How to generate even numbers in this way using recursive functions in Erlang.
Note: The length of the output list is the input of the function func
Example:
> mod:func(5).
[2,4,6,8,10]
Many ways to do that in erlang, I suggest:
with sequence generators
doubles(Number)->
lists:seq(2,Number*2,2).
with list comprehensions
doubles(Number)->
[X*2 || X <- lists:seq(1,Number)].
the recursive way
doubles(Max)->
doubles(1,Max).
doubles(Max,Max)->
[Max*2];
doubles(Val,Max)->
[Val*2]++doubles2(Val+1,Max).
Here's an example module:
-module(even_numbers).
-export([get_first_n/1]).
get_first_n(Count) ->
get_first_n(Count, 2).
get_first_n(1, Current) ->
[Current];
get_first_n(Count, Current) ->
[Current] ++ f(Count - 1, Current + 2).
There is one simple and natural Erlangish way:
func(N) when is_integer(N) ->
func(2, N).
func(X, N) when N > 0 ->
[X | func(X+2, N-1)];
func(_, _) -> [].
For me tail-recursive way is more natural Erlang way:
func(N) when is_integer(N) andalso (N >= 0) ->
func(N, 1, []).
func(0, _, Acc) ->
lists:reverse(Acc);
func(N, I, Acc) ->
func(N - 1, I + 1, [I*2|Acc]).
Related
I've been practicing using recursion to define the index in Erlang. Here I need to implement a function to return the index for a list from a list.
eg.
([2, 4, 4], [1, 1, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4 ]) ----> 2
([1, 3], [5, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 5]) ----> 4
([1], [3, 2, a, {1, 1}, 1] ----> 4
Here is my code:
-module(project).
-export([index/2]).
index([X|XS],[_]) -> index([X|XS],[_],1).
index(_,[],_) -> [];
index([X|XS],[X|_], ACC) -> ACC;
index([X|XS],[_|rest],ACC) ->index([X|XS],rest,ACC+1).
I modified and coded logically but it still can not being compiled. I hope someone who can help me with it. Thanks!
Just for fun, here is an implementation that is not written a very clean way, but illustrates the techniques I think you are looking for. Note there are two basic states: "checking" and "matching".
-module(sublistmatch).
-export([check/2]).
check(Segment, List) ->
SegLen = length(Segment),
ListLen = length(List),
Index = 1,
check(Segment, List, SegLen, ListLen, Index).
check(S, S, _, _, I) ->
{ok, I};
check(_, _, SL, LL, _) when SL >= LL ->
nomatch;
check(S = [H|Ss], [H|Ls], SL, LL, I) ->
case matches(Ss, Ls) of
true -> {ok, I};
false -> check(S, Ls, SL, LL - 1, I + 1)
end;
check(S, [_|L], SL, LL, I) ->
check(S, L, SL, LL - 1, I + 1).
matches([H|S], [H|L]) -> matches(S, L);
matches([], _) -> true;
matches(_, _) -> false.
Note that this depends on knowing the lengths of both the segment you are checking for, and the current length of the remaining list to check. Consider why this is necessary. Also consider how using the utility function matches/2 gives us a natural place to explore whether an option matches, and backtracks if it does not.
In real programs you would use the standard library functions such as lists:prefix/2, lists:suffix/2, or sets:is_subset/2, or maybe some key or member operation over a gb_tree, dict, map or array depending on the situation.
To Compile the code you have to change it to:
-module(project).
-export([index/2]).
%%index([X|XS],[_]) -> index([X|XS],[_],1).
index([X|XS],List) -> index([X|XS],List,1).
%% you shuld not pass '_' as parameter it's will be marked as unbound
index(_,[],_) -> [];
index([X|XS],[X|_], ACC) -> ACC;
%%index([X|XS],[_|rest],ACC) ->index([X|XS],rest,ACC+1).
index([X|XS],[_|Rest],ACC) ->index([X|XS],Rest,ACC+1).
%% rest is an atom, it's not the case you need to use here.
%%Variables should start with upper case letter.
This code will compiled but wrong results as some cases.
I'm trying to figure out how to return a list of the indexes of occurrences of a specific value in another list.
i.e.
indexes(1, [1,2,1,1,2,2,1]);
val it = [1,3,4,7] int list
I'm trying to figure out how lists work and trying to get better at recursion so I don't want to use List.nth (or any library functions) and I don't want to move into pattern matching quiet yet.
This is what I have so far
fun index(x, L) =
if null L then 0
else if x=hd(L) then
1
else
1 + index(x,tl L);
fun inde(x, L) =
if null L then []
else if x=hd(L) then
index(x, tl L) :: inde(x, tl L)
else
inde(x, tl L);
index(4, [4,2,1,3,1,1]);
inde(1,[1,2,1,1,2,2,1]);
This gives me something like [2, 1, 3, 0]. I guess I'm just having a hard time incrementing things properly to get the index. The index function itself works correctly though.
Instead you could also make two passes over the list: first add an index to each element in the list, and second grap the index of the right elements:
fun addIndex (xs, i) =
if null xs then []
else (hd xs, i) :: addIndex(tl xs, i+1)
fun fst (x,y) = x
fun snd (x,y) = y
fun indexi(n, xs) =
if fst(hd xs) = n then ... :: indexi(n, tl xs)
else indexi(n, tl xs)
(I left out part of indexi for the exercise.)
Where addIndex([10,20,30],0) gives you [(10,0),(20,1),(30,2)]. Now you can use addIndex and indexi to implement your original index function:
fun index(n, xs) = indexi(n, addIndex(xs, 0))
When you get that to work, you can try to merge addIndex and indexi into one function that does both.
However, you really want to write this with pattern matching, see for instance addIndex written using patterns:
fun addIndex ([], _) = []
| addIndex (x::xs, i) = (x,i) :: addIndex(xs, i+1)
If you do index(1,[2]), it gives 1, which is not correct. When the list is empty, it gives you zero. In a function like this, you'd probably want to use SOME/NONE feature.
I am trying to implement a tail-recursive MergeSort in OCaml.
Since Mergesort naturally is not tail-recursive, so I am using CPS to implement it.
Also my implementation is inspired by Tail-recursive merge sort in OCaml
Below is my code
let merge compare_fun l1 l2 =
let rec mg l1 l2 acc =
match l1, l2 with
| ([], []) -> List.rev acc
| ([], hd2::tl2) -> mg [] tl2 (hd2::acc)
| (hd1::tl1, []) -> mg tl1 [] (hd1::acc)
| (hd1::tl1, hd2::tl2) ->
let c = compare_fun hd1 hd2
in
if c = 1 then mg l1 tl2 (hd2::acc)
else if c = 0 then mg tl1 tl2 (hd2::hd1::acc)
else mg tl1 l2 (hd1::acc)
in
mg l1 l2 [];;
let split_list p l =
let rec split_list p (acc1, acc2) = function
| [] -> (List.rev acc1, List.rev acc2)
| hd::tl ->
if p > 0 then split_list (p-1) (hd::acc1, acc2) tl
else split_list (p-2) (acc1, hd::acc2) tl
in
split_list p ([], []) l;;
let mergeSort_cps compare_fun l =
let rec sort_cps l cf = (*cf = continuation func*)
match l with
| [] -> cf []
| hd::[] -> cf [hd]
| _ ->
let (left, right) = split_list ((List.length l)/2) l
in
sort_cps left (fun leftR -> sort_cps right (fun rightR -> cf (merge compare_fun leftR rightR)))
in
sort_cps l (fun x -> x);;
When I compile it, and run it with a 1,000,000 integers, it gives the error of stackoverflow. Why?
Edit
Here is the code I used for testing:
let compare_int x y =
if x > y then 1
else if x = y then 0
else -1;;
let create_list n =
Random.self_init ();
let rec create n' acc =
if n' = 0 then acc
else
create (n'-1) ((Random.int (n/2))::acc)
in
create n [];;
let l = create_list 1000000;;
let sl = mergeSort_cps compare_int l;;
in http://try.ocamlpro.com/, it gave this error: Exception: RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded.
in local ocaml top level, it didn't have any problem
Adding another answer to make a separate point: it seems that much of the confusion among answerers is caused by the fact that you don't use the standard OCaml compiler, but the TryOCaml website which runs a distinct OCaml backend, on top of javascript, and has therefore slightly different optimization and runtime characteristics.
I can reliably reproduce the fact that, on the TryOCaml website, the CPS-style function mergeSort_cps you show fails on lists of length 1_000_000 with the following error:
Exception: InternalError: too much recursion.
My analysis is that this is not due to a lack of tail-rec-ness, but by a lack of support, on the Javascript backend, of the non-obvious way in which the CPS-translated call is tailrec: recursion goes through a lambda-abstraction boundary (but still in tail position).
Turning the code in the direct, non-tail-rec version makes the problem go away:
let rec merge_sort compare = function
| [] -> []
| [hd] -> [hd]
| l ->
let (left, right) = split_list (List.length l / 2) l in
merge compare (merge_sort compare left) (merge_sort compare right);;
As I said in my other answer, this code has a logarithmic stack depth, so no StackOverflow will arise from its use (tail-rec is not everything). It is simpler code that the Javascript backend handles better.
Note that you can make it noticeably faster by using a better implementation split (still with your definition of merge) that avoids the double traversal of List.length then splitting:
let split li =
let rec split ls rs = function
| [] -> (ls, rs)
| x::xs -> split rs (x::ls) xs in
split [] [] li;;
let rec merge_sort compare = function
| [] -> []
| [hd] -> [hd]
| l ->
let (left, right) = split l in
merge compare (merge_sort compare left) (merge_sort compare right);;
Reading the comments, it seems that your Stack_overflow error is hard to reproduce.
Nevertheless, your code is not entirely in CPS or tail-recursive: in merge_sort, the calls to split_list and merge are made in a non-tail-call position.
The question is: by making your CPS transform and generous use of accumulators, what will be the worst stack depth related to recursion? Saving stack depth on the sort calls is in fact not very interesting: as each split the list in two, the worst stack depth would be O(log n) for n the size the input list.
On the contrary, split and merge would have made a linear O(n) usage of the stack if they weren't written in accumulator-passing style, so they are important to make tail-rec. As your implementation of those routines is tail-rec, there should be no need to worry about stack usage, and neither to convert the sort routine itself in CPS form that makes the code harder to read.
(Note that this logarithmic-decrease argument is specific to mergesort. A quicksort can have linear stack usage in worst case, so it could be important to make it tail-rec.)
Does any one know of a function/idiom (in any language) that takes a set and returns two or more subsets, determined by one or more predicates?
It is easy to do this in an imperative style e.g:
a = b = []
for x in range(10):
if even(x):
a.append(x)
else:
b.append(x)
or slightly better:
[even(x) and a.append(x) or b.append(x) for x in range(10)]
Since a set comprehension returns a single list based upon a single predicate (and it effectively just a map) I think there ought to be something that splits the input into 2 or more bins based on either a binary predicate or multiple predicates.
The neatest syntax I can come up with is:
>> def partition(iterable, *functions):
>> return [filter(f,iterable) for f in functions]
>> partition(range(10), lambda x: bool(x%2), lambda x: x == 2)
[[1, 3, 5, 7, 9], [2]]
Searching for (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a], [a]) on Hoogle yields Data.List.partition.
The partition function takes a predicate a list and returns the pair of lists of elements which do and do not satisfy the predicate, respectively; i.e.,
partition p xs == (filter p xs, filter (not . p) xs)
If you look at its source and translate to Python,
def partition(predicate, sequence):
def select((yes, no), value):
if predicate(value):
return (yes + [value], no)
else:
return (yes, no + [value])
return reduce(select, sequence, ([], []))
which is pretty nicely functional. Unlike the original, it's not lazy, but that's a bit trickier to pull off in Python.
Ruby's Enumerable mixin has a partition method that does what you describe.
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.