In Category Theory, a Functor is a morphism between categories, that is, it maps each object in category A to another object in B, as well as mapping each morphism C -> D onto the respective objects in B, while preserving composition of morphisms. So one could say a functor is composed of two "parts", one that maps Objects to Objects, and one that maps Morphisms to Morphisms. In Haskell if I understood it properly, each Type in The Functor typeclass can be "mapped onto", that is a function of Type a -> b can be mapped onto a function F a -> F b. Now why doesn't there exist a return :: Functor f => a -> f a function, specifically for Functor? Is there no need, since we can simply utilize the definition of return in the Monad instance, since return is really only working on the functor part of a Monad, or is there another reason?

It striked me as strange, because if that were the way, why would't return be included in the Functor instance? I mean every monad has a functor part, so to me, that would make sense. Can anyone enlighten me in that matter?

CodePudding user response：

That's a common misconception and one that used to trip me up. You're right that a functor has two parts: one that maps objects to objects and one that maps functions to functions (more generally, arrows to arrows, but that's not really germane here). Now, when I have

instance Functor F where
    fmap f x = ...

You've already correctly surmised that fmap takes functions to functions. However, we already have a way to take objects to objects. Categorically, our objects are not values, they're types. So the "objects to objects" part is something that should map a type to another type. And that thing is called F. The name of our functor literally is the mapping from objects to objects. Given a type a, the type F a is some other type lifted by our functor.

Now that raises the fair question: What is return? It takes an a and produces an F a (for a monad F). More specifically, given a fixed monad F, the signature is

return :: forall a. a -> F a

Now carefully read that. That says "given any type a, I can come up with a function from a to F a". That is, it takes an object in our category (a type) and maps it into an arrow in our category (a function). A mapping from an object to an arrow is called a natural transformation, and that's exactly what return is.

Categorically speaking, a monad is a functor (the underlying type F together with fmap), together with two natural transformations:

• return, which is a natural transformation 1 -> F (where 1 is the identity functor), and
• join, which is a natural transformation F^2 -> F (where F^2 is F composed with itself)

That is, for any type a, return has type a -> F a and join has type F (F a) -> F a^[1].

What would a typeclass with return and fmap look like? I'm not sure. I don't know of a Haskell library that implements that typeclass, and I'm not entirely sure what the laws would look like. A good guess might be fmap f . return === return . f, but we actually get that as a free theorem, so that's not our law. If you or someone else knows of this typeclass somewhere in the Hackage ecosystem, feel free to let me know.

^[1] Haskell uses an equivalent definition of "monad" in terms of the bind operator (>>=) rather than join. They're equivalent mathematically, and I opted for the simpler definition here.