# Thing I Learned Today: Functors in Haskell

by Brian Shourd on October 26, 2012

I’ve been reading through the absolutely fantastic Learn You a Haskell book, and today I read the section on functors in Haskell. I was a bit puzzled, at first, because I already have a category-theoretic (and very math-based) view of what a functor is. It took me a bit to see how these two ideas line up, but I figured it out and thought that I would present it here.

## The Math Perspective

Let’s start with the math perspective. For the sake of clarity, let’s use “functor” for math-type functors and Functor for Haskell-type functors (we’ll see that they are the same, but until then we’ll need a distinction).

In order to understand what a functor is, we need to know what a category is. A category $$\mathcal{C}$$ contains the following data:

1. A collection of objects (not necessarily a set), sometimes called $$\textrm{Ob} (\mathcal{C})$$.
2. For every pair of objects $$A$$ and $$B$$ a collection $$\textrm{Mor} (A,B)$$ called the morphisms from $$A$$ to $$B$$. If $$f$$ is a morphism from $$A$$ to $$B$$, we write $$f \, : \, A \rightarrow B$$ (for this reason, morphisms are sometimes called arrows in category theory).
3. A concept of composition of morphisms. That is, given a morphism $f , : , A B$ and a morphism $$g \, : \, B \rightarrow C$$ there is a morphism $$g \circ f \, : \, A \rightarrow C$$.

It must also satisfy the following axioms:

1. For every object $$A$$ there is an element $$\textrm{id}_A \, : \, A \rightarrow A$$ (called the identity morphism of A) such that for every morphism $$f \, : \, A \rightarrow B$$, $$\textrm{id}_A \circ f = f = f \circ \textrm{id}_A$$.
2. If $$f$$, $$g$$, and $$h$$ are morphisms such that $$f \circ (g \circ h)$$ makes sense, then $$f \circ (g \circ h) = (f \circ g) \circ h$$. That is, composition of morphisms is associative.

This is a lot of technical words to encode some really basic ideas. A lot of the time, the objects of a category are just sets (with algebraic structure) and morphisms are just functions between sets (that preserve the algebraic structure). Some classical categories include

1. $$\textrm{Set}$$ the category of sets. The objects are all sets, and the morphisms are just set-theoretic functions between sets. The notion of composition is just that - regular old composition of functions.
2. $$\mathbb{C}\textrm{-Vect}$$ the category of complex vector spaces. The objects are all complex vector spaces (which are just sets with some algebraic structure ) and the morphisms are just linear maps between vector spaces (which are precisely the functions that preserve the algebraic structure) with usual composition.
3. We can also do funny things, like consider a group $$G$$ to be a category containing only one object. Then $$\textrm{Mor} (G,G)$$ consists of the elements of $$G$$, and composition of morphisms is given by multiplication of elements of $$G$$. This is a great example of how morphisms aren’t necessarily functions, they are just things that can be combined in an associative way (of which functions are a particular example).

Now that we have a category, we can define a functor. Given categories $$\mathcal{C}$$ and $$\mathcal{D}$$, a functor $$F \, : \, \mathcal{C} \rightarrow \mathcal{D}$$ is a rule that assigns to each object $$A$$ in $$\mathcal{C}$$ an object $$F (A)$$ in $$\mathcal{D}$$. It also assigns to every morphism $$f \, : \, A \rightarrow B$$ of objects of $$\mathcal{C}$$ a morphism $$F (f) \, : \, F(A) \rightarrow F(B)$$, and satisfies the following axioms:

1. For every object $$A$$ in $$\mathcal{C}$$, $$F(\textrm{id}_A) = \textrm{id}_{F(A)}$$. That is, $$F$$ preserves identity morphisms.
2. If $$f \, : \, A \rightarrow B$$ and $$g \, : \, B \rightarrow C$$ are morphisms of objects in $$\mathcal{C}$$, then $$F(g \circ f) = F(g) \circ F(f)$$. That is, $$F$$ respects composition of morphisms.

Note: technically speaking, what we’ve defined is a covariant functor. There are also functors which reverse the order of maps, so that if $$f \, : \, A \rightarrow B$$, then $$F(f) \, : \, B \rightarrow A$$, which we call contravariant. Covariant functors are often just called functors, and the covariant is omitted unless we want to explicitely say that it is not contravariant.

In Haskell, a Functor is a special version of a type constructor. A type constructor is a structure that takes a concrete type and creates a new concrete type. For example, Maybe is a type constructor because if we give it the concrete type Int we get a new concrete type Maybe Int. So is [], which takes a type like Char and gives us a type [Char].

In order for Functor to match up with the math version of functors, each functor must be take objects of some category $$\mathcal{C}$$ to objects of some category $$\mathcal{D}$$. It must be that both of these categories are just the category of all concrete types. We can check that this is, in fact, a category, with morphisms just functions between types. We have the identity morphism (called id in Haskell), and we also have associativity of composition.

What else do we need? Well, for one thing, we need a Functor to act on morphisms, not just objects. That is, if we have a type constructor Fun, two types a and b, and a function f :: a -> b, we expect that there is somehow a function f' :: Fun a -> Fun b. Indeed, there is! In order to make Fun a Functor, we use the code

instance Functor Fun where
fmap :: (a -> b) -> Fun a -> Fun b

So we have to actually define a function fmap which takes functions f :: a -> b to functions fmap f :: Fun a -> Fun b in order to make Fun an instance of Functor. It’s explicitely required by the language.

But that isn’t all - we also had two axioms that functors should satisfy: they need to preserve the identity and they need to respect composition of functions. Does Haskell check this too?

It turns out that no, Haskell doesn’t. Which isn’t surprising, given that these would be very difficult things for a compiler to check. Sure, it could try to generate some test cases and run them against the code as it compiles, but that isn’t sufficient (and still seems hard). Instead, Haskell passes the burden to you, the programmer. If you make something an instance of Functor, you’d better make sure that it satisfies those axioms. Otherwise, it won’t behave right. It won’t behave functorially (that’s a real word), and all the basic properties of functors (and Functors) that you expect might not work.

These kinds of things make me so excited about learning Haskell. So much of it is just math stuff that I already know, but changed around, given different context. A different perspective. It’s beautiful, and it helps me both to understand Haskell, and to better understand the math. Win, win.