# Please apply the comparison function given to nubBy to elements of the list in the order in which they occur in the list.

Christian Maeder Christian.Maeder at dfki.de
Tue Sep 20 12:59:19 CEST 2011

```Looking at the code of nubBy

nubBy                   :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
#ifdef USE_REPORT_PRELUDE
nubBy eq []             =  []
nubBy eq (x:xs)         =  x : nubBy eq (filter (\ y -> not (eq x y)) xs)
#else
nubBy eq l              = nubBy' l []
where
nubBy' [] _         = []
nubBy' (y:ys) xs
| elem_by eq y xs = nubBy' ys xs
| otherwise       = y : nubBy' ys (y:xs)

-- Not exported:
-- Note that we keep the call to `eq` with arguments in the
-- same order as in the reference implementation
-- 'xs' is the list of things we've seen so far,
-- 'y' is the potential new element
elem_by :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> a -> [a] -> Bool
elem_by _  _ []         =  False
elem_by eq y (x:xs)     =  y `eq` x || elem_by eq y xs
#endif

I see that the USE_REPORT_PRELUDE version corresponds to your proposal,
but the actual implementation (based on elem_by) behaves differently
despite the "same order" comment!

Therefore I support your proposal to change "y `eq` x" in elem_by (and
possibly improve the documentation).

Cheers Christian

Am 08.09.2011 02:07, schrieb Cale Gibbard:
> I just tried this in ghci-7.0.3:
>
> ghci>  nubBy (>=) [1,2,3,4]
> [1]
>
> Think about what this is doing: it is excluding 2 from the list
> because 2>= 1, rather than including it because 1>= 2 fails.
>
> I think an important convention when it comes to higher order
> functions on lists is that to the extent which is possible, the
> function parameters take elements from the list (or things computed
> from those) in the order in which they occur in the original list.
>
> If we reimplement it in the obvious way:
> ghci>  let nubBy f [] = []; nubBy f (x:xs) = x : filter (not . f x) (nubBy f xs)
> ghci>  nubBy (>=) [1,2,3,4]
> [1,2,3,4]
>
> I'm aware that the Report (strangely!) explicitly leaves the behaviour
> of nubBy unspecified for functions which are not equivalence
> relations, but the behaviour given by the Report implementation (the
> opposite of the current behaviour in GHC) is useful and desirable
> nonetheless.
>
> came up again for me, and I decided that I was sufficiently irritated
> by it to post again.
>
> Another thing perhaps worth pointing out is that the parameters to
> mapAccumR have always been backwards (compare it with foldr). Few
> enough people use this function that I'm fairly sure we could just
> change it without harm.
>
>   - Cale

```