One of my favorite functional programming tricks is folding. The fold left and fold right functions can do a lot of complicated things with a small amount of code. Today, I’d like to (1) introduce folding, (2) make note of some surprising, nay, shocking fold behavior, (3) review the folding code used in Scala’s List class, and (4) make some presumptuous suggestions on how to improve List.

Update: I’ve created a new post in which I list lots and lots of foldLeft examples in case you’d like to learn more about what folding can accomplish.

## Know When to Hold ‘Em, Know When to Fold ‘Em

In case you’re not familiar with folding, I’ll describe it as briefly as I can.

Here’s the signature of the foldLeft function from List[A], a list of items of type A:

```def foldLeft[B](z: B)(f: (B, A) => B): B
```

Firstly, foldLeft is a curried function (So is foldRight). If you don’t know about currying, that’s ok; this function just takes its two parameters (z and f) in two sets of parentheses instead of one. Currying isn’t the important part anyway.

The first parameter, z, is of type B, which is to say it can be different from the list contents type. The second parameter, f, is a function that takes a B and an A (a list item) as parameters, and it returns a value of type B. So the purpose of function f is to take a value of type B, use a list item to modify that value and return it.

The foldLeft function goes through the whole List, from head to tail, and passes each value to f. For the first list item, that first parameter, z, is used as the first parameter to f. For the second list item, the result of the first call to f is used as the B type parameter.

For example, say we had a list of Ints 1, 2, and 3. We could call foldLeft(“X”)((b,a) => b + a). For the first item, 1, the function we define would add string “X” to Int 1, returning string “X1″. For the second list item, 2, the function would add string “X1″ to Int 2, returning “X12″. And for the final list item, 3, the function would add “X12″ to 3 and return “X123″.

Here are a few more examples.

```list.foldLeft(0)((b,a) => b+a)
list.foldLeft(1)((b,a) => b*a)
list.foldLeft(List[Int]())((b,a) => a :: b)
```

The first line is super simple. It’s almost like the example I described above, but the z value is the number 0 instead of string “X”. This fold combines the elements of the list by addition instead of concatenation. So the fold returns the sum of all Ints in the list. Line 2 combines them through multiplication. Do you see why the z value is 1 in this case?

Line 3 is a little more complex. Can you guess what it does? It starts out with an empty list of Ints and adds each item to the accumulator (We call the b parameter of our function the accumulator because it accumulates data from each of our list items). Because it starts with the head and adds to the beginning of the accumulator list until it gets to the last item of the original list, it returns the original list in reverse order.

The foldRight function works in much the same way as foldLeft. Can you guess the difference? You got it. It starts at the end of the list and works its way up to the head.

Folds can be used for MUCH more than I’ve shown here. With folds, you can solve lots of different problems with a standard construct. You should read up on them if you’re just starting out in functional programming.

## All That Glitters Is Not Fold

Now for the moment you’ve been waiting for. Fold’s dirty little secret! The below is taken from a scala interpreter session.

```scala> var shortList = 1 to 10 toList
shortList: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

scala> var longList = 1 to 325000 toList
longList: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, ...

scala> shortList.foldLeft("")((x,y) => "X")
res1: java.lang.String = X

scala> shortList.foldRight("")((x,y) => "X")
res2: java.lang.String = X

scala> longList.foldLeft("")((x,y) => "X")
res3: java.lang.String = X

scala> longList.foldRight("")((x,y) => "X")
java.lang.StackOverflowError
at scala.List.foldRight(List.scala:1079)
at scala.List.foldRight(List.scala:1081)
at scala.List.foldRight(List.scala:1081)
at scala.List.foldRight(List.scala:1081)
at scala.List.foldRight(List.scala:1081)
at scala.List.foldRight(List.scala:1081)
at scala.List.foldRight(List.scala:1081)
at scala.List.foldRight(List.scala:1081)
at scala.List.foldRig...
```

We created two lists: shortList with 10 items, and longList with 325,000 items. Then we perform a trivial foldLeft and foldRight on shortList. It’s trivial because the passed-in function always returns the string “X”; it doesn’t even use the list data.

Then we do a foldLeft on longList. This goes off without a hitch. Finally we try to do a foldRight, the same foldRight that succeeded on the shorter list, and it fails! The foldLeft worked. Why didn’t the foldRight work? It’s a perfectly reasonable call against a perfectly reasonable List. Something funny is going on here.

The error message says there was a stack overflow, and the stack trace shows a long list of calls at List.scala:1081. If you’ve read my post about tail-recursion, then you probably suspect that some recursive code is to blame.

Let’s look into List.scala, maybe the single most important Scala source file.

## Fool’s Fold

Without further ado, here’s the code for foldLeft and foldRight from List.scala:

```override def foldLeft[B](z: B)(f: (B, A) => B): B = {
var acc = z
var these = this
while (!these.isEmpty) {
these = these.tail
}
acc
}

override def foldRight[B](z: B)(f: (A, B) => B): B = this match {
case Nil => z
case x :: xs => f(x, xs.foldRight(z)(f))
}
```

Wow! Those two definitions are very different!

The foldLeft function is the one that worked for short and long lists. You can see why? It isn’t head-recursive. In fact, it isn’t recursive at all. It is implemented as a while loop. On each iteration, the next list item is passed to the function f and the accumulator (called acc) is updated. When there are no more list items, the accumulator is returned. No recursion means no stack overflows.

The foldRight function is implemented in a totally different way. If the list is empty, the z parameter is returned. Otherwise, a recursive call is made on the tail (the whole list minus the first item) of this list, and that result is passed to the function f. Study the foldRight definition. Do you understand how it works? It’s an elegant recursive solution, and the code really is quite pretty, but it’s not tail recursive so it fails for large lists.

Why didn’t Mr Odersky just write foldRight using a while loop, too? Then this problem wouldn’t exist, right? The reason is that Scala’s List is a implemented as a singly-linked list. Each list element has access to the next item in the list, but not to the previous item. You can only traverse a list in one direction! This works fine for foldLeft, which goes from head to tail, but foldRight has to start at the end of the list and work its way forward to the head. If foldRight uses recursion, it must recurse all the way to the end and then use the results of those recursive calls as the accumulator passed into function f.

See? The results of the recursive call must be used for further calculation, so the recursive call can’t be the last thing that happens, so it can’t be written as a tail-recursive function. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read my introduction to tail-recursion.

## Out With The Fold, In With The New

So is that it for foldRight? Is it hopeless? I say no!

There is a way to get the same result as foldRight, but using foldLeft. Can you guess what it is? Here’s how:

```list.foldRight("X")((a,b) => a + b)
list.reverse.foldLeft("X")((b,a) => a + b)
```

These two lines are equivalent! They give the same result no matter what’s in list. Since foldRight processes list elements from last to first, that’s the same as processing the reversed list from first to last.

Here are three possible implementations of foldRight that could replace the current one.

```def foldRight[B](z: B)(f: (A, B) => B): B =
reverse.foldLeft(z)((b,a) => f(a,b))

def foldRight[B](z: B)(f: (A, B) => B): B =
if (length > 50) reverse.foldLeft(z)((b,a) => f(a,b))
else             originalFoldRight(z)(f)

def foldRight[B](z: B)(f: (A, B) => B): B =
try {
originalFoldRight(z)(f)
} catch {
case e1: StackOverflowError => reverse.foldLeft(z)((b,a) => f(a,b))
}
```

The first one simply replaces the original recursive logic with the equivalent call to reverse and foldLeft. Why wasn’t foldRight implemented this way to begin with? It may be, in part, that the authors thought the extra overhead of reversing the list was unwarranted. To me, it doesn’t seem that bad. The original foldRight and foldLeft functions are O(n), meaning they run in an amount of time roughly proportional to the number of items in the list. If you look at the source for the reverse function, you’ll see it’s also O(n). So running reverse followed by foldLeft is O(n).

The second implementation is a compromise. It uses the original recursive version of foldRight (referred to as originalFoldRight in the above code) only when the list is shorter than 50 elements. The reverse.foldLeft is used for lists of 50 elements or longer. 50 is just an arbitrary number, just a guess at a sensible limit on the number of recursive calls to allow.

The third implementation tries the original foldRight logic first and if the call stack overflows then it uses reverse.foldLeft. This solution is, of course, completely ridiculous, but even this would be better than a foldRight which sometimes crashes your program.

## That’s All, Folds!

As I pointed out before, the reverse.foldLeft implementation of foldRight is O(n), same as the original recursive version. The original foldRight may work just fine when your Scala application is young and working with small data sets. Over time more customers are added, more products are created, more orders are placed, and then one day, *POOF*, a runtime error! It’s a ticking time-bomb.

As you may well guess, I would like to see the reverse.foldLeft logic used instead of the recursive version. That would prevent the stack overflow errors. But I would settle for just deprecating foldRight. It would be better to eliminate foldRight and force the coder to work around it than to leave it in its current state. In fact, I don’t think any head-recursive functions belong in the List class.

Do any readers have any insight into why foldRight is coded the way it is?