Write a function that replicates items in a list based on a second list specifying the number of times items are to be duplicated.
Write the function in Ocaml in a functional way of programming using lists.
If library functions - may be used only with O(1) computational complexity.
For example:
duplicate [5;6;7] [0;2;5;3];;
returns:
[6;6;7;7;7;7;7]
Code I've invented so far:
let duplicate (list1, list2)=
let rec read (list2, list1) =
if List.hd list2 = 0 then read (List.tl list2, List.tl list1) else print (List.hd list2, List.hd list1)
let rec print (acc, num) =
num :: (print (acc-1, num));;
First of all, it does not compile, I have "syntax error"...
I do not feel sure about these "nested" functions.
I believe that complexity could be better.
When you are considering an answer to this question, you should examine the most simple case.. i.e. How can I add an element to a list x number of times. Example:
let rec add_elem_num_times num times lst =
match times with
| 0 -> lst
| _ -> add_elem_num_times num (times - 1) (num::lst)
let ans = add_elem_num_times 5 3 (add_elem_num_times 3 8 [])
let () = List.iter (fun x -> Printf.printf "%d\n" x) ans
The rest is just getting it to work for many elements.
Related
I have to write a function that, given two lists, it returns a list of the elements of the first one whose square is present in the second one (sry for my english). I can't do it recursively and i can't use List.filter.
this is what i did:
let lst1= [1;2;3;4;5];;
let lst2= [9;25;10;4];;
let filquadi lst1 lst2 =
let aux = [] in
List.map(fun x -> if List.mem (x*x) lst2 then x::aux else []) lst1;;
It works but it also prints [] when the number doesn't satisfy the if statement:
filquadi lst1 lst2 ;;
- : int list list = [[]; [2]; [3]; []; [5]]
how can I return a list of numbers instead of a list of a list of numbers?
- : int list = [2;3;5]
You can use List.concat to put things together at the end:
List.concat (List.map ...)
As a side comment, aux isn't doing anything useful in your code. It's just a name for the empty list (since OCaml variables are immutable). It would probably be clearer just to use [x] instead of x :: aux.
As another side comment, this is a strange sounding assignment. Normally the reason to forbid use of functions from the List module is to encourage you to write your own recursive solution (which indeed is educational). I can't see offhand a reason to forbid the use of recursion, but it's interesting to combine functions from List in different ways.
Your criteria don't say you can't use List.fold_left or List.rev, so...
let filter lst1 lst2 =
List.fold_left
(fun init x ->
if List.mem (x * x) lst2 then x::init
else init)
[] lst1
|> List.rev
We start with an empty list, and as we fold over the first list, add the current element only if that element appears in the second list. Because this results in a list that's reversed from its original order, we then reverse that.
If you're not supposed to use recursion, this is technically cheating, because List.fold_left works recursively, but then so does basically anything working with lists. Reimplementing the List module's functions is going to involve a lot of recursion, as can be seen from reimplementing fold_left and filter.
let rec fold_left f init lst =
match lst with
| [] -> init
| x::xs -> fold_left f (f init x) xs
let rec filter f lst =
match lst with
| [] -> []
| x::xs when f x -> x :: filter f xs
| _::xs -> filter f xs
Important: I am only allowed to use List.head, List.tail and List.length
No List.map List.rev ...........etc
Only List.hd, List.tl and List.length
How to duplicate the elements of a list in a list of lists only if the length of the list is odd
Here is the code I tried:
let rec listes_paires x =
if x=[] then []
else [List.hd (List.hd x)]
# (List.tl (List.hd x))
# listes_paires (List.tl x);;
(* editor's note: I don't know where this line is supposed to go*)
if List.length mod 2 = 1 then []
For exemple:
lists_odd [[]; [1];[1;2];[1;2;3];[];[5;4;3;2;1]];;
returns
[[]; [1; 1]; [1; 2]; [1; 2; 3; 1; 2; 3]; []; [5; 4; 3; 2; 1; 5; 4; 3; 2; 1]]
Any help would be very appreciated
thank you all
It looks like that your exercise is about writing recursive functions on lists so that you can learn how to write functions like List.length, List.filter, and so on.
Start with the most simple recursive function, the one that computes the length to the list. Recall, that you can pattern match on the input list structure and make decisions on it, e.g.,
let rec length xs = match xs with
| [] -> 0 (* the empty list has size zero *)
| hd :: tl ->
(* here you can call `length` and it will return you
the length of the list hing how you can use it to
compute the length of the list that is made of `tl`
prepended with `hd` *)
???
The trick is to first write the simple cases and then write the complex cases assuming that your recursive function already works. Don't overthink it and don't try to compute how recursion will work in your head. It will make it hurt :) Just write correctly the base cases (the simple cases) and make sure that you call your function recursively and correctly combine the results while assuming that it works correctly. It is called the induction principle and it works, believe me :)
The above length function was easy as it was producing an integer as output and it was very easy to build it, e.g., you can use + to build a new integer from other integers, something that we have learned very early in our lives so it doesn't surprise us. But what if we want to build something more complex (in fact it is not more complex but just less common to us), e.g., a list data structure? Well, it is the same, we can just use :: instead of + to add things to our result.
So, lets try writing the filter function that will recurse over the input list and build a new list from the elements that satisfy the given predicate,
let rec filter xs keep = match xs with
| [] -> (* the simple case - no elements nothing to filter *)
[]
| x :: xs ->
(* we call filter and it returns the correctly filtered list *)
let filtered = filter xs keep in
(* now we need to decide what to do with `x` *)
if keep x then (* how to build a list from `x` and `filtered`?*)
else filtered (* keep filtering *)
The next trick to learn with recursive functions is how to employ helper functions that add an extra state (also called an accumulator). For example, the rev function, which reverses a list, is much better to define with an extra accumulator. Yes, we can easily define it without it,
let rec rev xs = match xs with
| [] -> []
| x :: xs -> rev xs # [x]
But this is an extremely bad idea as # operator will have to go to the end of the first list and build a completely new list on the road to add only one element. That is our rev implementation will have quadratic performance, i.e., for a list of n elements it will build n list each having n elements in it, only to drop most of them. So a more efficient implementation will employ a helper function that will have an extra parameter, an accumulator,
let rev xs =
(* we will pump elements from xs to ys *)
let rec loop xs ys = match xs with
| [] -> ys (* nothing more to pump *)
| x :: xs ->
let ys = (* push y to ys *) in
(* continue pumping *) in
loop xs []
This trick will also help you in implementing your tasks, as you need to filter by the position of the element. That means that your recursive function needs an extra state that counts the position (increments by one on each recursive step through the list elements). So you will need a helper function with an extra parameter for that counter.
How do you efficiently split a list in 2, preserving the order of the elements?
Here's an example of input and expected output
[] should produce ([],[])
[1;] can produce ([1;], []) or ([], [1;])
[1;2;3;4;] should produce ([1; 2;], [3; 4;])
[1;2;3;4;5;] can produce ([1;2;3;], [4;5;]) or ([1;2;], [3;4;5;])
I tried a few things but I'm unsure which is the most efficient... Maybe there is a solution out there that I'm missing completely(calls to C code don't count).
My first attempt was to use List's partition function with a ref to 1/2 the length of the list. This works but you walk through the whole list when you only need to cover half.
let split_list2 l =
let len = ref ((List.length l) / 2) in
List.partition (fun _ -> if !len = 0 then false else (len := !len - 1; true)) l
My next attempt was to use a accumulator and then reverse it. This only walks through half the list but I call reverse to correct the order of the accumulator.
let split_list4 l =
let len = List.length l in
let rec split_list4_aux ln acc lst =
if ln < 1
then
(List.rev acc, lst)
else
match lst with
| [] -> failwith "Invalid split"
| hd::tl ->
split_list4_aux (ln - 1) (hd::acc) tl in
split_list4_aux (len / 2) [] l
My final attempt used function closures for the accumulator and it works but I have no idea how efficient closures are.
let split_list3 l =
let len = List.length l in
let rec split_list3_aux ln func lst =
if ln < 1
then
(func [], lst)
else
match lst with
| hd::tl -> split_list3_aux (ln - 1) (fun t -> func (hd::t)) tl
| _ -> failwith "Invalid split" in
split_list3_aux (len / 2) (fun t -> t) l
So is there a standard way to split a list in OCaml(preserving element order) that's most efficient?
You need to traverse the whole list for all of your solutions. The List.length function traverses the whole list. But it's true that your later solutions re-use the tail of the original list rather than constructing a new list.
It is difficult to say how fast any given bit of code is going to be just by inspection. Generally it's good enough to think in aysmptotic O(f(n)) terms, then work on slow functions in detail through timing tests (of realistic data).
All of your answers look to be O(n), which is the best you can do since you clearly need to know the length of the list to get the answer.
Your split_list2 and split_list3 solutions look pretty complicated to me, so I would expect (intuitively) them to be slower. A closure is a fairly complicated data structure containing a function and the environment of accessible variables. So it's problaby not all that fast to construct one.
Your split_list4 solution is what I would code up myself.
If you really care about timings you should time your solutions on some long lists. Keep in mind that you might get different timings on different systems.
Couldn't give up this question. I had to find a way that I could walk through this list one time to create a split with order preserved..
How about this?
let split lst =
let cnt = ref 0 in
let acc = ref ([], []) in
let rec split_aux c l =
match l with
| [] -> cnt := (c / 2)
| hd::tl ->
(
split_aux (c + 1) tl;
let (f, s) = (!acc) in
if c < (!cnt)
then
acc := ((hd::f), s)
else
acc := (f, hd::s)
)
in
split_aux 0 lst; !acc
With a list of integers such as:
[1;2;3;4;5;6;7;8;9]
How can I create a list of list of ints from the above, with all new lists the same specified length?
For example, I need to go from:
[1;2;3;4;5;6;7;8;9] to [[1;2;3];[4;5;6];[7;8;9]]
with the number to split being 3?
Thanks for your time.
So what you actually want is a function of type
val split : int list -> int -> int list list
that takes a list of integers and a sub-list-size. How about one that is even more general?
val split : 'a list -> int -> 'a list list
Here comes the implementation:
let split xs size =
let (_, r, rs) =
(* fold over the list, keeping track of how many elements are still
missing in the current list (csize), the current list (ys) and
the result list (zss) *)
List.fold_left (fun (csize, ys, zss) elt ->
(* if target size is 0, add the current list to the target list and
start a new empty current list of target-size size *)
if csize = 0 then (size - 1, [elt], zss # [ys])
(* otherwise decrement the target size and append the current element
elt to the current list ys *)
else (csize - 1, ys # [elt], zss))
(* start the accumulator with target-size=size, an empty current list and
an empty target-list *)
(size, [], []) xs
in
(* add the "left-overs" to the back of the target-list *)
rs # [r]
Please let me know if you get extra points for this! ;)
The code you give is a way to remove a given number of elements from the front of a list. One way to proceed might be to leave this function as it is (maybe clean it up a little) and use an outer function to process the whole list. For this to work easily, your function might also want to return the remainder of the list (so the outer function can easily tell what still needs to be segmented).
It seems, though, that you want to solve the problem with a single function. If so, the main thing I see that's missing is an accumulator for the pieces you've already snipped off. And you also can't quit when you reach your count, you have to remember the piece you just snipped off, and then process the rest of the list the same way.
If I were solving this myself, I'd try to generalize the problem so that the recursive call could help out in all cases. Something that might work is to allow the first piece to be shorter than the rest. That way you can write it as a single function, with no accumulators
(just recursive calls).
I would probably do it this way:
let split lst n =
let rec parti n acc xs =
match xs with
| [] -> (List.rev acc, [])
| _::_ when n = 0 -> (List.rev acc, xs)
| x::xs -> parti (pred n) (x::acc) xs
in let rec concat acc = function
| [] -> List.rev acc
| xs -> let (part, rest) = parti n [] xs in concat (part::acc) rest
in concat [] lst
Note that we are being lenient if n doesn't divide List.length lst evenly.
Example:
split [1;2;3;4;5] 2 gives [[1;2];[3;4];[5]]
Final note: the code is very verbose because the OCaml standard lib is very bare bones :/ With a different lib I'm sure this could be made much more concise.
let rec split n xs =
let rec take k xs ys = match k, xs with
| 0, _ -> List.rev ys :: split n xs
| _, [] -> if ys = [] then [] else [ys]
| _, x::xs' -> take (k - 1) xs' (x::ys)
in take n xs []
I have to iterate over 2 lists. One starts off as a list of empty sublists and the second one has the max length for each of the sublists that are in the first one.
Example; list1 = [[];[];[];]; list2 = [1;2;3]
I need to fill out the empty sublists in list1 ensuring that the length of the sublists never exceed the corresponding integer in list2. To that end, I wrote the following function, that given an element, elem and 2 two lists list and list, will fill out the sublists.
let mapfn elem list1 list2=
let d = ref 1 in
List.map2 (fun a b -> if ((List.length a) < b) && (!d=1)
then (incr d ; List.append a [elem])
else a )
list1 list2
;;
I can now call this function repeatedly on the elements of a list and get the final answer I need
This function works as expected. But I am little bothered by the need to use the int ref d.
Is there a better way for me to do this.
I always find it worthwhile to split the problem into byte-sized pieces that can be composed together to form a solution. You want to pad or truncate lists to a given length; this is easy to do in two steps, first pad, then truncate:
let all x = let rec xs = x :: xs in xs
let rec take n = function
| [] -> []
| _ when n = 0 -> []
| x :: xs -> x :: take (pred n) xs
all creates an infinite list by repeating a value, while take extracts the prefix sublist of at most the given length. With these two, padding and truncating is very straightforwad:
let pad_trim e n l = take n (l # all e)
(it might be a bit surprising that this actually works in a strict language like OCaml). With that defined, your required function is simply:
let mapfn elem list1 list2 = List.map2 (pad_trim elem) list2 list1
that is, taking the second list as a list of specified lengths, pad each of the lists in the first list to that length with the supplied padding element. For instance, mapfn 42 [[];[];[]] [1;2;3] gives [[42]; [42; 42]; [42; 42; 42]]. If this is not what you need, you can tweak the parts and their assembly to suit your requirements.
Are you looking for something like that?
let fill_list elem lengths =
let rec fill acc = function
| 0 -> acc
| n -> fill (elem :: acc) (n - 1) in
let accumulators = List.map (fun _ -> []) lengths in
List.map2 fill accumulators lengths
(* toplevel test *)
# let test = fill_list 42 [1; 3];;
val test : int list list = [[42]; [42; 42; 42]]
(I couldn't make sense of the first list of empty lists in your question, but I suspect it may be the accumulators for the tail-rec fill function.)