I'm taking a university course in functional programming, using F#, and I keep getting confused about the logical flow of the following program. Would anyone care to explain?
let rec unzip = function
| [] -> ([],[])
| (x,y)::rest ->
let (xs,ys) = unzip rest
(x::xs,y:ys);;
So this program is supposed to take a list of pairs, and output a pair of lists.
[(1,'a');(2,'b')] -> ([1;2],['a','b'])
It seems to me, like the base case where the argument (list) is empty, the format of the output is given, but I don't understand how the third and fourth line is evaluated.
let (xs,ys) = unzip rest
(x::xs,y:ys);;
Firstly, this is a recursive function - the rec keyword is a giveawy :).
These can be quite hard to get you head around, but are quite common in functional programming.
I'll assume you are OK with most of the pattern matching going on, and that you are aware of the function keyword shorthand.
let rec unzip = function
| [] -> ([],[])
| (x,y)::rest ->
let (xs,ys) = unzip rest
(x::xs,y:ys);;
You seem quite happy with:
| [] -> ([],[])
Given an empty list, return a tuple with 2 empty lists. This isn't just a guard clause, it will be used later to stop the recursive program running forever.
The next bit...
| (x,y)::rest ->
Takes the first element (head) of the list and splits it off from the tail. It also deconstructs the head element which is a tuple into 2 values x and y.
The could be written out long hand as:
| head::rest ->
let x,y = head
Now is the fun part where it calls itself:
let (xs,ys) = unzip rest
(x::xs,y:ys);;
It might help to walk though an example an look at what goes on at each step:
unzip [(1,'a');(2,'b');(3,'c')]
x = 1
y = 'a'
rest = [(2,'b'); (3,'c')]
unzip rest
x = 2
y = 'b'
rest = [(3,'c')]
unzip rest
x = 3
y = 'c'
rest = []
unzip rest
return [],[]
xs = []
ys = []
return [x:xs],[y:ys] # 3:[] = [3], 'c':[] = ['c']
xs = [3]
ys = ['b']
return [x:xs],[y:ys] # 2:[3] = [2,3], 'b':['c'] = ['b', 'c']
xs = [2,3]
ys = ['b','c']
return [x:xs],[y:ys] # 1:[2;3] = [1,2,3], ['a']:['b';'c'] = ['a', 'b', 'c']
done
Related
I have finally found an excellent entry point into functional programming with elm, and boy, do I like it, yet I still lack some probably fundamental elegance concerning a few concepts.
I often find myself writing code similar to the one below, which seems to be doing what it should, but if someone more experienced could suggest a more compact and direct approach, I am sure that could give some valuable insights into this so(u)rcery.
What I imagine this could boil down to, is something like the following
(<-> is a vector subtraction operator):
edgeDirections : List Vector -> List Vector
edgeDirections corners = List.map2 (\p v -> p <-> v) corners (shiftr 1 corners)
but I don't really have a satisfying approach to a method that would do a shiftr.
But the rules of stackoverflow demand it, here is what I tried. I wrote an ugly example of a possible usage for shiftr (I absolutely dislike the Debug.crash and I am not happy about the Maybe):
Given a list of vectors (the corner points of a polygon), calculate the directional vectors by calculating the difference of each corner-vector to its previous one, starting with the diff between the first and the last entry in the list.
[v1,v2,v3] -> [v1-v3,v2-v1,v3-v2]
Here goes:
edgeDir : Vector -> ( Maybe Vector, List Vector ) -> ( Maybe Vector, List Vector )
edgeDir p ( v, list ) =
case v of
Nothing ->
Debug.crash ("nono")
Just vector ->
( Just p, list ++ [ p <-> vector ] )
edgeDirections : List Vector -> List Vector
edgeDirections corners =
let
last =
List.head <| List.reverse corners
in
snd <| List.foldl edgeDir ( last, [] ) corners
main =
show <| edgeDirections [ Vector -1 0, Vector 0 1, Vector 1 0 ]
I appreciate any insight into how this result could be achieved in a more direct manner, maybe using existing language constructs I am not aware of yet, or any pointers on how to lessen the pain with Maybe. The latter may Just not be possible, but I am certain that the former will a) blow me away and b) make me scratch my head a couple times :)
Thank you, and many thanks for this felicitous language!
If Elm had built-in init and last functions, this could be cleaner.
You can get away from all those Maybes by doing some pattern matching. Here's my attempt using just pattern matching and an accumulator.
import List exposing (map2, append, reverse)
shiftr list =
let shiftr' acc rest =
case rest of
[] -> []
[x] -> x :: reverse acc
(x::xs) -> shiftr' (x::acc) xs
in shiftr' [] list
edgeDirections vectors =
map2 (<->) vectors <| shiftr vectors
Notice also the shortened writing of the mapping function of (<->), which is equivalent to (\p v -> p <-> v).
Suppose Elm did have an init and last function - let's just define those quickly here:
init list =
case list of
[] -> Nothing
[_] -> Just []
(x::xs) -> Maybe.map ((::) x) <| init xs
last list =
case list of
[] -> Nothing
[x] -> Just x
(_::xs) -> last xs
Then your shiftr function could be shortened to something like:
shiftr list =
case (init list, last list) of
(Just i, Just l) -> l :: i
_ -> list
Just after I "hung up", I came up with this, but I am sure this can still be greatly improved upon, if it's even correct (and it only works for n=1)
shiftr : List a -> List a
shiftr list =
let
rev =
List.reverse list
in
case List.head rev of
Nothing ->
list
Just t ->
[ t ] ++ (List.reverse <| List.drop 1 rev)
main =
show (shiftr [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ] |> shiftr)
I'm building a merge sort function and my split method is giving me a value restriction error. I'm using 2 accumulating parameters, the 2 lists resulting from the split, that I package into a tuple in the end for the return. However I'm getting a value restriction error and I can't figure out what the problem is. Does anyone have any ideas?
let split lst =
let a = []
let b = []
let ctr = 0
let rec helper (lst,l1,l2,ctr) =
match lst with
| [] -> []
| x::xs -> if ctr%2 = 0 then helper(xs, x::l1, l2, ctr+1)
else
helper(xs, l1, x::l2, ctr+1)
helper (lst, a, b, ctr)
(a,b)
Any input is appreciated.
The code, as you have written it, doesn't really make sense. F# uses immutable values by default, therefore your function, as it's currently written, can be simplified to this:
let split lst =
let a = []
let b = []
(a,b)
This is probably not what you want. In fact, due to immutable bindings, there is no value in predeclaring a, b and ctr.
Here is a recursive function that will do the trick:
let split lst =
let rec helper lst l1 l2 ctr =
match lst with
| [] -> l1, l2 // return accumulated lists
| x::xs ->
if ctr%2 = 0 then
helper xs (x::l1) l2 (ctr+1) // prepend x to list 1 and increment
else
helper xs l1 (x::l2) (ctr+1) // prepend x to list 2 and increment
helper lst [] [] 0
Instead of using a recursive function, you could also solve this problem using List.fold, fold is a higher order function which generalises the accumulation process that we described explicitly in the recursive function above.
This approach is a bit more concise but very likely less familiar to someone new to functional programming, so I've tried to describe this process in more detail.
let split2 lst =
/// Take a running total of each list and a index*value and return a new
/// pair of lists with the supplied value prepended to the correct list
let splitFolder (l1, l2) (i, x) =
match i % 2 = 0 with
|true -> x :: l1, l2 // return list 1 with x prepended and list2
|false -> l1, x :: l2 // return list 1 and list 2 with x prepended
lst
|> List.mapi (fun i x -> i, x) // map list of values to list of index*values
|> List.fold (splitFolder) ([],[]) // fold over the list using the splitFolder function
I am working on writing a recursive function in erlang that given an element X and a list, deletes the element X from the list and returns the new list. I believe I have written it correctly, however, when I run a test on it, I am thrown into an infinite loop..
delete(_,[]) -> [];
delete(X,[X|_]) -> [];
delete(X,[Y|YS]) ->
if X == Y -> YS;
true -> [Y] ++ delete(X,[YS]) % I believe the infinite loop is a result of this line..
end.
I am very new to erlang (this is my second project using the language), so troubleshooting is a bit difficult for me, but if anyone could provide some guidance, it would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance!
delete(_,[]) -> []; %% ok removing anything from an empty list gives an empty list
delete(X,[X|_]) -> []; %% big mistake. If you find the element you want to remove on top
%% of the list, you must remove it and continue with the rest of the list
delete(X,[Y|YS]) ->
if X == Y -> YS; %% this will never occurs since you already test this case
%% in the previous clause. An the result should be delete(X,YS), not YS.
true -> [Y] ++ delete(X,[YS]) %% correct
end.
I don't see where you have an infinite loop, but the second clause will make the recursive calls stop too early.
So your code should be:
delete(_,[]) -> [];
delete(X,[X|Rest]) -> delete(X,Rest);
delete(X,[Y|YS]) -> [Y] ++ delete(X,[YS]).
but a I would recommend to use list comprehension for a very short code and fast execution (it is the code used in lists:filter/2):
delete(X,L) -> [Y || Y <- L, Y =/= X].
% ^ ^ ^
% | | |_ when Y different from X
% | |_________ with all the elements Y from L
% |__________________ make a list
defining the function in the shell, you get:
1> D = fun D(_,[]) -> [];
1> D(X,[X|R]) -> D(X,R);
1> D(X,[Y|R]) -> [Y] ++ D(X,R) end.
#Fun<erl_eval.36.90072148>
2> D(4,[1,2,3,4,5,6]).
[1,2,3,5,6]
3> D1 = fun(X,L) -> [Y || Y <- L, Y =/= X] end.
#Fun<erl_eval.12.90072148>
4> D1(4,[1,2,3,4,5,6]).
[1,2,3,5,6]
5>
First off, I don't know why you would need the second clause. Basically it's saying "If the first item in the list matches the item to be removed, through the whole list away and return an empty one".
The easiest way to do this is to start with the list and an empty list to store the result. Then as we iterate over the items in the list, we add items that don't match to the result and ignore items that match the item we want deleted. This will remove all occurrences of X in List:
delete(X, List) -> delete(X, List, []). % Provide the same API as before
delete(_,[], Result) -> Result; % If the list is empty we are done.
delete(X,[Y|YS], Result) ->
case X == Y of
true ->
delete(X,[YS], Result);
false ->
delete(X,[Y|YS], Result)
end.
But why not use lists:filter/2? It makes it much simpler:
delete(X, List) ->
lists:filter(fun(Item) ->
Item /= X
end, List).
I am trying to produce the solution for an intersection of two sets using tail recursion and an empty list [] as an accu:
let rec setintersect list list =
let rec setintersect2 a b c =
match a with
| [] -> (match b with [] -> (setsimplify c) | h::t -> (setsimplify c))
| h1::t1 -> (match b with [] -> (setsimplify c) |h2::t2 -> (if (elementof h1 b) then (setintersect2 t1 b (c#[h1])) else (setintersect2 t1 b c))) in
setintersect2 list list [];;
Elementof takes takes "an int and a list" and is correctly working to give true if x is an element of the list, false otherwise..
Here is the problem:
# setintersect [5;2;1] [2;6;9];;
- : int list = [2; 6; 9]
and it should give [2].
What am I doing wrong?
I feel like there's something really simple that I am misunderstanding!
Edit:
Thanks for the responses so far.
setsimplify just removes the duplicates.
so [2,2,3,5,6,6] becomes [2,3,5,6]. Tested and made sure it is working properly.
I am not supposed to use anything from the List library either. Also, I must use "tail recursion" with the accumulator being a list that I build as I go.
Here is the thought:
Check the head element in list1, IF it exists in list2, THEN recurse with the "tail of list1, list2, and list c with that element added to it". ELSE, then recurse with "tail of list1, list2 and list c(as it is)".
end conditions are either list1 or list2 are empty or both together are empty, return list c (as it is).
let rec setintersect list list = is wrong: the two arguments should be named differently (you should of course update the call to setintersect2 accordingly), otherwise the second will shadow the first. I would have thought that OCaml would have at least warned you about this fact, but it appears that it is not the case.
Apart from that, the code seems to do the trick. There are a couple of things that could be improved though:
setintersect itself is not recursive (only setintersect2 is), you thus don't need the rec
you should find a different name for the argument of setintersect2. In particular, it is not obvious which is the accumulator (acc or accu will be understood by most OCaml programmers in these circumstances).
c#[h1] is inefficient: you will traverse c completely each time you append an element. It's better to do h1::c and reverse the result at the end
As a bonus point, if you append element at the beginning of c, and assume that a is ordered, you don't have to call setsimplify at the end of the call: just check whether c is empty, and if this is not the case, append h1 only if it is not equal to the head of c.
First, You didn't list out your setsimplify function.
To write an ocaml function, try to split it first, and then combine if possible.
To solve this task, you just go through all elements in l1, and for every element, you check whether it is in l2 or not, right?
So definitely you need a function to check whether an element is in a list or not, right?
let make one:
let rec mem x = function
| [] -> false
| hd::tl -> hd = x || mem x tl
Then you can do your intersection:
let rec inter l1 l2 =
match l1 with
| [] -> []
| hd::tl -> if mem hd l2 then hd::(inter tl l2) else inter tl l2
Note that the above function is not tail-recursive, I guess you can change it to tail-recursive as an excise.
If you use std library, then it is simple:
let intersection l1 l2 = List.filter (fun x -> List.mem x l2) l1
Take this example code (ignore it being horribly inefficient for the moment)
let listToString (lst:list<'a>) = ;;' prettify fix
let rec inner (lst:list<'a>) buffer = ;;' prettify fix
match List.length lst with
| 0 -> buffer
| _ -> inner (List.tl lst) (buffer + ((List.hd lst).ToString()))
inner lst ""
This is a common pattern I keep coming across in F#, I need to have an inner function who recurses itself over some value - and I only need this function once, is there in any way possible to call a lambda from within it self (some magic keyword or something) ? I would like the code to look something like this:
let listToString2 (lst:list<'a>) = ;;' prettify fix
( fun
(lst:list<'a>) buffer -> match List.length lst with ;;' prettify fix
| 0 -> buffer
| _ -> ##RECURSE## (List.tl lst) (buffer + ((List.hd lst).ToString()))
) lst ""
But as you might expect there is no way to refer to the anonymous function within itself, which is needed where I put ##RECURSE##
Yes, it's possible using so called y-combinators (or fixed-point combinators). Ex:
let rec fix f x = f (fix f) x
let fact f = function
| 0 -> 1
| x -> x * f (x-1)
let _ = (fix fact) 5 (* evaluates to "120" *)
I don't know articles for F# but this haskell entry might also be helpful.
But: I wouldn't use them if there is any alternative - They're quite hard to understand.
Your code (omit the type annotations here) is a standard construct and much more expressive.
let listToString lst =
let rec loop acc = function
| [] -> acc
| x::xs -> loop (acc ^ (string x)) xs
loop "" lst
Note that although you say you use the function only once, technically you refer to it by name twice, which is why it makes sense to give it a name.