The key here is laziness. If the function you're using for folding the list is strict, then neither a left fold nor a right fold will terminate, given an infinite list.
Prelude> foldr (+) 0 [1..]
^CInterrupted.
However, if you try folding a less strict function, you can get a terminating result.
Prelude> foldr (x y -> x) 0 [1..]
1
You can even get a result that is an infinite data structure, so while it does in a sense not terminate, it's still able to produce a result that can be consumed lazily.
Prelude> take 10 $ foldr (:) [] [1..]
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
However, this will not work with foldl
, as you will never be able to evaluate the outermost function call, lazy or not.
Prelude> foldl (flip (:)) [] [1..]
^CInterrupted.
Prelude> foldl (x y -> y) 0 [1..]
^CInterrupted.
Note that the key difference between a left and a right fold is not the order in which the list is traversed, which is always from left to right, but rather how the resulting function applications are nested.
With foldr
, they are nested on "the inside"
foldr f y (x:xs) = f x (foldr f y xs)
Here, the first iteration will result in the outermost application of f
. Thus, f
has the opportunity to be lazy so that the second argument is either not always evaluated, or it can produce some part of a data structure without forcing its second argument.
With foldl
, they are nested on "the outside"
foldl f y (x:xs) = foldl f (f y x) xs
Here, we can't evaluate anything until we have reached the outermost application of f
, which we will never reach in the case of an infinite list, regardless of whether f
is strict or not.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…