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

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • 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 6379507
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 25, 20262026-05-25T02:08:50+00:00 2026-05-25T02:08:50+00:00

The uncurry function only works for functions taking two arguments: uncurry :: (a ->

  • 0

The uncurry function only works for functions taking two arguments:

uncurry :: (a -> b -> c) -> (a, b) -> c

If I want to uncurry functions with an arbitrary number of arguments, I could just write separate functions:

uncurry2 f (a, b)          = f a b
uncurry3 f (a, b, c)       = f a b c
uncurry4 f (a, b, c, d)    = f a b c d
uncurry5 f (a, b, c, d, e) = f a b c d e

But this gets tedious quickly. Is there any way to generalize this, so I only have to write one function?

  • 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
    2026-05-25T02:08:51+00:00Added an answer on May 25, 2026 at 2:08 am

    Try uncurryN from the tuple package. Like all forms of overloading, it’s implemented using type classes. In this case by manually spelling out the instances up to 15-tuples, which should be more than enough.

    Variadic functions are also possible using type classes. One example of this is Text.Printf. In this case, it’s done by structural induction on the function type. Simplified, it works like this:

    class Foo t
    
    instance Foo (IO a)
    instance Foo b => Foo (a -> b)
    
    foo :: Foo
    

    It shouldn’t be hard to see that foo can be instantiated to the types IO a, a -> IO b, a -> b -> IO c and so on. QuickCheck also uses this technique.

    Structural induction won’t work on tuples, though, as an n-tuple is completely unrelated to a n+1-tuple, so that’s why the instances have to be spelled out manually.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

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.