I'm playing around with Haskell, mostly trying to learn some new techniques to solve problems. Without any real application in mind I came to think about an interesting thing I can't find a satisfying solution to. Maybe someone has any better ideas?
The problem:
Let's say we want to generate a list of Ints using a starting value and a list of Ints, representing the pattern of numbers to be added in the specified order. So the first value is given, then second value should be the starting value plus the first value in the list, the third that value plus the second value of the pattern, and so on. When the pattern ends, it should start over.
For example: Say we have a starting value v and a pattern [x,y], we'd like the list [v,v+x,v+x+y,v+2x+y,v+2x+2y, ...]. In other words, with a two-valued pattern, next value is created by alternatingly adding x and y to the number last calculated.
If the pattern is short enough (2-3 values?), one could generate separate lists:
[v,v,v,...]
[0,x,x,2x,2x,3x, ...]
[0,0,y,y,2y,2y,...]
and then zip them together with addition. However, as soon as the pattern is longer this gets pretty tedious. My best attempt at a solution would be something like this:
generateLstByPattern :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
generateLstByPattern v pattern = v : (recGen v pattern)
where
recGen :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
recGen lastN (x:[]) = (lastN + x) : (recGen (lastN + x) pattern)
recGen lastN (x:xs) = (lastN + x) : (recGen (lastN + x) xs)
It works as intended - but I have a feeling there is a bit more elegant Haskell solution somewhere (there almost always is!). What do you think? Maybe a cool list-comprehension? A higher-order function I've forgotten about?
Separate the concerns. First look a just a list to process once. Get that working, test it. Hint: “going through the list elements with some accumulator” is in general a good fit for a fold.
Then all that's left to is to repeat the list of inputs and feed it into the pass-once function. Conveniently, there's a standard function for that purpose. Just make sure your once-processor is lazy enough to handle the infinite list input.
What you describe is
foo :: Num a => a -> [a] -> [a]
foo v pattern = scanl (+) v (cycle pattern)
which would normally be written even as just
foo :: Num a => a -> [a] -> [a]
foo v = scanl (+) v . cycle
scanl (+) v xs is the standard way to calculate the partial sums of (v:xs), and cycle is the standard way to repeat a given list cyclically. This is what you describe.
This works for a pattern list of any positive length, as you wanted.
Your way of generating it is inventive, but it's almost too clever for its own good (i.e. it seems overly complicated). It can be expressed with some list comprehensions, as
foo v pat =
let -- the lists, as you describe them:
lists = repeat v :
[ replicate i 0 ++
[ y | x <- [p, p+p ..]
, y <- map (const x) pat ]
| (p,i) <- zip pat [1..] ]
in
-- OK, so what do we do with that? How do we zipWith
-- over an arbitrary amount of lists?
-- with a fold!
foldr (zipWith (+)) (repeat 0) lists
map (const x) pat is a "clever" way of writing replicate (length pat) x. It can be further shortened to x <$ pat since (<$) x xs == map (const x) xs by definition. It might seem obfuscated, until you've become accustomed to it, and then it seems clear and obvious. :)
Surprised noone's mentioned the silly way yet.
mylist x xs = x : zipWith (+) (mylist x xs) (cycle xs)
(If you squint a bit you can see the connection to scanl answer).
When it is about generating series my first approach would be iterate or unfoldr. iterate is for simple series and unfoldr is for those who carry kind of state but without using any State monad.
In this particular case I think unfoldr is ideal.
series :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
series s [x,y] = unfoldr (\(f,s) -> Just (f*x + s*y, (s+1,f))) (s,0)
λ> take 10 $ series 1 [1,1]
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
λ> take 10 $ series 3 [1,1]
[3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]
λ> take 10 $ series 0 [1,2]
[0,1,3,4,6,7,9,10,12,13]
It is probably better to implement the lists separately, for example the list with x can be implement with:
xseq :: (Enum a, Num a) => a -> [a]
xseq x = 0 : ([x, x+x ..] >>= replicate 2)
Whereas the sequence for y can be implemented as:
yseq :: (Enum a, Num a) => a -> [a]
yseq y = [0,y ..] >>= replicate 2
Then you can use zipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c] to add the two lists together and add v to it:
mylist :: (Enum a, Num a) => a -> a -> a -> [a]
mylist v x y = zipWith ((+) . (v +)) (xseq x) (yseq y)
So for v = 1, x = 2, and y = 3, we obtain:
Prelude> take 10 (mylist 1 2 3)
[1,3,6,8,11,13,16,18,21,23]
An alternative is to see as pattern that we each time first add x and then y. We thus can make an infinite list [(x+), (y+)], and use scanl :: (b -> a -> b) -> b -> [a] -> [b] to each time apply one of the functions and yield the intermediate result:
mylist :: Num a => a -> a -> a -> [a]
mylist v x y = scanl (flip ($)) v (cycle [(x+), (y+)])
this yields the same result:
Prelude> take 10 $ mylist 1 2 3
[1,3,6,8,11,13,16,18,21,23]
Now the only thing left to do is to generalize this to a list. So for example if the list of additions is given, then you can impelement this as:
mylist :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
mylist v xs = scanl (flip ($)) v (cycle (map (+) xs))
or for a list of functions:
mylist :: Num a => [a -> a] -> [a]
mylist v xs = scanl (flip ($)) v (cycle (xs))
Related
I'm taking a functional programming class and I'm having a hard time leaving the OOP mindset behind and finding answers to a lot of my questions.
I have to create a function that takes an ordered list and converts it into specified size sublists using a variation of fold.
This isn't right, but it's what I have:
splitList :: (Ord a) => Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
splitList size xs
| [condition] = foldr (\item subList -> item:subList) [] xs
| otherwise =
I've been searching and I found out that foldr is the variation that works better for what I want, and I think I've understood how fold works, I just don't know how I'll set up the guards so that when length sublist == size haskell resets the accumulator and goes on to the next list.
If I didn't explain myself correctly, here's the result I want:
> splitList 3 [1..10]
> [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9],[10]]
Thanks!
While Fabián's and chi's answers are entirely correct, there is actually an option to solve this puzzle using foldr. Consider the following code:
splitList :: Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
splitList n =
foldr (\el acc -> case acc of
[] -> [[el]]
(h : t) | length h < n -> (el : h) : t
_ -> [el] : acc
) []
The strategy here is to build up a list by extending its head as long as its length is lesser than desired. This solution has, however, two drawbacks:
It does something slightly different than in your example;
splitList 3 [1..10] produces [[1],[2,3,4],[5,6,7],[8,9,10]]
It's complexity is O(n * length l), as we measure length of up to n–sized list on each of the element which yields linear number of linear operations.
Let's first take care of first issue. In order to start counting at the beginning we need to traverse the list left–to–right, while foldr does it right–to–left. There is a common trick called "continuation passing" which will allow us to reverse the direction of the walk:
splitList :: Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
splitList n l = map reverse . reverse $
foldr (\el cont acc ->
case acc of
[] -> cont [[el]]
(h : t) | length h < n -> cont ((el : h) : t)
_ -> cont ([el] : acc)
) id l []
Here, instead of building the list in the accumulator we build up a function that will transform the list in the right direction. See this question for details. The side effect is reversing the list so we need to counter that by reverse application to the whole list and all of its elements. This goes linearly and tail-recursively tho.
Now let's work on the performance issue. The problem was that the length is linear on casual lists. There are two solutions for this:
Use another structure that caches length for a constant time access
Cache the value by ourselves
Because I guess it is a list exercise, let's go for the latter option:
splitList :: Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
splitList n l = map reverse . reverse . snd $
foldr (\el cont (countAcc, listAcc) ->
case listAcc of
[] -> cont (countAcc, [[el]])
(h : t) | countAcc < n -> cont (countAcc + 1, (el : h) : t)
(h : t) -> cont (1, [el] : (h : t))
) id l (1, [])
Here we extend our computational state with a counter that at each points stores the current length of the list. This gives us a constant check on each element and results in linear time complexity in the end.
A way to simplify this problem would be to split this into multiple functions. There are two things you need to do:
take n elements from the list, and
keep taking from the list as much as possible.
Lets try taking first:
taking :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
taking n [] = undefined
taking n (x:xs) = undefined
If there are no elemensts then we cannot take any more elements so we can only return an empty list, on the other hand if we do have an element then we can think of taking n (x:xs) as x : taking (n-1) xs, we would only need to check that n > 0.
taking n (x:xs)
| n > 0 = x :taking (n-1) xs
| otherwise = []
Now, we need to do that multiple times with the remainder so we should probably also return whatever remains from taking n elements from a list, in this case it would be whatever remains when n = 0 so we could try to adapt it to
| otherwise = ([], x:xs)
and then you would need to modify the type signature to return ([a], [a]) and the other 2 definitions to ensure you do return whatever remained after taking n.
With this approach your splitList would look like:
splitList n [] = []
splitList n l = chunk : splitList n remainder
where (chunk, remainder) = taking n l
Note however that folding would not be appropriate since it "flattens" whatever you are working on, for example given a [Int] you could fold to produce a sum which would be an Int. (foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b or "foldr function zero list produces an element of the function return type")
You want:
splitList 3 [1..10]
> [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9],[10]]
Since the "remainder" [10] in on the tail, I recommend you use foldl instead. E.g.
splitList :: (Ord a) => Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
splitList size xs
| size > 0 = foldl go [] xs
| otherwise = error "need a positive size"
where go acc x = ....
What should go do? Essentially, on your example, we must have:
splitList 3 [1..10]
= go (splitList 3 [1..9]) 10
= go [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]] 10
= [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9],[10]]
splitList 3 [1..9]
= go (splitList 3 [1..8]) 9
= go [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8]] 9
= [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]]
splitList 3 [1..8]
= go (splitList 3 [1..7]) 8
= go [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7]] 8
= [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8]]
and
splitList 3 [1]
= go [] 1
= [[1]]
Hence, go acc x should
check if acc is empty, if so, produce a singleton list [[x]].
otherwise, check the last list in acc:
if its length is less than size, append x
otherwise, append a new list [x] to acc
Try doing this by hand on your example to understand all the cases.
This will not be efficient, but it will work.
You don't really need the Ord a constraint.
Checking the accumulator's first sublist's length would lead to information flow from the right and the first chunk ending up the shorter one, potentially, instead of the last. Such function won't work on infinite lists either (not to mention the foldl-based variants).
A standard way to arrange for the information flow from the left with foldr is using an additional argument. The general scheme is
subLists n xs = foldr g z xs n
where
g x r i = cons x i (r (i-1))
....
The i argument to cons will guide its decision as to where to add the current element into. The i-1 decrements the counter on the way forward from the left, instead of on the way back from the right. z must have the same type as r and as the foldr itself as a whole, so,
z _ = [[]]
This means there must be a post-processing step, and some edge cases must be handled as well,
subLists n xs = post . foldr g z xs $ n
where
z _ = [[]]
g x r i | i == 1 = cons x i (r n)
g x r i = cons x i (r (i-1))
....
cons must be lazy enough not to force the results of the recursive call prematurely.
I leave it as an exercise finishing this up.
For a simpler version with a pre-processing step instead, see this recent answer of mine.
Just going to give another answer: this is quite similar to trying to write groupBy as a fold, and actually has a couple gotchas w.r.t. laziness that you have to bear in mind for an efficient and correct implementation. The following is the fastest version I found that maintains all the relevant laziness properties:
splitList :: Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
splitList m xs = snd (foldr f (const ([],[])) xs 1)
where
f x a i
| i <= 1 = let (ys,zs) = a m in ([], (x : ys) : zs)
| otherwise = let (ys,zs) = a (i-1) in (x : ys , zs)
The ys and the zs gotten from the recursive processing of the rest of list indicate the first and the rest of the groups into which the rest of the list will be broken up, by said recursive processing. So we either prepend the current element before that first subgroup if it is still shorter than needed, or we prepend before the first subgroup when it is just right and start a new, empty subgroup.
I m a newbie to Haskell. I am pretty good with Imperative languages but not with functional. Haskell is my first as a functional language.
I am trying to figure out, how to get the index of the smallest element in the list where the minimum element is defined by me.
Let me explain by examples.
For example :
Function signature
minList :: x -> [x]
let x = 2
let list = [2,3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2]
minList x list --output 1 <- is index
This should return 1. Because the at list[1] is 3. It returns 1 because 3 is the smallest element after x (=2).
let x = 1
let list = [3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2]
minList x list -- output 9 <- is index
It should return 9 because at list[9] is 2 and 2 is the smallest element after 1. x = 1 which is defined by me.
What I have tried so far.
minListIndex :: (Ord a, Num a) => a -> [a] -> a
minListIndex x [] = 0
minListIndex x (y:ys)
| x > y = length ys
| otherwise = m
where m = minListIndex x ys
When I load the file I get this error
• Couldn't match expected type ‘a’ with actual type ‘Int’
‘a’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for:
minListIndex :: forall a. (Ord a, Num a) => a -> [a] -> a
at myFile.hs:36:17
• In the expression: 1 + length ys
In an equation for ‘minListIndex’:
minListIndex x (y : ys)
| x > y = 1 + length ys
| otherwise = 1 + m
where
m = minListIndex x ys
• Relevant bindings include
m :: a (bound at myFile.hs:41:19)
ys :: [a] (bound at myFile.hs:38:19)
y :: a (bound at myFile.hs:38:17)
x :: a (bound at myFile.hs:38:14)
minListIndex :: a -> [a] -> a (bound at myFile.hs:37:1)
When I modify the function like this
minListIndex :: (Ord a, Num a) => a -> [a] -> a
minListIndex x [] = 0
minListIndex x (y:ys)
| x > y = 2 -- <- modified...
| otherwise = 3 -- <- modifiedd
where m = minListIndex x ys
I load the file again then it compiles and runs but ofc the output is not desired.
What is the problem with
| x > y = length ys
| otherwise = m
?
In short: Basically, I want to find the index of the smallest element but higher than the x which is defined by me in parameter/function signature.
Thanks for the help in advance!
minListIndex :: (Ord a, Num a) => a -> [a] -> a
The problem is that you are trying to return result of generic type a but it is actually index in a list.
Suppose you are trying to evaluate your function for a list of doubles. In this case compiler should instantiate function's type to Double -> [Double] -> Double which is nonsense.
Actually compiler notices that you are returning something that is derived from list's length and warns you that it is not possible to match generic type a with concrete Int.
length ys returns Int, so you can try this instead:
minListIndex :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> Int
Regarding your original problem, seems that you can't solve it with plain recursion. Consider defining helper recursive function with accumulator. In your case it can be a pair (min_value_so_far, its_index).
First off, I'd separate the index type from the list element type altogether. There's no apparent reason for them to be the same. I will use the BangPatterns extension to avoid a space leak without too much notation; enable that by adding {-# language BangPatterns #-} to the very top of the file. I will also import Data.Word to get access to the Word64 type.
There are two stages: first, find the index of the given element (if it's present) and the rest of the list beyond that point. Then, find the index of the minimum of the tail.
-- Find the 0-based index of the first occurrence
-- of the given element in the list, and
-- the rest of the list after that element.
findGiven :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Maybe (Word64, [a])
findGiven given = go 0 where
go !_k [] = Nothing --not found
go !k (x:xs)
| given == xs = Just (k, xs)
| otherwise = go (k+1) xs
-- Find the minimum (and its index) of the elements of the
-- list greater than the given one.
findMinWithIndexOver :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> Maybe (Word64, a)
findMinWithIndexOver given = go 0 Nothing where
go !_k acc [] = acc
go !k acc (x : xs)
| x <= given = go (k + 1) acc xs
| otherwise
= case acc of
Nothing -> go (k + 1) (Just (k, x)) xs
Just (ix_min, curr_min)
| x < ix_min = go (k + 1) (Just (k, x)) xs
| otherwise = go (k + 1) acc xs
You can now put these functions together to construct the one you seek. If you want a general Num result rather than a Word64 one, you can use fromIntegral at the very end. Why use Word64? Unlike Int or Word, it's (practically) guaranteed not to overflow in any reasonable amount of time. It's likely substantially faster than using something like Integer or Natural directly.
It is not clear for me what do you want exactly. Based on examples I guess it is: find the index of the smallest element higher than x which appears after x. In that case, This solution is plain Prelude. No imports
minList :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> Int
minList x l = snd . minimum . filter (\a -> x < fst a) . dropWhile (\a -> x /= fst a) $ zip l [0..]
The logic is:
create the list of pairs, [(elem, index)] using zip l [0..]
drop elements until you find the input x using dropWhile (\a -> x /= fst a)
discards elements less than x using filter (\a -> x < fst a)
find the minimum of the resulting list. Tuples are ordered using lexicographic order so it fits your problem
take the index using snd
Your function can be constructed out of ready-made parts as
import Data.Maybe (listToMaybe)
import Data.List (sortBy)
import Data.Ord (comparing)
foo :: (Ord a, Enum b) => a -> [a] -> Maybe b
foo x = fmap fst . listToMaybe . take 1
. dropWhile ((<= x) . snd)
. sortBy (comparing snd)
. dropWhile ((/= x) . snd)
. zip [toEnum 0..]
This Maybe finds the index of the next smallest element in the list above the given element, situated after the given element, in the input list. As you've requested.
You can use any Enum type of your choosing as the index.
Now you can implement this higher-level executable specs as direct recursion, using an efficient Map data structure to hold your sorted elements above x seen so far to find the next smallest, etc.
Correctness first, efficiency later!
Efficiency update: dropping after the sort drops them sorted, so there's a wasted effort there; indeed it should be replaced with the filtering (as seen in the answer by Luis Morillo) before the sort. And if our element type is in Integral (so it is a properly discrete type, unlike just an Enum, thanks to #dfeuer for pointing this out!), there's one more opportunity for an opportunistic optimization: if we hit on a succ minimal element by pure chance, there's no further chance of improvement, and so we should bail out at that point right there:
bar :: (Integral a, Enum b) => a -> [a] -> Maybe b
bar x = fmap fst . either Just (listToMaybe . take 1
. sortBy (comparing snd))
. findOrFilter ((== succ x).snd) ((> x).snd)
. dropWhile ((/= x) . snd)
. zip [toEnum 0..]
findOrFilter :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Either a [a]
findOrFilter t p = go
where go [] = Right []
go (x:xs) | t x = Left x
| otherwise = fmap ([x | p x] ++) $ go xs
Testing:
> foo 5 [2,3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2] :: Maybe Int
Just 4
> foo 2 [2,3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2] :: Maybe Int
Just 1
> foo 1 [3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2] :: Maybe Int
Just 9
I want to write a function in haskell that takes a list of integers and an integer value as input and outputs a list of all the lists that contain combinations of elements that add up to the input integer.
For example:
myFunc [3,7,5,9,13,17] 30 = [[13,17],[3,5,9,13]]
Attempt:
myFunc :: [Integer] -> Integer -> [[Integer]]
myFunc list sm = case list of
[] -> []
[x]
| x == sm -> [x]
| otherwise -> []
(x : xs)
| x + myFunc xs == sm -> [x] ++ myFunc[xs]
| otherwise -> myFunc xs
My code produces just one combination and that combination must be consecutive, which is not what I want to achieve
Write a function to create all subsets
f [] = [[]]
f (x:xs) = f xs ++ map (x:) (f xs)
then use the filter
filter ((==30) . sum) $ f [3,7,5,9,13,17]
[[13,17],[3,5,9,13]]
as suggested by #Ingo you can prune the list while it's generated, for example
f :: (Num a, Ord a) => [a] -> [[a]]
f [] = [[]]
f (x:xs) = f xs ++ (filter ((<=30) . sum) $ map (x:) $ f xs)
should work faster than generating all 2^N elements.
You can use subsequences from Data.List to give you every possible combination of values, then filter based on your requirement that they add to 30.
myFunc :: [Integer] -> Integer -> [[Integer]]
myFunc list sm =
filter (\x -> sum x == sm) $ subsequences list
An alternative would be to use a right fold:
fun :: (Foldable t, Num a, Eq a) => t a -> a -> [[a]]
fun = foldr go $ \a -> if a == 0 then [[]] else []
where go x f a = f a ++ ((x:) <$> f (a - x))
then,
\> fun [3,7,5,9,13,17] 30
[[13,17],[3,5,9,13]]
\> fun [3,7,5,9,13,17] 12
[[7,5],[3,9]]
An advantage of this approach is that it does not create any lists unless it adds up to the desired value.
Whereas, an approach based on filtering, will create all the possible sub-sequence lists only to drop most of them during filtering step.
Here is an alternate solution idea: Generate a list of lists that sum up to the target number, i.e.:
[30]
[29,1]
[28,2]
[28,1,1]
...
and only then filter the ones that could be build from your given list.
Pro: could be much faster, especially if your input list is long and your target number comparatively small, such that the list of list of summands is much smaller than the list of subsets of your input list.
Con: does only work when 0 is not in the game.
Finally, you can it do both ways and write a function that decides which algorthm will be faster given some input list and the target number.
I'm trying to get each element from list of lists.
For example, [1,2,3,4] [1,2,3,4]
I need to create a list which is [1+1, 2+2, 3+3, 4+4]
list can be anything. "abcd" "defg" => ["ad","be","cf","dg"]
The thing is that two list can have different length so I can't use zip.
That's one thing and the other thing is comparing.
I need to compare [1,2,3,4] with [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. First list can be longer than the second list, second list might be longer than the first list.
So, if I compare [1,2,3,4] with [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8], the result should be [5,6,7,8]. Whatever that first list doesn't have, but the second list has, need to be output.
I also CAN NOT USE ANY RECURSIVE FUNCTION. I can only import Data.Char
The thing is that two list can have different length so I can't use zip.
And what should the result be in this case?
CAN NOT USE ANY RECURSIVE FUNCTION
Then it's impossible. There is going to be recursion somewhere, either in the library functions you use (as in other answers), or in functions you write yourself. I suspect you are misunderstanding your task.
For your first question, you can use zipWith:
zipWith f [a1, a2, ...] [b1, b2, ...] == [f a1 b1, f a2 b2, ...]
like, as in your example,
Prelude> zipWith (+) [1 .. 4] [1 .. 4]
[2,4,6,8]
I'm not sure what you need to have in case of lists with different lengths. Standard zip and zipWith just ignore elements from the longer one which don't have a pair. You could leave them unchanged, and write your own analog of zipWith, but it would be something like zipWithRest :: (a -> a -> a) -> [a] -> [a] -> [a] which contradicts to the types of your second example with strings.
For the second, you can use list comprehensions:
Prelude> [e | e <- [1 .. 8], e `notElem` [1 .. 4]]
[5,6,7,8]
It would be O(nm) slow, though.
For your second question (if I'm reading it correctly), a simple filter or list comprehension would suffice:
uniques a b = filter (not . flip elem a) b
I believe you can solve this using a combination of concat and nub http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.12.1/html/libraries/base-4.2.0.0/Data-List.html#v%3anub which will remove all duplicates ...
nub (concat [[0,1,2,3], [1,2,3,4]])
you will need to remove unique elements from the first list before doing this. ie 0
(using the same functions)
Padding then zipping
You suggested in a comment the examples:
[1,2,3,4] [1,2,3] => [1+1, 2+2, 3+3, 4+0]
"abcd" "abc" => ["aa","bb","cc"," d"]
We can solve those sorts of problems by padding the list with a default value:
padZipWith :: a -> (a -> a -> b) -> [a] -> [a] -> [b]
padZipWith def op xs ys = zipWith op xs' ys' where
maxlen = max (length xs) (length ys)
xs' = take maxlen (xs ++ repeat def)
ys' = take maxlen (ys ++ repeat def)
so for example:
ghci> padZipWith 0 (+) [4,3] [10,100,1000,10000]
[14,103,1000,10000]
ghci> padZipWith ' ' (\x y -> [x,y]) "Hi" "Hello"
["HH","ie"," l"," l"," o"]
(You could rewrite padZipWith to have two separate defaults, one for each list, so you could allow the two lists to have different types, but that doesn't sound super useful.)
General going beyond the common length
For your first question about zipping beyond common length:
How about splitting your lists into an initial segment both have and a tail that only one of them has, using splitAt :: Int -> [a] -> ([a], [a]) from Data.List:
bits xs ys = (frontxs,frontys,backxs,backys) where
(frontxs,backxs) = splitAt (length ys) xs
(frontys,backys) = splitAt (length xs) ys
Example:
ghci> bits "Hello Mum" "Hi everyone else"
("Hello Mum","Hi everyo","","ne else")
You could use that various ways:
larger xs ys = let (frontxs,frontys,backxs,backys) = bits xs ys in
zipWith (\x y -> if x > y then x else y) frontxs frontys ++ backxs ++ backys
needlesslyComplicatedCmpLen xs ys = let (_,_,backxs,backys) = bits xs ys in
if null backxs && null backys then EQ
else if null backxs then LT else GT
-- better written as compare (length xs) (length ys)
so
ghci> larger "Hello Mum" "Hi everyone else"
"Hillveryone else"
ghci> needlesslyComplicatedCmpLen "Hello Mum" "Hi everyone else"
LT
but once you've got the hang of splitAt, take, takeWhile, drop etc, I doubt you'll need to write an auxiliary function like bits.
okay, this is probably going to be in the prelude, but: is there a standard library function for finding the unique elements in a list? my (re)implementation, for clarification, is:
has :: (Eq a) => [a] -> a -> Bool
has [] _ = False
has (x:xs) a
| x == a = True
| otherwise = has xs a
unique :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a]
unique [] = []
unique (x:xs)
| has xs x = unique xs
| otherwise = x : unique xs
I searched for (Eq a) => [a] -> [a] on Hoogle.
First result was nub (remove duplicate elements from a list).
Hoogle is awesome.
The nub function from Data.List (no, it's actually not in the Prelude) definitely does something like what you want, but it is not quite the same as your unique function. They both preserve the original order of the elements, but unique retains the last
occurrence of each element, while nub retains the first occurrence.
You can do this to make nub act exactly like unique, if that's important (though I have a feeling it's not):
unique = reverse . nub . reverse
Also, nub is only good for small lists.
Its complexity is quadratic, so it starts to get slow if your list can contain hundreds of elements.
If you limit your types to types having an Ord instance, you can make it scale better.
This variation on nub still preserves the order of the list elements, but its complexity is O(n * log n):
import qualified Data.Set as Set
nubOrd :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
nubOrd xs = go Set.empty xs where
go s (x:xs)
| x `Set.member` s = go s xs
| otherwise = x : go (Set.insert x s) xs
go _ _ = []
In fact, it has been proposed to add nubOrd to Data.Set.
import Data.Set (toList, fromList)
uniquify lst = toList $ fromList lst
I think that unique should return a list of elements that only appear once in the original list; that is, any elements of the orginal list that appear more than once should not be included in the result.
May I suggest an alternative definition, unique_alt:
unique_alt :: [Int] -> [Int]
unique_alt [] = []
unique_alt (x:xs)
| elem x ( unique_alt xs ) = [ y | y <- ( unique_alt xs ), y /= x ]
| otherwise = x : ( unique_alt xs )
Here are some examples that highlight the differences between unique_alt and unqiue:
unique [1,2,1] = [2,1]
unique_alt [1,2,1] = [2]
unique [1,2,1,2] = [1,2]
unique_alt [1,2,1,2] = []
unique [4,2,1,3,2,3] = [4,1,2,3]
unique_alt [4,2,1,3,2,3] = [4,1]
I think this would do it.
unique [] = []
unique (x:xs) = x:unique (filter ((/=) x) xs)
Another way to remove duplicates:
unique :: [Int] -> [Int]
unique xs = [x | (x,y) <- zip xs [0..], x `notElem` (take y xs)]
Algorithm in Haskell to create a unique list:
data Foo = Foo { id_ :: Int
, name_ :: String
} deriving (Show)
alldata = [ Foo 1 "Name"
, Foo 2 "Name"
, Foo 3 "Karl"
, Foo 4 "Karl"
, Foo 5 "Karl"
, Foo 7 "Tim"
, Foo 8 "Tim"
, Foo 9 "Gaby"
, Foo 9 "Name"
]
isolate :: [Foo] -> [Foo]
isolate [] = []
isolate (x:xs) = (fst f) : isolate (snd f)
where
f = foldl helper (x,[]) xs
helper (a,b) y = if name_ x == name_ y
then if id_ x >= id_ y
then (x,b)
else (y,b)
else (a,y:b)
main :: IO ()
main = mapM_ (putStrLn . show) (isolate alldata)
Output:
Foo {id_ = 9, name_ = "Name"}
Foo {id_ = 9, name_ = "Gaby"}
Foo {id_ = 5, name_ = "Karl"}
Foo {id_ = 8, name_ = "Tim"}
A library-based solution:
We can use that style of Haskell programming where all looping and recursion activities are pushed out of user code and into suitable library functions. Said library functions are often optimized in ways that are way beyond the skills of a Haskell beginner.
A way to decompose the problem into two passes goes like this:
produce a second list that is parallel to the input list, but with duplicate elements suitably marked
eliminate elements marked as duplicates from that second list
For the first step, duplicate elements don't need a value at all, so we can use [Maybe a] as the type of the second list. So we need a function of type:
pass1 :: Eq a => [a] -> [Maybe a]
Function pass1 is an example of stateful list traversal where the state is the list (or set) of distinct elements seen so far. For this sort of problem, the library provides the mapAccumL :: (s -> a -> (s, b)) -> s -> [a] -> (s, [b]) function.
Here the mapAccumL function requires, besides the initial state and the input list, a step function argument, of type s -> a -> (s, Maybe a).
If the current element x is not a duplicate, the output of the step function is Just x and x gets added to the current state. If x is a duplicate, the output of the step function is Nothing, and the state is passed unchanged.
Testing under the ghci interpreter:
$ ghci
GHCi, version 8.8.4: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
λ>
λ> stepFn s x = if (elem x s) then (s, Nothing) else (x:s, Just x)
λ>
λ> import Data.List(mapAccumL)
λ>
λ> pass1 xs = mapAccumL stepFn [] xs
λ>
λ> xs2 = snd $ pass1 "abacrba"
λ> xs2
[Just 'a', Just 'b', Nothing, Just 'c', Just 'r', Nothing, Nothing]
λ>
Writing a pass2 function is even easier. To filter out Nothing non-values, we could use:
import Data.Maybe( fromJust, isJust)
pass2 = (map fromJust) . (filter isJust)
but why bother at all ? - as this is precisely what the catMaybes library function does.
λ>
λ> import Data.Maybe(catMaybes)
λ>
λ> catMaybes xs2
"abcr"
λ>
Putting it all together:
Overall, the source code can be written as:
import Data.Maybe(catMaybes)
import Data.List(mapAccumL)
uniques :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a]
uniques = let stepFn s x = if (elem x s) then (s, Nothing) else (x:s, Just x)
in catMaybes . snd . mapAccumL stepFn []
This code is reasonably compatible with infinite lists, something occasionally referred to as being “laziness-friendly”:
λ>
λ> take 5 $ uniques $ "abacrba" ++ (cycle "abcrf")
"abcrf"
λ>
Efficiency note:
If we anticipate that it is possible to find many distinct elements in the input list and we can have an Ord a instance, the state can be implemented as a Set object rather than a plain list, this without having to alter the overall structure of the solution.
Here's a solution that uses only Prelude functions:
uniqueList theList =
if not (null theList)
then head theList : filter (/= head theList) (uniqueList (tail theList))
else []
I'm assuming this is equivalent to running two or three nested "for" loops (running through each element, then running through each element again to check for other elements with the same value, then removing those other elements) so I'd estimate this is O(n^2) or O(n^3)
Might even be better than reversing a list, nubbing it, then reversing it again, depending on your circumstances.