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).
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 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'm currently generating a sequence in a similar way to:
migrators
|> Seq.map (fun m -> m())
The migrator function is ultimately returning a discriminated union like:
type MigratorResult =
| Success of string * TimeSpan
| Error of string * Exception
I want to stop the map once I encounter my first Error but I need to include the Error in the final sequence.
I have something like the following to display a final message to the user
match results |> List.rev with
| [] -> "No results equals no migrators"
| head :: _ ->
match head with
| Success (dt, t) -> "All migrators succeeded"
| Error (dt, ex) -> "Migration halted owing to error"
So I need:
A way to stop the mapping when one of the map steps produces an Error
A way to have that error be the final element added to the sequence
I appreciate there may be a different sequence method other than map that will do this, I'm new to F# and searching online hasn't yielded anything as yet!
I guess there are multiple approaches here, but one way would be to use unfold:
migrators
|> Seq.unfold (fun ms ->
match ms with
| m :: tl ->
match m () with
| Success res -> Some (Success res, tl)
| Error res -> Some (Error res, [])
| [] -> None)
|> List.ofSeq
Note the List.ofSeq at the end, that's just there for realizing the sequence. A different way to go would be to use sequence comprehensions, some might say it results in a clearer code.
The ugly things Tomaš alludes to are 1) mutable state, and 2) manipulation of the underlying enumerator. A higher-order function which returns up to and including when the predicate holds would then look like this:
module Seq =
let takeUntil pred (xs : _ seq) = seq{
use en = xs.GetEnumerator()
let flag = ref true
while !flag && en.MoveNext() do
flag := not <| pred en.Current
yield en.Current }
seq{1..10} |> Seq.takeUntil (fun x -> x % 5 = 0)
|> Seq.toList
// val it : int list = [1; 2; 3; 4; 5]
For your specific application, you'd map the cases of the DU to a boolean.
(migrators : seq<MigratorResult>)
|> Seq.takeUntil (function Success _ -> false | Error _ -> true)
I think the answer from #scrwtp is probably the nicest way to do this if your input is reasonably small (and you can turn it into an F# list to use pattern matching). I'll add one more version, which works when your input is just a sequence and you do not want to turn it into a list.
Essentially, you want to do something that's almost like Seq.takeWhile, but it gives you one additional item at the end (the one, for which the predicate fails).
To use a simpler example, the following returns all numbers from a sequence until one that is divisible by 5:
let nums = [ 2 .. 10 ]
nums
|> Seq.map (fun m -> m % 5)
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun n -> n <> 0)
So, you basically just need to look one element ahead - to do this, you could use Seq.pairwise which gives you the current and the next element in the sequence"
nums
|> Seq.map (fun m -> m % 5)
|> Seq.pairwise // Get sequence of pairs with the next value
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun (p, n) -> p <> 0) // Look at the next value for test
|> Seq.mapi (fun i (p, n) -> // For the first item, we return both
if i = 0 then [p;n] else [n]) // for all other, we return the second
|> Seq.concat
The only ugly thing here is that you then need to flatten the sequence again using mapi and concat.
This is not very nice, so a good thing to do would be to define your own higher-order function like Seq.takeUntilAfter that encapsulates the behavior you need (and hides all the ugly things). Then your code could just use the function and look nice & readable (and you can experiment with other ways of implementing this).
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 recently started with F# and implemented a very basic recursive function that represents the Sieve of Eratosthenes. I came up with the following, working code:
static member internal SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive sequence accumulator =
match sequence with
| [] -> accumulator
| head::tail -> let rest = tail |> List.filter(fun number -> number % head <> 0L)
let newAccumulator = head::accumulator
Prime.SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive rest newAccumulator
This function is not really memory efficient so I tried to eliminate the variables "rest" and "newAccumulator". I came up with the following code
static member internal SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive sequence accumulator =
match sequence with
| [] -> accumulator
| head::tail -> tail |> List.filter(fun number -> number % head <> 0L)
|> Prime.SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive (head::accumulator)
As far as I understand the tutorials I've read Prime.SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive will be called with the filtered tail as first parameter and a list consisting of head::accumulator as second one. However when I try to run the code with the reduced variable usage, the program gets trappen in an infinite loop. Why is this happening and what did I do wrong?
As far as I understand the tutorials I've read Prime.SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive will be called with the filtered tail as first parameter and a list consisting of head::accumulator as second one.
You have this backwards.
In the first version, you're passing rest then newAccumulator; in the second version, you're effectively passing newAccumulator then rest. I.e., you've transposed the arguments.
Prime.SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive (head::accumulator) is a partial function application wherein you're applying (head::accumulator) as the first argument (sequence). This partial function application yields a unary function (expecting accumulator), to which you are passing (via |>) what is called rest in the first version of your code.
Changing SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive's argument order is the easiest solution, but I would consider something like the following idiomatic as well:
static member internal SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive sequence accumulator =
match sequence with
| [] -> accumulator
| head::tail ->
tail
|> List.filter(fun number -> number % head <> 0L)
|> Prime.SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive <| (head::accumulator)
or
static member internal SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive sequence accumulator =
let inline flipzip a b = b, a
match sequence with
| [] -> accumulator
| head::tail ->
tail
|> List.filter(fun number -> number % head <> 0L)
|> flipzip (head::accumulator)
||> Prime.SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive
FWIW, eliminating rest and newAccumulator as named variables here is not going to impact your memory usage in the slightest.
The last call in your second function is equivalent to:
Prime.SieveOfEratosthenesRecursive newAccumulator rest
where you switch positions of two params. Since newAccumulator grows bigger after each recursive call, you will never reach the base case of empty list.
The rule of thumb is putting the most frequently changing parameter at last:
let rec sieve acc xs =
match xs with
| [] -> acc
| x::xs' -> xs' |> List.filter (fun y -> y % x <> 0L)
|> sieve (x::acc)
The above function could be shortened using function keyword:
let rec sieve acc = function
| [] -> acc
| x::xs' -> xs' |> List.filter (fun y -> y % x <> 0L)
|> sieve (x::acc)
Using pipe (|>) operator only makes the function more readable, it doesn't affect memory usage at all.