Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7871289
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 3, 20262026-06-03T01:51:23+00:00 2026-06-03T01:51:23+00:00

Instead of fmap , which applies a function to a value-in-a-functor: fmap :: Functor

  • 0

Instead of fmap, which applies a function to a value-in-a-functor:

fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

I needed a function where the functor has a function and the value is plain:

thing :: Functor f => f (a -> b) -> a -> f b

but I can’t find one.

What is this pattern called, where I apply a function-in-a-functor (or in an applicative, or in a monad) to a plain value?

I’ve implemented it already, I just don’t quite understand what I did and why there wasn’t already such a function in the standard libraries.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-03T01:51:24+00:00Added an answer on June 3, 2026 at 1:51 am

    You don’t need Applicative for this; Functor will do just fine:

    apply f x = fmap ($ x) f
    -- or, expanded:
    apply f x = fmap (\f' -> f' x) f
    

    Interestingly, apply is actually a generalisation of flip; lambdabot replaces flip with this definition as one of its generalisations of standard Haskell, so that’s a possible name, although a confusing one.

    By the way, it’s often worth trying Hayoo (which searches the entirety of Hackage, unlike Hoogle) to see what names a function is often given, and whether it’s in any generic package. Searching for f (a -> b) -> a -> f b, it finds flip (in Data.Functor.Syntax, from the functors package) and ($#) (from the synthesizer package) as possible names. Still, I’d probably just use fmap ($ arg) f at the use site.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Instead of invoking a function on each matching value, I'd like get the array
Instead it just opens the new frame, and when that one closes.. it not
instead of popup from center can we change to another animation (eg, undo animation)?
Instead of using an external web-based Mercurial host, I want to set one up
Instead of automatically following JavaScript redirects, can I force HtmlUnit to return the URL
Instead of adding each item one by one to the ListBox destinationList from the
Instead of renting a server on Amazon and other hosting companies (which would cost
Instead of writing quit in my .m file, can I do this through command?
Instead of using keywords like FULL OUTER JOIN or FULL JOIN, how can I
How can I make (a, a) a Functor without resorting to a newtype ?

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.