I'm looking for a way to do while-loops or for-loops in Miranda.
I'm trying to do something like
while(blablanotfinished)
{
if(a=true)blabla
else blabla
}
Miranda doesn't have while- or for-loops (which wouldn't make much sense without mutable state anyway). In most cases you can use higher order functions instead. In cases where there is no higher-order function which does what you need, you can use recursion.
For example if you have the following while-loop in an imperative language:
f(start) {
x = start
while( !finished(x) ) {
x = next(x)
}
return x
}
You would express it recursively in Miranda like this:
f x = if finished x then x else f (next x)
In Miranda (and in general, in purely functional programming languages) the use of looping constructs like WHILE, FOR, etc. is discouraged. You're expected to do iteration via recursion.
Like many other functional languages, Miranda does not have for- or while-loops. Instead, you write loops using recursion, list comprehensions or higher-order functions.
while/repeat/for-loops in functional programming style look like this:
while :: (*->bool) -> (*->*) -> * -> *
while p ff state
= state , if ~ (p state)
= while p ff (ff state), otherwise
Sample: Add number to its reverse until it is a palindrome.
Hints: Start value 196 leads to VERY big numbers.
isPalindrome :: num -> bool
isPalindrome n = (str = reverse str) where str = shownum n
addPalindrome :: num -> num
addPalindrome n = n + rev where rev = (numval.reverse.shownum) n
test196 :: num -> num
test196 n = while ((~).isPalindrome) addPalindrome n
test = test196 89
I hope, somebody is still interested in Gofer/Miranda/Haskell.
Annemarie Paysen (Germany)
Related
I am absolute OCaml beginner. I want to create a function that repeats characters 20 times.
This is the function, but it does not work because of an error.
let string20 s =
let n = 20 in
s ^ string20 s (n - 1);;
string20 "u";;
I want to run like this
# string20 "u"
- : string = "uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu"
Your function string20 takes one parameter but you are calling it recursively with 2 parameters.
The basic ideas are in there, but not quite in the right form. One way to proceed is to separate out the 2-parameter function as a separate "helper" function. As #PierreG points out, you'll need to delcare the helper function as a recursive function.
let rec string n s =
if n = 0 then "" else s ^ string (n - 1) s
let string20 = string 20
It is a common pattern to separate a function into a "fixed" part and inductive part. In this case, a nested helper function is needed to do the real recursive work in a new scope while we want to fix an input string s as a constant so we can use to append to s2. s2 is an accumulator that build up the train of strings over time while c is an inductor counting down to 1 toward the base case.
let repeat s n =
let rec helper s1 n1 =
if n1 = 0 then s1 else helper (s1 ^ s) (n1 - 1)
in helper "" n
A non-tail call versions is more straightforward since you won't need a helper function at all:
let rec repeat s n =
if n = 0 then "" else s ^ repeat s (n - 1)
On the side note, one very fun thing about a functional language with first-class functions like Ocaml is currying (or partial application). In this case you can create a function named repeat that takes two arguments n of type int and s of type string as above and partially apply it to either n or s like this:
# (* top-level *)
# let repeat_foo = repeat "foo";;
# repeat_foo 5;;
- : bytes = "foofoofoofoofoo" (* top-level output *)
if the n argument was labeled as below:
let rec repeat ?(n = 0) s =
if n = 0 then "" else s ^ repeat s (n - 1)
The order of application can be exploited, making the function more flexible:
# (* top-level *)
# let repeat_10 = repeat ~n:10;;
# repeat_10 "foo";;
- : bytes = "foofoofoofoofoofoofoofoofoofoo" (* top-level output *)
See my post Currying Exercise in JavaScript (though it is in JavaScript but pretty simple to follow) and this lambda calculus primer.
Recursive functions in Ocaml are defined with let rec
As pointed out in the comments you've defined your function to take one parameter but you're trying to recursively call with two.
You probably want something like this:
let rec stringn s n =
match n with
1 -> s
| _ -> s ^ stringn s (n - 1)
;;
Long story short, I came up with this funny function set, that takes a function, f : 'k -> 'v, a chosen value, k : 'k, a chosen result, v : 'v, uses f as the basis for a new function g : 'k -> 'v that is the exact same as f, except for that it now holds that, g k = v.
Here is the (pretty simple) F# code I wrote in order to make it:
let set : ('k -> 'v) -> 'k -> 'v -> 'k -> 'v =
fun f k v x ->
if x = k then v else f x
My questions are:
Does this function pose any problems?
I could imagine repeat use of the function, like this
let kvs : (int * int) List = ... // A very long list of random int pairs.
List.fold (fun f (k,v) -> set f k v) id kvs
would start building up a long list of functions on the heap. Is this something to be concerned about?
Is there a better way to do this, while still keeping the type?
I mean, I could do stuff like construct a type for holding the original function, f, a Map, setting key-value pairs to the map, and checking the map first, the function second, when using keys to get values, but that's not what interests me here - what interest me is having a function for "modifying" a single result for a given value, for a given function.
Potential problems:
The set-modified function leaks space if you override the same value twice:
let huge_object = ...
let small_object = ...
let f0 = set f 0 huge_object
let f1 = set f0 0 small_object
Even though it can never be the output of f1, huge_object cannot be garbage-collected until f1 can: huge_object is referenced by f0, which is in turn referenced by the f1.
The set-modified function has overhead linear in the number of set operations applied to it.
I don't know if these are actual problems for your intended application.
If you wish set to have exactly the type ('k -> 'v) -> 'k -> 'v -> 'k -> 'v then I don't see a better way(*). The obvious idea would be to have a "modification table" of functions you've already modified, then let set look up a given f in this table. But function types do not admit equality checking, so you cannot compare f to the set of functions known to your modification table.
(*) Reflection not withstanding.
Is it possible to write recursive anonymous functions in SML? I know I could just use the fun syntax, but I'm curious.
I have written, as an example of what I want:
val fact =
fn n => case n of
0 => 1
| x => x * fact (n - 1)
The anonymous function aren't really anonymous anymore when you bind it to a
variable. And since val rec is just the derived form of fun with no
difference other than appearance, you could just as well have written it using
the fun syntax. Also you can do pattern matching in fn expressions as well
as in case, as cases are derived from fn.
So in all its simpleness you could have written your function as
val rec fact = fn 0 => 1
| x => x * fact (x - 1)
but this is the exact same as the below more readable (in my oppinion)
fun fact 0 = 1
| fact x = x * fact (x - 1)
As far as I think, there is only one reason to use write your code using the
long val rec, and that is because you can easier annotate your code with
comments and forced types. For examples if you have seen Haskell code before and
like the way they type annotate their functions, you could write it something
like this
val rec fact : int -> int =
fn 0 => 1
| x => x * fact (x - 1)
As templatetypedef mentioned, it is possible to do it using a fixed-point
combinator. Such a combinator might look like
fun Y f =
let
exception BlackHole
val r = ref (fn _ => raise BlackHole)
fun a x = !r x
fun ta f = (r := f ; f)
in
ta (f a)
end
And you could then calculate fact 5 with the below code, which uses anonymous
functions to express the faculty function and then binds the result of the
computation to res.
val res =
Y (fn fact =>
fn 0 => 1
| n => n * fact (n - 1)
)
5
The fixed-point code and example computation are courtesy of Morten Brøns-Pedersen.
Updated response to George Kangas' answer:
In languages I know, a recursive function will always get bound to a
name. The convenient and conventional way is provided by keywords like
"define", or "let", or "letrec",...
Trivially true by definition. If the function (recursive or not) wasn't bound to a name it would be anonymous.
The unconventional, more anonymous looking, way is by lambda binding.
I don't see what unconventional there is about anonymous functions, they are used all the time in SML, infact in any functional language. Its even starting to show up in more and more imperative languages as well.
Jesper Reenberg's answer shows lambda binding; the "anonymous"
function gets bound to the names "f" and "fact" by lambdas (called
"fn" in SML).
The anonymous function is in fact anonymous (not "anonymous" -- no quotes), and yes of course it will get bound in the scope of what ever function it is passed onto as an argument. In any other cases the language would be totally useless. The exact same thing happens when calling map (fn x => x) [.....], in this case the anonymous identity function, is still in fact anonymous.
The "normal" definition of an anonymous function (at least according to wikipedia), saying that it must not be bound to an identifier, is a bit weak and ought to include the implicit statement "in the current environment".
This is in fact true for my example, as seen by running it in mlton with the -show-basis argument on an file containing only fun Y ... and the val res ..
val Y: (('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'b
val res: int32
From this it is seen that none of the anonymous functions are bound in the environment.
A shorter "lambdanonymous" alternative, which requires OCaml launched
by "ocaml -rectypes":
(fun f n -> f f n)
(fun f n -> if n = 0 then 1 else n * (f f (n - 1))
7;; Which produces 7! = 5040.
It seems that you have completely misunderstood the idea of the original question:
Is it possible to write recursive anonymous functions in SML?
And the simple answer is yes. The complex answer is (among others?) an example of this done using a fix point combinator, not a "lambdanonymous" (what ever that is supposed to mean) example done in another language using features not even remotely possible in SML.
All you have to do is put rec after val, as in
val rec fact =
fn n => case n of
0 => 1
| x => x * fact (n - 1)
Wikipedia describes this near the top of the first section.
let fun fact 0 = 1
| fact x = x * fact (x - 1)
in
fact
end
This is a recursive anonymous function. The name 'fact' is only used internally.
Some languages (such as Coq) use 'fix' as the primitive for recursive functions, while some languages (such as SML) use recursive-let as the primitive. These two primitives can encode each other:
fix f => e
:= let rec f = e in f end
let rec f = e ... in ... end
:= let f = fix f => e ... in ... end
In languages I know, a recursive function will always get bound to a name. The convenient and conventional way is provided by keywords like "define", or "let", or "letrec",...
The unconventional, more anonymous looking, way is by lambda binding. Jesper Reenberg's answer shows lambda binding; the "anonymous" function gets bound to the names "f" and "fact" by lambdas (called "fn" in SML).
A shorter "lambdanonymous" alternative, which requires OCaml launched by "ocaml -rectypes":
(fun f n -> f f n)
(fun f n -> if n = 0 then 1 else n * (f f (n - 1))
7;;
Which produces 7! = 5040.
I'm new to ocaml and tryin to write a continuation passing style function but quite confused what value i need to pass into additional argument on k
for example, I can write a recursive function that returns true if all elements of the list is even, otherwise false.
so its like
let rec even list = ....
on CPS, i know i need to add one argument to pass function
so like
let rec evenk list k = ....
but I have no clue how to deal with this k and how does this exactly work
for example for this even function, environment looks like
val evenk : int list -> (bool -> ’a) -> ’a = <fun>
evenk [4; 2; 12; 5; 6] (fun x -> x) (* output should give false *)
The continuation k is a function that takes the result from evenk and performs "the rest of the computation" and produces the "answer". What type the answer has and what you mean by "the rest of the computation" depends on what you are using CPS for. CPS is generally not an end in itself but is done with some purpose in mind. For example, in CPS form it is very easy to implement control operators or to optimize tail calls. Without knowing what you are trying to accomplish, it's hard to answer your question.
For what it is worth, if you are simply trying to convert from direct style to continuation-passing style, and all you care about is the value of the answer, passing the identity function as the continuation is about right.
A good next step would be to implement evenk using CPS. I'll do a simpler example.
If I have the direct-style function
let muladd x i n = x + i * n
and if I assume CPS primitives mulk and addk, I can write
let muladdk x i n k =
let k' product = addk x product k in
mulk i n k'
And you'll see that the mulptiplication is done first, then it "continues" with k', which does the add, and finally that continues with k, which returns to the caller. The key idea is that within the body of muladdk I allocated a fresh continuation k' which stands for an intermediate point in the multiply-add function. To make your evenk work you will have to allocate at least one such continuation.
I hope this helps.
Whenever I've played with CPS, the thing passed to the continuation is just the thing you would normally return to the caller. In this simple case, a nice "intuition lubricant" is to name the continuation "return".
let rec even list return =
if List.length list = 0
then return true
else if List.hd list mod 2 = 1
then return false
else even (List.tl list) return;;
let id = fun x -> x;;
Example usage: "even [2; 4; 6; 8] id;;".
Since you have the invocation of evenk correct (with the identity function - effectively converting the continuation-passing-style back to normal style), I assume that the difficulty is in defining evenk.
k is the continuation function representing the rest of the computation and producing a final value, as Norman said. So, what you need to do is compute the result of v of even and pass that result to k, returning k v rather than just v.
You want to give as input the result of your function as if it were not written with continuation passing style.
Here is your function which tests whether a list has only even integers:
(* val even_list : int list -> bool *)
let even_list input = List.for_all (fun x -> x mod 2=0) input
Now let's write it with a continuation cont:
(* val evenk : int list -> (bool -> 'a) -> 'a *)
let evenk input cont =
let result = even_list input in
(cont result)
You compute the result your function, and pass resultto the continuation ...
Can the following polymorphic functions
let id x = x;;
let compose f g x = f (g x);;
let rec fix f = f (fix f);; (*laziness aside*)
be written for types/type constructors or modules/functors? I tried
type 'x id = Id of 'x;;
type 'f 'g 'x compose = Compose of ('f ('g 'x));;
type 'f fix = Fix of ('f (Fix 'f));;
for types but it doesn't work.
Here's a Haskell version for types:
data Id x = Id x
data Compose f g x = Compose (f (g x))
data Fix f = Fix (f (Fix f))
-- examples:
l = Compose [Just 'a'] :: Compose [] Maybe Char
type Natural = Fix Maybe -- natural numbers are fixpoint of Maybe
n = Fix (Just (Fix (Just (Fix Nothing)))) :: Natural -- n is 2
-- up to isomorphism composition of identity and f is f:
iso :: Compose Id f x -> f x
iso (Compose (Id a)) = a
Haskell allows type variables of higher kind. ML dialects, including Caml, allow type variables of kind "*" only. Translated into plain English,
In Haskell, a type variable g can correspond to a "type constructor" like Maybe or IO or lists. So the g x in your Haskell example would be OK (jargon: "well-kinded") if for example g is Maybe and x is Integer.
In ML, a type variable 'g can correspond only to a "ground type" like int or string, never to a type constructor like option or list. It is therefore never correct to try to apply a type variable to another type.
As far as I'm aware, there's no deep reason for this limitation in ML. The most likely explanation is historical contingency. When Milner originally came up with his ideas about polymorphism, he worked with very simple type variables standing only for monotypes of kind *. Early versions of Haskell did the same, and then at some point Mark Jones discovered that inferring the kinds of type variables is actually quite easy. Haskell was quickly revised to allow type variables of higher kind, but ML has never caught up.
The people at INRIA have made a lot of other changes to ML, and I'm a bit surprised they've never made this one. When I'm programming in ML, I might enjoy having higher-kinded type variables. But they aren't there, and I don't know any way to encode the kind of examples you are talking about except by using functors.
You can do something similar in OCaml, using modules in place of types, and functors (higher-order modules) in place of higher-order types. But it looks much uglier and it doesn't have type-inference ability, so you have to manually specify a lot of stuff.
module type Type = sig
type t
end
module Char = struct
type t = char
end
module List (X:Type) = struct
type t = X.t list
end
module Maybe (X:Type) = struct
type t = X.t option
end
(* In the following, I decided to omit the redundant
single constructors "Id of ...", "Compose of ...", since
they don't help in OCaml since we can't use inference *)
module Id (X:Type) = X
module Compose
(F:functor(Z:Type)->Type)
(G:functor(Y:Type)->Type)
(X:Type) = F(G(X))
let l : Compose(List)(Maybe)(Char).t = [Some 'a']
module Example2 (F:functor(Y:Type)->Type) (X:Type) = struct
(* unlike types, "free" module variables are not allowed,
so we have to put it inside another functor in order
to scope F and X *)
let iso (a:Compose(Id)(F)(X).t) : F(X).t = a
end
Well... I'm not an expert of higher-order-types nor Haskell programming.
But this seems to be ok for F# (which is OCaml), could you work with these:
type 'x id = Id of 'x;;
type 'f fix = Fix of ('f fix -> 'f);;
type ('f,'g,'x) compose = Compose of ('f ->'g -> 'x);;
The last one I wrapped to tuple as I didn't come up with anything better...
You can do it but you need to make a bit of a trick:
newtype Fix f = In{out:: f (Fix f)}
You can define Cata afterwards:
Cata :: (Functor f) => (f a -> a) -> Fix f -> a
Cata f = f.(fmap (cata f)).out
That will define a generic catamorphism for all functors, which you can use to build your own stuff. Example:
data ListFix a b = Nil | Cons a b
data List a = Fix (ListFix a)
instance functor (ListFix a) where
fmap f Nil = Nil
fmap f (Cons a lst) = Cons a (f lst)