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)
Related
The function should take a list of tuples, and return the ones that have sum > 5
Let's say I have the following code:
fn :: [(Int, Int)] -> [(Int, Int)]
fn tuples = map (\(x,y) -> if (x + y) > 5 then (x,y) else (0,0)) tuples
fn [(3,4), (4,4), (0,1)] returns [(3,4),(4,4),(0,0)] but really I just want it to return [(3,4),(4,4)]
Is this possible in haskell while still following the type signature?
What you're asking for is mapMaybe:
mapMaybe :: (a -> Maybe b) -> [a] -> [b]
base Data.Maybe
The mapMaybe function is a version of map which can throw out elements. In particular, the functional argument returns something of type Maybe b. If this is Nothing, no element is added on to the result list. If it is Just b, then b is included in the result list.
The smallest change to use it in your code would be:
import Data.Maybe
fn :: [(Int, Int)] -> [(Int, Int)]
fn tuples = mapMaybe (\(x,y) -> if (x + y) > 5 then Just (x,y) else Nothing) tuples
However, in this specific case, you don't actually transform, you just remove. If you don't plan on adding transformation later, filter is more suitable:
fn = filter (\(x,y) -> x+y > 5)
Bit of a weird question, but after the comment
I dont see a concept of “empty tuple” in haskell
I guess I see where you're coming from. Actually Haskell does have “empty tuples”: the unit type () is the type of “tuples with zero elements”. So what you're thinking of seems to be
fn tuples = map (\(x,y) -> if x + y > 5 then (x,y) else ()) tuples
But that doesn't work because () is a different type from (Int,Int). The elements of a list must all have the same type. Even if it did work, à la dynamic-types, the result of fn [(3,4), (4,4), (0,1)] would then actually be [(3,4), (4,4), ()]. I.e. you'd still get three elements, just one of them would be “boring”.
map does in fact by design guarantee to never change the number of elements in the list, only the values of their elements. So if that's what you want, you need to use a different function. The closest to your approach would be concatMap:
fn tuples = concatMap (\(x,y) -> if x + y > 5 then [(x,y)] else []) tuples
What happens here can also be described in two steps:
You map a function that generates a list for each element. The result is thus a list of lists.
You flatten that list.
So [(3,4), (4,4), (0,1)] -> [[(3,4)], [(4,4)], []] -> [(3,4), (4,4)].
Really though, there's no need to use a mapping step at all here – the elements are kept as they are eventually, so filter is the tool to use.
I have the following function in OCaml:
let get_all_parents lst =
List.map (fun (name,opt) -> opt) lst
That maps my big list with (name, opt) to just a list of opt. An option can contain of either None or Some value which in this case is a string. I want a list of strings with all my values.
I am a beginner learning OCaml.
I don't think filter and map used together is a good solution to this problem. This is because when you apply map to convert your string option to string, you will have the None case to deal with. Even if you know that you won't have any Nones because you filtered them away, the type checker doesn't, and can't help you. If you have non-exhaustive pattern match warnings enabled, you will get them, or you will have to supply some kind of dummy string for the None case. And, you will have to hope you don't introduce errors when refactoring later, or else write test cases or do more code review.
Instead, you need a function filter_map : ('a -> 'b option) -> 'a list -> 'b list. The idea is that this works like map, except filter_map f lst drops each element of lst for which f evaluates to None. If f evaluates to Some v, the result list will have v. You could then use filter_map like so:
filter_map (fun (_, opt) -> opt) lst
You could also write that as
filter_map snd lst
A more general example would be:
filter_map (fun (_, opt) ->
match opt with
| Some s -> Some (s ^ "\n")
| None -> None)
lst
filter_map can be implemented like this:
let filter_map f lst =
let rec loop acc = function
| [] -> List.rev acc
| v::lst' ->
match f v with
| None -> loop acc lst'
| Some v' -> loop (v'::acc) lst'
in
loop [] lst
EDIT For greater completeness, you could also do
let filter_map f lst =
List.fold_left (fun acc v ->
match f v with
| Some v' -> v'::acc
| None -> acc) [] lst
|> List.rev
It's a shame that this kind of function isn't in the standard library. It's present in both Batteries Included and Jane Street Core.
I'm going to expand on #Carsten's answer. He is pointing you the right direction.
It's not clear what question you're asking. For example, I'm not sure why you're telling us about your function get_all_parents. Possibly this function was your attempt to get the answer you want, and that it's not quite working for you. Or maybe you're happy with this function, but you want to do some further processing on its results?
Either way, List.map can't do the whole job because it always returns a list of the same length as its input. But you need a list that can be different lengths, depending on how many None values there are in the big list.
So you need a function that can extract only the parts of a list that you're interested in. As #Carsten says, the key function for this is List.filter.
Some combination of map and filter will definitely do what you want. Or you can just use fold, which has the power of both map and filter. Or you can write your own recursive function that does all the work.
Update
Maybe your problem is in extracting the string from a string option. The "nice" way to do this is to provide a default value to use when the option is None:
let get default xo =
match xo with
| None -> default
| Some x -> x
# get "none" (Some "abc");;
- : string = "abc"
# get "none" None;;
- : string = "none"
#
type opt = Some of string | None
List.fold_left (fun lres -> function
(name,Some value) -> value::lres
| (name,None) -> lres
) [] [("s1",None);("s2",Some "s2bis")]
result:
- : string list = ["s2bis"]
I want to print out the column of a matrix but i keep getting an error.
Error: This expression has type 'a list but an expression was expected of type int
let rec get_column2 mat x = match mat with
| [] -> raise (Failure "empty list")
| h::t -> if x = 1 then h else get_column2 t (x-1);;
let rec get_column mat x= match mat with
| [] -> raise (Failure "empty list")
| []::tv -> get_column tv x
| hv::tv -> get_column2 hv x::get_column tv x;;
Matrix example [[2;5;6];[3;5;3][3;6;8]]
The first part works fine on type int list so I added the second part to go through the int list list and cut them into int list's and then tryed to get the columns of each separately.
I also tryed it this way:
let rec get_column mat x =
let rec column matr y =
if matr = [] then raise (Failure "empty list") else
if y = 1 then List.hd matr else
column (List.tl matr) y-1;
in column (List.hd mat) x :: get_column (List.tl mat) x;;
The second example translates fine but then doesn't work. I get an Exception "tl". (I'm not sure the function nesting is done right since I'm just learning Ocaml).
get_column2 - your first function, works as it should. That is it will fetch the value of each row in the matrix. It's a good helper function for you to extract the value from a list.
Your second function get_column gets all the types right, and you're accumulating everything, except that instead of stopping when you have an empty list [] you end up throwing an exception. That is your matrix example will go through just nicely, until it has no more lists to go through, then it will always throw the exception. (because the recursion keeps going till it's an empty list, and Ocaml will do as you told it too, fail when it gets an empty list.
The only thing you were missing was the exception, instead of throwing an exception, just return an empty list. That way your recursion will go all the way and accumulate till it's an empty list, and at the final step where the matrix is empty, it will append the empty list to the result, and you're golden.
So your code should be:
let rec get_column2 mat x = match mat with
| [] -> raise (Failure "empty list")
| h::t -> if x = 1 then h else get_column2 t (x-1)
let rec get_column mat x= match mat with
| [] -> [] (*doesn't throw an exception here*)
| []::tv -> get_column tv x
| hv::tv -> (get_column2 hv x)::get_column tv x
Instead of throwing the exception when it's an empty list, maybe you could check if the value of x is more than the length of the inner list.
Also, here's my implementation of doing it. It's still fairly basic as it doesn't use List.iter which everyone loves, but it doesn't rely on any additional packages. It makes use of nested functions so you don't expose them everywhere and pollute the namespace.
(*mat is a list of int list*)
let get_col mat x =
let rec helper rows x = (*helper function that gets the value at x*)
match rows with
| [] -> raise (Failure "empty list")
| h::t -> if x = 1 then h else helper t (x-1)
in
let rec wrapper mat= (*function that walks through all the rows*)
match mat with
| [] -> []
| rows::tl -> (helper rows x)::(wrapper tl) (*keep accumulating value*)
in wrapper mat
How you can visualize the [] -> [] part is that when the recursion is at it's final stage (mat is reduced to an empty list), the wrapper function returns the empty list, which will be appended to the recursion stack (since we are accumulating the values in a list as per (helper rows x)::(wrapper tl)), and the recursion will complete.
You don't hit this error with your get_column2 as you tell ocaml to stop recursing and return a value when x=1.
Edit, Additional:
As Jeffrey mentioned, a much more elegant way of handling the error is adding the case for [row], where row is the last row in the matrix. You just return (helper row x) there. And you could have the empty matrix as a failure.
Example using your code:
let rec get_column mat x= match mat with
| [] -> raise (Failure "empty list") (*fail here, as we don't want to compute a matrix with no rows.*)
| [tv] -> get_column tv x (*just return the value*)
| hv::tv -> (get_column2 hv x)::get_column tv x
When I try your first example, I don't get a type error. When I run it, I get the "empty list" failure. So your description of your problem seems wrong.
If you want to treat an empty matrix as an error, you must be very careful to handle a 1 x n matrix as your base case. I don't see that in your code.
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
I implemented quicksort in OCaml. Here is the code:
let shuffle d =
let nd = List.map (fun c -> (Random.bits (), c)) d in
let sond = List.sort compare nd in
List.map snd sond;;
let partition = function
| [] -> ([], [], [])
| pivot::tl ->
let rec p (left, right) = function
| [] -> (left, right, [pivot])
| first::rest ->
let c = compare pivot first
in
if c > 0 then
p (first::left, right) rest
else
p (left, first::right) rest
in
p ([], []) tl;;
let quicksort l =
let sl = shuffle l
in
let rec qs = function
| [] -> []
| l ->
let (left, right, pivot) = partition l
in
(qs left) # pivot # (qs right)
in
qs sl;;
First, I think maybe there is a better way to implement partition. List.partition came to my mind, but I just wanted to implement the key part by myself
Second, I use # a lot in the sorting which is inefficient, right?
any suggestions?
Edit
One more question to think about is whether 3-way quicksort affects the implementation in OCaml?
The p function is badly indented; speaking of indentation, I tend to think the style of having a in on the next line is overkill for single-line declarations, so I'd rather put them at the end of the one-liner declaration.
More importantly, there is no need for it to take a tuple of lists as arguments, you'll have something syntactically lighter using two separate (curried) arguments. You could also use the List.partition function of the standard library.
A micro optimization that you can try is to do List.concat[[qs left]; [pivot]; [qs right]] to append the lists at once buth you will need to run some benchmarks to verify this even helps.