i'm trying to find a way in ocaml to apply functions to matrices.
In my implementation, a matrix is an int list of an int list (as in the matrix is a int list, which holds other int lists)
My idea right now is:
let valid_matrix x =
match x with
[] -> true
| (map length x) ->
;;
(Map and length are separate functions which find the number of elements in a list and perform a map function in which a function is applied to all elements of a list, i cannot use a library).
I know this code is incomplete but i am unsure how to compare the number of elements in each matrix to each other and I don't know either how I would access each individual int list (row) within the matrix if I wanted to do further manipulation to it.
Kind regards.
"i cannot use a library" => so this is homework. No code for you, just hints.
Split your problem in two:
1) Change the rows of the matrix into their length. For this apply the length function to each row of the matrix (your map function). This then gives you a int list containing the length of each row.
2) Check that all values in the list are the same.
Related
If I have a list [1;2;3;4;5;6] and I want to return a list of the odd indices [2;4;6], could I do this with List.map and some function? I'm having difficulty figuring this out.
What List.map does is return a function (call it f say) of each of the elements of the list. For each element x of the input list, it returns f x in the resulting list. Hence, the returned list is always the same length as the one it is passed.
Since you want a shorter list, you can't use List.map.
As #UnholySheep says, you could use List.filteri. It's specifically intended for returning only some of the elements of the list based on their position in the list.
In OCaml, suppose I have a string list as follows:
let ls : string list = ["A"; "A"; "B"; "B"; "A"; "Y"; "Y"; "Y"] ;;
I'm having trouble writing a function that calculates how many times an element occurs consecutively and also pairs up that element with its frequency. For instance, given the above list as input, the function should return [("A", 2); ("B", 2), ("A", 1), ("Y", 3)].
I've tried looking for some hints elsewhere but almost all other similar operations are done using int lists, where it is easy to simply add numbers up. But here, we cannot add strings.
My intuition was to use something like fold_left in some similar fashion as below:
let lis : int list = [1;2;3;4;5]
let count (lis : int list) = List.fold_left (fun x y -> x + y) (0) (lis)
which is essentially summing all the elements cumulatively from left to right. But, in my case, I don't want to cumulatively sum all the elements, I just need to count how many times an element occurs consecutively. Some advice would be appreciated!
This is obviously a homework assignment, so I will just give a couple of hints.
When you get your code working, it won't be adding strings (or any other type) together. It will be adding ints together. So you might want to look back at those examples on the net again :-)
You can definitely use fold_left to get an answer. First, note that the resultl is a list of pairs. The first element of each pair can be any type, depending on the type of the original list. The second element in each pair is an int. So you have a basic type that you're working with: ('a * int) list.
Imagine that you have a way to "increment" such a list:
let increment (list: ('a * int) list) value =
(* This is one way to think of your problem *)
This function looks for the pair in the list whose first element is equal to value. If it finds it, it returns a new list where the associated int is one larger than before. If it doesn't find it, it returns a new list with an extra element (value, 1).
This is the basic operation you want to fold over your list, rather than the + operation of your example code.
So I'm trying to write some minimal code to put two lists of strings together, and to do this I thought it was best to use the haskell map function.
Essentially I want to be able to do adders ["1","2"] ["3","4"] = ["1","2","3","4"]
So I have a function called adder, which takes a list, then adds a string to that list and returns the new list. Then I have a function called adders which replicates the adder function, but adds a list of strings instead of just one string, however at the moment it produces multiple lists instead of one list.
I thought
adder :: [String] -> String -> [String]
adder y x = y ++ [x]
adders y x = map (adder y) x
would work, but this just gives a list of two lists
[["1","2","3"],[["1","2","4"]]
How is the best way to go about this?
I thought it was best to use the haskell map function
No. map f applies f to every element of your list. But you don't want to change the elements at all, you want to change the list itself. That, however, is out of scope of the things that are possible with map. map cannot add more elements, neither can it remove some.
If you want to concatenate two lists, simply use ++:
adders :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
adders x y = x ++ y
Is there a more efficient way to update an element in a list in Elm than maping over each element?
{ model | items = List.indexedMap (\i x -> if i == 2 then "z" else x) model.items }
Maybe Elm's compiler is sophisticated enough to optimize this so that map or indexedMap isn't unnecessarily copying over every element except 1. What about nested lists?
Clojure has assoc-in to update an element inside a nested list or record (can be combined too). Does Elm have an equivalent?
More efficient in terms of amount of code would be (this is similar to #MichaelKohl's answer):
List.take n list ++ newN :: List.drop (n+1) list
PS: if n is < 0 or n > (length of list - 1) then the new item will be added before or at the end of the list.
PPS: I seem to recall that a :: alist is slightly better performing than [a] ++ alist.
If you mean efficient in terms of performance/ number of operations:
As soon as your lists get large, it is more efficient to use an Array (or a Dict) instead of a List as your type.
But there is a trade-off:
Array and Dict are very efficient/ performant when you frequently retrieve/ update/ add items.
List is very performant when you do frequent sorting and filtering and other operations where you actually need to map over the entire set.
That is why in my code, List is what I use a lot in view code. On the data side (in my update functions) I use Dict and Array more.
Basically, an Elm list is not meant for such a use-case. Instead, consider using an Array. Array contains a set function you can use for what is conceptually an in-pace update. Here's an example:
import Html exposing (text)
import Array
type alias Model = { items : Array.Array String }
model =
{ items = Array.fromList ["a", "b", "c"]
}
main =
let
m = { model | items = Array.set 2 "z" model.items }
z = Array.get 2 m.items
output = case z of
Just n -> n
Nothing -> "Nothing"
in
text output -- The output will be "z"
If for some reason you need model.items to be a List, note that you can convert back and forth between Array and List.
I'm not overly familiar with Elm, but given that it's immutable by default, I'd assume it uses structural sharing for its underlying data structures, so your concern re memory may be unfounded.
Personally I think there's nothing wrong with your approach posted above, but if you don't like it, you can try something like this (or List.concat):
List.take n list ++ newN :: List.drop (n+1)
I'm definitely not an Elm expert, but a look at Elm's List documentation did not reveal any function to update the element at a given index in a list.
I like Michael's answer. It's quite elegant. If you prefer a less-elegant, recursive approach, you can do something like the following. (Like I said, I'm not an Elm expert, but hopefully the intention of the code is clear if its not quite right. Also, I don't do any error handling.)
updateListAt :: List a -> Int -> a -> List a
updateListAt (head :: tail) 0 x = x :: tail
updateListAt (head :: tail) i x = head :: (updateListAt tail (i - 1) x)
However, both the runtime and space complexity will be O(n) in both the average and worst cases, regardless of the method used. This is a consequence of Elm's List being a single-linked list.
Regarding assoc-in, if you look at the Clojure source, you'll see that assoc-in is just recursively defined in terms of assoc. However, I think you'd have trouble typing it for arbitrary, dynamic depth in Elm.
I'm coding in haskell and want to know how find a certain element in mutiple list.
Here an example let say:
x = [(1,2,3,4,5),
(3,4,5,6,6),
(5,6,2,1,1),
(1,2,5,6,2)];
Let say I want to find the 3rd element of each list.
So the program will print out 4,6,1,6
I know about the !! but when I do something like x !! 3, it prints out the third row(1,2,5,6,2).
I want it so it print out the 3rd element of each list.
What you've provided is not actually a list of lists, but a list of tuples. Tuples have a special type based on the number and type of their elements, so the type of your x above is [(Int,Int,Int,Int,Int)].
Unlike lists, which allow us to extract values by index with the !! operator (ex. [1,2,3] !! 1 = 2), in order to extract specific values from a tuple we must pattern match the entire tuple, giving some name to the value we wish to extract and using it in our return value. To extract the fourth value from a tuple of holding 5 values, we could write a function like this:
f (a,b,c,d,e) = d
Or, as an anonymous function (because, if we are only going to use it when mapping over the list, it's nice to not bother assigning it a name):
(\(a,b,c,d,e) -> d)
Since we only care about the fourth value, we can choose to discard all others (you said third but meant index 3 -> 4th term above?):
(\(_,_,_,x,_) -> x)
Now we have a list of such tuples, and we'll want to apply it to each. We can do this with map, which will apply the function to each and return a list of the third value from each tuple:
f xs = map (\(_,_,_,x,_) -> x) xs
Or, with eta-reduction:
f = map (\(_,_,_,x,_) -> x)
Example usage:
gchi>> f [(1,2,3,4,5),(3,4,5,6,6),(5,6,2,1,1),(1,2,5,6,2)]
[4,6,1,6]