficient.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are hopeless for arithmetic; we're not too 
far from the representations used in formal logic, where 1 is S(0), 2 is 
S(S(1)), 3 is S(S(S(0))), etc.

> For example, the
> following definitions are from ``LaTeX and Friends:''
>   \newcommand\K[2]{#1}
>   \newcommand\S[3]{#1#3{#2#3}}
>   \newcommand\I{\S\K\K}
>   \newcommand\X{\S{\K{\S\I}}{\S{\K\K}\I}}
> The combinator \X is defined in terms of \S and \K. All it does is swop
> its (two) arguments, so ``\X ab'' gives ``ba.'' Using ``\Xab'' requires
> 17 reductions, which is sad because X is pretty simple.

True -- merely that S and K form a basis for the combinatory logic doesn't 
mean it makes sense to express everything in terms of these. It can however, 
at times, be more convenient to express some act of argument juggling 
in-line using combinators than it is to introduce an ad-hoc helper macro. At 
least IMHO.

Bruno Le Floch skrev 2011-10-26 12.59:
> Hello Lars,
> First, sorry for the delay on the other thread about Church booleans.
> Quite a lot of things cropped up in parallel these days. (And I
> personally have more non-LaTeX things to do than expected.) It is not
> forgotten.
> Inasmuch as I like the Church boolean idea, my first reaction to
> combinatory logic is "why would we need this in (La)TeX?" I have to
> admit, though, that I never studied lambda calculus carefully enough
> to understand any practical use for it (the only course I took that
> used it mostly mentionned category theory and Yoneda's lemma).

I can imagine that being a horrifying experience; category theory can be a 
fantastic obfuscation tool. Although sometimes it actually guides you right.

>> My thought with this mail is mainly to ask whether there are any more of
>> these (or other standard combinators) that are defined in LaTeX3 already.
> No. Most often, the cases where those kinds of macros are useful in
> LaTeX are when you try to control expansion, and that's taken care of
> by the l3expan module. Maybe some of the functions from that module
> look a little bit like that (not quite, though).

It is indeed mostly within argument juggling that I might dare to employ 
these beasts: when one needs to rearrange some arguments that are in place 
up ahead, and the task seems slightly too minor to justify a specialised 
helper macro. (Trading a bit of speed for keeping all the code for something 
in one place, thus improving maintainability.) It's not primarily about 
controlling expansion, as there is nothing like an \expandafter or \noexpand 
in sight, but you do have a point that this kind of thing might have ended 
up in the l3expan module anyway; I'll need to revisit that.

Argument juggling is often necessary in situations where one needs to fit 
one utility function to the API for callback functions expected by some 
other function.

>> the primary intent for which is that #1{#4} should behave as a Church
>> boolean, and thus select whether to apply #2 or #3 to the second #4. I
>> suspect \Lift, \Twiddle, \Compose, and maybe some additional macro could be
>> combined into an S combinator, but it is not immediately clear to me how.

During the afternoon, it became clear that the wikipedia page implicitly 
contains an algorithm that will produce such an expression for me, and using 
that I could produce an expression. Applying some suitable simplifications 
to intermediate results, I managed to end up with


as an expression for the S combinator. (No, I don't quite see it either. But 
it becomes readily apparent that this does the right thing when one tries 
applying it to some arguments.)

> I don't have enough lambda background to figure that one out (and I've
> still got a few things to change in l3regex before I leave for two
> weeks).
>> three years was a lot of time in TeX history, back then.
> It still is. The engines themselves change, nowadays :).

Heresy!!! :-)

>> Somewhat relatedly, it occurs to me that the process of converting
>> lambda-terms to combinator formulae /might/ be the beginning of an approach
>> to having "named command parameters" in (high-level) LaTeX without radical
>> modifications of the TeX engine -- the idea being that the named parameters
>> are (upon macro definition) removed from the replacement text as a matter of
>> lambda elimination (conversion of a lambda term to an equivalent
>> combinatorial term). Whether that would be practical is of course an
>> entirely different matter. ;-)
> Care to elaborate??

Be careful what you wish for, ;-) because the following turned out to be 
very elaborate indeed. Basically the idea was (i) that introducing a named 
parameter in a replacement text is somehow analogous to doing a 
lambda-abstraction and (ii) since combinators can do everything that 
lambda-abstraction can, but without explicit representation of any 
variables, one could in principle get rid of the named parameters in the 
same way, without using up any of the precious #1-#9.

Suppose first that there was a primitive \lambda:Nn that is an "anonymous 
macro constructor" -- technically it should expand to an inaccessible 
control sequence which just so happens to be defined as a macro taking one 
undelimited parameter and whose replacement text is obtained by replacing 
all[*] occurrencies of the token supplied in the N argument by #1. Thus,


expands (in two steps) to


Given that, it is not too hard to see that


will get x=#3, y=#1, z=#2, and w=#3, so the expansion becomes


In other words, the above combination of \Lift and one argument is 
equivalent to the S combinator. In order to derive a pure combinator 
expression for the S combinator, one must then eliminate the \lambda:Nn. 
Defining the conversion is not so hard; I only have to transcribe some 
material from the Combinatorial logic wikipedia page in TeXy notation.

[*] Actually, \lambda:Nn is not supposed to replace all occurrencies of the 
parameter token, but only those that are not in the body of some inner 
\lambda:Nn which also binds the same token; theories with variables are 
messy that way. Correspondingly "containing the token <x>" below is 
technically "without free occurrencies of the token <x>", for those who care 
about the difference.

Lambda-elimination is carried out by a recursively defined function T. 
First, if <E> is some balanced text not containing the token <x>, then

   T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{ <E> } ) = \use_i:nn{ T(<E>) }

Second, if <F> is some balanced text containing the token <x>, then

   T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{ \lambda:Nn{<y>}{ <F> } } ) =
     T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{ T( \lambda:Nn{<y>}{ <F> } ) } )

Third, there are the cases that the body of a \lambda:Nn{<x>} is a macro 
application. If <E> as above is some balanced text not containing the token 
<x>, whereas <F> and <F'> are balanced texts containing the token <x>, then

   T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{ <E>{<F>} } ) =
     \Compose{ T(<E>) }{ T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{<F>} ) }

   T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{ <F>{<E>} } ) =
     \Twiddle{ T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{<F>} ) }{ T(<E>) }

   T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{ <F>{<F'>} } ) =
     \combinator_S:nnn{ T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{<F>} ) }
        { T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{<F'>} ) }

The remaining cases needed for combinatory logic are

   T( <F>{<F'>} ) = T(<F>){ T(<F'>) }
   T( \lambda:Nn{<x>}{<x>} ) = \use_i:n
   T( <other token> ) = <other token>

If the intent is to convert more general TeX code, some more cases would be 
needed. In particular, something would be needed for the case that two 
separate commands simply occur in sequence:

   \foo{bar} \baz{foo}

as this is not a kind of expression that can occur in lambda calculus; 
sequences there are always function application. Note, on the other hand, 
that the machinery is fully in place for substituting something inside a 
brace group, like

   \cs_new:Npn #1 { \foo{ \bar{ \baz{#1} } } }

would. This is otherwise a situation that "ordinary" tricks for rewriting 
token sequences tend to find problematic.

I had some vague notion at the beginning that one could implement that T in 
TeX. In principle one can, but the fact that T starts by picking off the 
/last/ argument of a command makes it a lot harder. One would probably have 
to express code to be rewritten in some special form to make its structure 
visible to T, and that spoils most of the idea in the first place.

T can still be used to prove that the S combinator is expressible using 
\Twiddle, \Compose, and \use_i:n however. The point is that


uses each variable token exactly once, so the \lambda:Nn{<x>}{ <F>{<F'>} } 
rule is never invoked (nor is the \lambda:Nn{<x>}{<E>} rule), and thus T 
will rewrite that nested composition of lambda expressions using \Compose, 
\Twiddle, and \use_i:n only. Initial rewrite steps may feature unsightly 
intermediate results such as

      T( \lambda:Nn{x}{
         T( \lambda:Nn{y}{
            T( \lambda:Nn{z}{
               T( \lambda:Nn{w}{

      T( \lambda:Nn{x}{
         T( \lambda:Nn{y}{
            T( \lambda:Nn{z}{
               \Compose{ y{x} } {
                  T( \lambda:Nn{w}{ z{w} } )

      T( \lambda:Nn{x}{
         T( \lambda:Nn{y}{
            T( \lambda:Nn{z}{
               \Compose{ y{x} } {
                  \Compose{z}{ \use_i:n }

but that can be simplified to

      T( \lambda:Nn{x}{
         T( \lambda:Nn{y}{
            T( \lambda:Nn{z}{
               \Compose{ y{x} }{ z }

since \Compose{ <whatever> }{ \use_i:n } is equivalent to just <whatever>.

      T( \lambda:Nn{x}{
         T( \lambda:Nn{y}{
               \Compose{ y{x} }
               T( \lambda:Nn{z}{ z } )

      T( \lambda:Nn{x}{
         T( \lambda:Nn{y}{
               \Compose{ y{x} }

Again using the \Compose{<whatever>}{\use_i:n} rule, that simplifies to

      T( \lambda:Nn{x}{
         T( \lambda:Nn{y}{
            \Compose{ y{x} }

and so on, until


> I can write a fully robust, but entirely unpratical, conversion from
> named parameters to numbered parameters: pass the definition through
> ted.sty (or some adaptation thereof). Locate all #. Read the
> corresponding names. Convert to digits. Build the token list back
> (that piece is easy, see l3trial/cs-input/cs-input.dtx). For more than
> 9 arguments, things are harder, but also feasible.
> I'd argue, though, that it is useless. If you want named parameters,
> key-value input is much more powerful.

A lot of the time: yes; and I can certainly live with numbered parameters. 
It does however become a bit awkward when you add another optional argument 
to an xparse-defined command that already has a lot of arguments, since you 
will then find yourself having to renumber most #n in the replacement text. 
Trivially doable, but something of a maintenance problem.

Lars Hellström

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Search Archives

Search Archives

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996



Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager