Implementing Functor Instance for `ITree`
This looks mostly fine to me. If you wrote this code in a real codebase, I would not have any major qualms with it. Here are some nitpicks.


The strangest thing to me was just the way you defined a separate function, iTreeMap, then used that as the definition of fmap. I would just define fmap directly within the body of the instance definition—no need to give it a separate name.
The parentheses around ITree in the instance head are redundant. You could just write Functor ITree instead.
Given that the value inside of a Leaf is a function, the use of the function instance of fmap within the definition of iTreeMap is a bit of genericism that I think is unnecessary. I would probably just use (.) and make the composition explicit, but that’s really personal preference.


With those above changes in place, the instance would look like this:

data ITree a = Leaf (Int -&gt; a) | Node [ITree a]

instance Functor ITree where
  fmap f (Leaf x) = Leaf $ f . x
  fmap f (Node xs) = Node $ map (fmap f) xs


However, in real code, I wouldn’t actually do that at all. With the DeriveFunctor language extension, you could just ask GHC to write the Functor instance for you. Therefore, in real Haskell code, I would probably just write this:

{-# LANGUAGE DeriveFunctor #-}

data ITree a = Leaf (Int -&gt; a) | Node [ITree a]
  deriving (Functor)


But that’s probably against the spirit of the exercise. :)