Related
I'm working on a school project in a functional programming class. The project is about determining if a set of dominos (represented as a list of tuples of two numbers from 1-6) can be put end to end. I'm ok on the problem, but I'm running into an issue where lists:filter is returning the string "\n\f" instead of a list like it says in the documentation.
I couldn't find anything online, and was wondering if any of you had any ideas.
Thanks!
Here is my code. The issue is in the check_dominos() function.
-module(challenge).
-export([test/0, check_dominos/1]).
% If there is an even number of each number, true
% else, false
extract_numbers([]) -> [];
extract_numbers([{First, Second} | T]) -> [First] ++ [Second] ++ extract_numbers(T).
add_matching_numbers(_Previous, []) -> [];
add_matching_numbers(Previous, [First | T]) when Previous =:= First-> [Previous + First | add_matching_numbers(First, T)];
add_matching_numbers(_Previous, [First | T]) -> add_matching_numbers(First, T).
check_dominos(Dominos) ->
All_Numbers = extract_numbers(Dominos),
Sorted_Numbers = lists:sort(All_Numbers),
Accumulated_Numbers = add_matching_numbers(0, Sorted_Numbers) ,
Filter_Lambda = fun(Num) -> Num rem 2 == 0 end,
Result = lists:filter(Filter_Lambda, Accumulated_Numbers),
Result.
% Still working on the logic of this part
%case length(Accumulated_Numbers) =:= length(Result) of
% true -> true;
% _ -> false
%end.
test() ->
Test_1 = [{1, 3}, {3, 2}, {2, 1}], % Already in order
Test_2 = [{5, 2}, {5, 6}, {6, 3}, {1, 4}], % Shouldn't work
Test_3 = [{2, 6}, {3, 5}, {1, 4}, {3, 4}, {6, 1}, {2, 5}], % Should work
true = check_dominos(Test_1),
false = check_dominos(Test_2),
true = check_dominos(Test_3).
Erlang strings are lists of character codes, and by default Erlang shell tries to display lists of integers as strings. To change this behaviour call shell:strings(false). before running your program.
The previous answerer is correct. Any list containing only numbers that correspond to printable characters, will display as a string. The result of your
Accumulated_Numbers = add_matching_numbers(0, Sorted_Numbers)
on Test_2 is "\n\f", but displayed as a list it is [10, 12]. Try typing [10, 12]. in an interactive erlang shell and you will indeed see it displays "\n\f".
Try:
[7].
in an interactive Erlang shell. For me it displays:
[7]
Try:
[8].
Displays:
"\t"
N.B. The numbers 8 through 13 are printable characters, as are (some of?) the numbers 32 to 255. Might be some gaps in there. If you want to see the numeric value of a printable character, use a dollar sign, e.g. $\n. prints 10.
That said, with your current way of going about things, you won't be able to get an answer with add_matching_numbers as it stands. It drops a value whenever it doesn't match the next item in the sorted list, which doesn't tell you if you had any unmatched items. The result of [10,12] on List_2 tells of this: it is a list of even numbers, like the other results.
Good luck on finding your solution.
I'm sure I missed something obvious here, but I couldn't get Map.update to work with an externally defined unary function, which I thought should work. Elixir complains:
** (UndefinedFunctionError) function xxx/0 is undefined or private. Did you mean one of:
* xxx/1
Isn't the point of Map.update exactly to have a function that takes in the value being updated and returns a new value? Why would it want a zero-arity function? That doesn't seem to make much sense. I guess I'm just a bit fatigued but I just couldn't wrap my head around this.
Assume we have the following code.
defmodule Foo do
def add_one(x), do: x + 1
end
We can use Map.update/4 as follows.
Map.update(my_map, :a, 3, &Foo.add_one/1)
You can see this in an iex session
iex(1)> my_map = %{b: 3}
%{b: 3}
iex(2)> Map.update(my_map, :a, 3, &Foo.add_one/1)
%{a: 3, b: 3}
iex(4)> my_map = %{a: 12}
%{a: 12}
iex(5)> Map.update(my_map, :a, 3, &Foo.add_one/1)
%{a: 13}
I assume you are trying to use Map.update(my_map, :a, 3, Foo.add_one). When you do that, the compiler will try to call a function named Foo.add_one and pass the resulting value into the function. In your case, that function does not exist so it is giving you an error. Also note the & before the function name and the /1 at the end of it.
The & essentially tells the program to pass the function as an argument instead of calling it and passing in the resulting value.
The /1 says that the program should look for a function with that name with an arity (the number of arguments the function takes) of 1.
I'm writing a genetic program in order to test the fitness of randomly generated expressions. Shown here is the function to generate the expression as well a the main function. DIV and GT are defined elsewhere in the code:
function create_single_full_tree(depth, fs, ts)
"""
Creates a single AST with full depth
Inputs
depth Current depth of tree. Initially called from main() with max depth
fs Function Set - Array of allowed functions
ts Terminal Set - Array of allowed terminal values
Output
Full AST of typeof()==Expr
"""
# If we are at the bottom
if depth == 1
# End of tree, return function with two terminal nodes
return Expr(:call, fs[rand(1:length(fs))], ts[rand(1:length(ts))], ts[rand(1:length(ts))])
else
# Not end of expression, recurively go back through and create functions for each new node
return Expr(:call, fs[rand(1:length(fs))], create_single_full_tree(depth-1, fs, ts), create_single_full_tree(depth-1, fs, ts))
end
end
function main()
"""
Main function
"""
# Define functional and terminal sets
fs = [:+, :-, :DIV, :GT]
ts = [:x, :v, -1]
# Create the tree
ast = create_single_full_tree(4, fs, ts)
#println(typeof(ast))
#println(ast)
#println(dump(ast))
x = 1
v = 1
eval(ast) # Error out unless x and v are globals
end
main()
I am generating a random expression based on certain allowed functions and variables. As seen in the code, the expression can only have symbols x and v, as well as the value -1. I will need to test the expression with a variety of x and v values; here I am just using x=1 and v=1 to test the code.
The expression is being returned correctly, however, eval() can only be used with global variables, so it will error out when run unless I declare x and v to be global (ERROR: LoadError: UndefVarError: x not defined). I would like to avoid globals if possible. Is there a better way to generate and evaluate these generated expressions with locally defined variables?
Here is an example for generating an (anonymous) function. The result of eval can be called as a function and your variable can be passed as parameters:
myfun = eval(Expr(:->,:x, Expr(:block, Expr(:call,:*,3,:x) )))
myfun(14)
# returns 42
The dump function is very useful to inspect the expression that the parsers has created. For two input arguments you would use a tuple for example as args[1]:
julia> dump(parse("(x,y) -> 3x + y"))
Expr
head: Symbol ->
args: Array{Any}((2,))
1: Expr
head: Symbol tuple
args: Array{Any}((2,))
1: Symbol x
2: Symbol y
typ: Any
2: Expr
[...]
Does this help?
In the Metaprogramming part of the Julia documentation, there is a sentence under the eval() and effects section which says
Every module has its own eval() function that evaluates expressions in its global scope.
Similarly, the REPL help ?eval will give you, on Julia 0.6.2, the following help:
Evaluate an expression in the given module and return the result. Every Module (except those defined with baremodule) has its own 1-argument definition of eval, which evaluates expressions in that module.
I assume, you are working in the Main module in your example. That's why you need to have the globals defined there. For your problem, you can use macros and interpolate the values of x and y directly inside the macro.
A minimal working example would be:
macro eval_line(a, b, x)
isa(a, Real) || (warn("$a is not a real number."); return :(throw(DomainError())))
isa(b, Real) || (warn("$b is not a real number."); return :(throw(DomainError())))
return :($a * $x + $b) # interpolate the variables
end
Here, #eval_line macro does the following:
Main> #macroexpand #eval_line(5, 6, 2)
:(5 * 2 + 6)
As you can see, the values of macro's arguments are interpolated inside the macro and the expression is given to the user accordingly. When the user does not behave,
Main> #macroexpand #eval_line([1,2,3], 7, 8)
WARNING: [1, 2, 3] is not a real number.
:((Main.throw)((Main.DomainError)()))
a user-friendly warning message is provided to the user at parse-time, and a DomainError is thrown at run-time.
Of course, you can do these things within your functions, again by interpolating the variables --- you do not need to use macros. However, what you would like to achieve in the end is to combine eval with the output of a function that returns Expr. This is what the macro functionality is for. Finally, you would simply call your macros with an # sign preceding the macro name:
Main> #eval_line(5, 6, 2)
16
Main> #eval_line([1,2,3], 7, 8)
WARNING: [1, 2, 3] is not a real number.
ERROR: DomainError:
Stacktrace:
[1] eval(::Module, ::Any) at ./boot.jl:235
EDIT 1. You can take this one step further, and create functions accordingly:
macro define_lines(linedefs)
for (name, a, b) in eval(linedefs)
ex = quote
function $(Symbol(name))(x) # interpolate name
return $a * x + $b # interpolate a and b here
end
end
eval(ex) # evaluate the function definition expression in the module
end
end
Then, you can call this macro to create different line definitions in the form of functions to be called later on:
#define_lines([
("identity_line", 1, 0);
("null_line", 0, 0);
("unit_shift", 0, 1)
])
identity_line(5) # returns 5
null_line(5) # returns 0
unit_shift(5) # returns 1
EDIT 2. You can, I guess, achieve what you would like to achieve by using a macro similar to that below:
macro random_oper(depth, fs, ts)
operations = eval(fs)
oper = operations[rand(1:length(operations))]
terminals = eval(ts)
ts = terminals[rand(1:length(terminals), 2)]
ex = :($oper($ts...))
for d in 2:depth
oper = operations[rand(1:length(operations))]
t = terminals[rand(1:length(terminals))]
ex = :($oper($ex, $t))
end
return ex
end
which will give the following, for instance:
Main> #macroexpand #random_oper(1, [+, -, /], [1,2,3])
:((-)([3, 3]...))
Main> #macroexpand #random_oper(2, [+, -, /], [1,2,3])
:((+)((-)([2, 3]...), 3))
Thanks Arda for the thorough response! This helped, but part of me thinks there may be a better way to do this as it seems too roundabout. Since I am writing a genetic program, I will need to create 500 of these ASTs, all with random functions and terminals from a set of allowed functions and terminals (fs and ts in the code). I will also need to test each function with 20 different values of x and v.
In order to accomplish this with the information you have given, I have come up with the following macro:
macro create_function(defs)
for name in eval(defs)
ex = quote
function $(Symbol(name))(x,v)
fs = [:+, :-, :DIV, :GT]
ts = [x,v,-1]
return create_single_full_tree(4, fs, ts)
end
end
eval(ex)
end
end
I can then supply a list of 500 random function names in my main() function, such as ["func1, func2, func3,.....". Which I can eval with any x and v values in my main function. This has solved my issue, however, this seems to be a very roundabout way of doing this, and may make it difficult to evolve each AST with each iteration.
I came away from Professor Frisby's Mostly Adequate Guide to Functional Programming with what seems to be a misconception about Maybe.
I believe:
map(add1, Just [1, 2, 3])
// => Just [2, 3, 4]
My feeling coming away from the aforementioned guide is that Maybe.map should try to call Array.map on the array, essentially returning Just(map(add1, [1, 2, 3]).
When I tried this using Sanctuary's Maybe type, and more recently Elm's Maybe type, I was disappointed to discover that neither of them support this (or, perhaps, I don't understand how they support this).
In Sanctuary,
> S.map(S.add(1), S.Just([1, 2, 3]))
! Invalid value
add :: FiniteNumber -> FiniteNumber -> FiniteNumber
^^^^^^^^^^^^
1
1) [1, 2, 3] :: Array Number, Array FiniteNumber, Array NonZeroFiniteNumber, Array Integer, Array ValidNumber
The value at position 1 is not a member of ‘FiniteNumber’.
In Elm,
> Maybe.map sqrt (Just [1, 2, 3])
-- TYPE MISMATCH --------------------------------------------- repl-temp-000.elm
The 2nd argument to function `map` is causing a mismatch.
4| Maybe.map sqrt (Just [1, 2, 3])
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Function `map` is expecting the 2nd argument to be:
Maybe Float
But it is:
Maybe (List number)
Similarly, I feel like I should be able to treat a Just(Just(1)) as a Just(1). On the other hand, my intuition about [[1]] is completely the opposite. Clearly, map(add1, [[1]]) should return [NaN] and not [[2]] or any other thing.
In Elm I was able to do the following:
> Maybe.map (List.map (add 1)) (Just [1, 2, 3])
Just [2,3,4] : Maybe.Maybe (List number)
Which is what I want to do, but not how I want to do it.
How should one map over Maybe List?
You have two functors to deal with: Maybe and List. What you're looking for is some way to combine them. You can simplify the Elm example you've posted by function composition:
> (Maybe.map << List.map) add1 (Just [1, 2, 3])
Just [2,3,4] : Maybe.Maybe (List number)
This is really just a short-hand of the example you posted which you said was not how you wanted to do it.
Sanctuary has a compose function, so the above would be represented as:
> S.compose(S.map, S.map)(S.add(1))(S.Just([1, 2, 3]))
Just([2, 3, 4])
Similarly, I feel like I should be able to treat a Just(Just(1)) as a Just(1)
This can be done using the join from the elm-community/maybe-extra package.
join (Just (Just 1)) == Just 1
join (Just Nothing) == Nothing
join Nothing == Nothing
Sanctuary has a join function as well, so you can do the following:
S.join(S.Just(S.Just(1))) == Just(1)
S.join(S.Just(S.Nothing)) == Nothing
S.join(S.Nothing) == Nothing
As Chad mentioned, you want to transform values nested within two functors.
Let's start by mapping over each individually to get comfortable:
> S.map(S.toUpper, ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'])
['FOO', 'BAR', 'BAZ']
> S.map(Math.sqrt, S.Just(64))
Just(8)
Let's consider the general type of map:
map :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
Now, let's specialize this type for the two uses above:
map :: (String -> String) -> Array String -> Array String
map :: (Number -> Number) -> Maybe Number -> Maybe Number
So far so good. But in your case we want to map over a value of type Maybe (Array Number). We need a function with this type:
:: Maybe (Array Number) -> Maybe (Array Number)
If we map over S.Just([1, 2, 3]) we'll need to provide a function which takes [1, 2, 3]—the inner value—as an argument. So the function we provide to S.map must be a function of type Array (Number) -> Array (Number). S.map(S.add(1)) is such a function. Bringing this all together we arrive at:
> S.map(S.map(S.add(1)), S.Just([1, 2, 3]))
Just([2, 3, 4])
I'm trying to convert the following to pointfree style: a function that partially applies a value to the transformer function add before passing in the collection to be iterated over. (Using Ramda.js)
R.compose(
R.map,
R.add
)(1, [1,2,3])
The problem is that R.add is arity 2, as is R.map. I want the application order to be as follows:
add(1)
map(add(1))
map(add(1), [1,2,3])
[add(1,1), add(1,2), add(1,3)]
But what happens instead is this:
add(1, [1,2,3])
map(add(1, [1,2,3]))
<partially applied map, waiting for collection>
Anyone know of a way to specify this behavior?
A plain compose or pipe won't do this because either will absorb all the arguments supplied into the first function. Ramda includes two additional functions that help with this, converge and useWith. In this case useWith is the one that will help:
useWith(map, [add, identity])(1, [1, 2, 3]); //=> [2, 3, 4]
While identity is not absolutely required here, it gives the generated function the correct arity.
Figured it out. If anyone's curious, here's the gist. (You can try it in the console on RamdaJS.com.)
0) For a baseline, here's the pointed version.
func0 = x => R.map(R.add(x))
addOne = func0(1)
addOne([1,2,3]) // [2,3,4]
1) Here's the pointfree core, but it has the ordering problem from the question above.
func1 = R.compose(R.map, R.add)
addOne = func1(1)
addOne([1,2,3]) // [2,3,4])
func1(1, [1,2,3]) // function
2) If the composition is unary (arity 1) 2 invocations are needed apply all params.
func2 = R.unary(R.compose(R.map, R.add))
addOne = func2(1)
addOne([1,2,3]) // [2,3,4])
3) We want one invocation to apply both params, so we uncurry 2.
func3 = R.uncurryN(2, func2)
func3(1, [1,2,3]) // [2,3,4])
4) To prove func2 is composable, let's double the results.
func4 = R.compose(
R.map(R.multiply(2)),
R.uncurryN(2, func2)
)
func4(1, [1,2,3]) // [4,6,8])
5) Substitution gives us a completely pointfree function.
func5 = R.compose(
R.map(R.multiply(2)),
R.uncurryN(2, R.unary(R.compose(
R.map,
R.add
)))
)
func5(1, [1,2,3]) // [4,6,8])