I'm trying to write a function with the type declaration [(Int, Bool)] -> [[Int]]. I want the function to only add Ints to the same nested sublist if the Boolean is True. However if the Boolean is False, I want the Int associated with the next True bool to be added to a new sublist. For example: An input of
[(1,True),(2,True),(3,False),(4,True),(5,False),(6,False),(7,True)]
should return
[[1,2],[4],[7]].
My code so far:
test:: [(Int, Bool)] -> [[Int]]
test xs = case xs of
[]->[]
x:xs
| snd x == True -> [(fst x)] : test xs
| snd x == False -> test xs
I'm currently having issues on adding concurrent Ints to the same list if their bools are both True.
You can break this problem into two sub-problems.
For any given list, take the head of this list and match it against the rest of list. There are two possibilities during this matching: i) You are successful i.e. you match, and if so, you collect the matched value and continue looking for more values, or ii) You fail, i.e. you don't match, and if so, you stop immediately and return the so far matched result with rest of, not-inspected, list.
collectF :: (Eq a) => (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a], [a])
collectF f [] = ([], [])
collectF f (x : xs)
| f x = let (ys, zs) = collectF f xs in (x : ys, zs)
| otherwise = ([], x : xs)
Now that you have the collectF function, you can use it recursively on input list. In each call, you would get a successful list with rest of, not-inspected, list. Apply collectF again on rest of list until it is exhausted.
groupBy :: (Eq a) => (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [[a]]
groupBy _ [] = []
groupBy f (x : xs) =
let (ys, zs) = collectF (f x) xs in
(x : ys) : groupBy f zs
*Main> groupBy (\x y -> snd x == snd y) [(1,True),(2,True),(3,False),(4,True),(5,False),(6,False),(7,True)]
[[(1,True),(2,True)],[(3,False)],[(4,True)],[(5,False),(6,False)],[(7,True)]]
I am leaving it to you to remove the True and False values from List. Also, have a look at List library of Haskell [1]. Hope, I am clear enough, but let me know if you have any other question.
[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.12.0.0/docs/src/Data.OldList.html#groupBy
Repeatedly, drop the Falses, grab the Trues. With view patterns:
{-# LANGUAGE ViewPatterns #-}
test :: [(a, Bool)] -> [[a]]
test (span snd . dropWhile (not . snd) -> (a,b))
| null a = []
| otherwise = map fst a : test b
Works with infinite lists as well, inasmuch as possible.
Here's how I'd write this:
import Data.List.NonEmpty (NonEmpty(..), (<|))
import qualified Data.List.NonEmpty as NE
test :: [(Int, Bool)] -> [[Int]]
test = NE.filter (not . null) . foldr go ([]:|[])
where
go :: (Int, Bool) -> NonEmpty [Int] -> NonEmpty [Int]
go (n, True) ~(h:|t) = (n:h):|t
go (n, False) l = []<|l
Or with Will Ness's suggestion:
import Data.List.NonEmpty (NonEmpty(..))
test :: [(Int, Bool)] -> [[Int]]
test = removeHeadIfEmpty . foldr prependOrStartNewList ([]:|[])
where
prependOrStartNewList :: (Int, Bool) -> NonEmpty [Int] -> NonEmpty [Int]
prependOrStartNewList (n, True) ~(h:|t) = (n:h):|t
prependOrStartNewList (n, False) l = []:|removeHeadIfEmpty l
removeHeadIfEmpty :: NonEmpty [Int] -> [[Int]]
removeHeadIfEmpty (h:|t) = if null h then t else h:t
Related
I want to write a recursive function that gets two lists + a requirement as input and outputs all possible tuples with one element each from the 1st and 2nd list that meet the requirement.
It should look something like this:
combine [1,2,3] [5,6,7] (\a b -> a+b > 7) -> [(1,7),(2,6),(2,7),(3,5),(3,6),(3,7)].
I currently just have:
combine:: [a] -> [b] -> [(a, b)]
combine [] ys = []
combine xs [] = []
combine (x:xs) (y:ys) = (x,y) : combine xs ys
but it doesn't filter for anything.
That makes sense, since your input does not filter for anything. You should add an extra parameter here:
combine:: [a] -> [b] -> (a -> b -> Bool) -> [(a, b)]
combine [] ys _ = []
combine xs [] _ = []
combine (x:xs) (y:ys) p
| … = …
| otherwise = …
here p is thus a function that takes an a and a b and returns a Bool, depending on the outcome you thus fire one of the two guards. I leave filling in the … parts as an exercise.
If you want to produce all possible combinations for x and y for which the condition holds, list comprehension is a better tool. You can then work with:
combine:: [a] -> [b] -> (a -> b -> Bool) -> [(a, b)]
combine xs ys p = [ … | … <- xs, … <- ys, … ]
As a programming exercise I'm trying to build a function in Haskell where given a list it splits the list whenever an element is repeated. [1,2,3,3,4,5] would split into [[1,2,3],[3,4,5]] for example. My first idea was to split the list into a list of lists with single elements, where [1,2,3,3,4,5] would become [[1],[2],[3],[3],[4],[5]] and then merge lists only when the elements being compared are not equal, but implementing this has been a headache for me as I'm very new to Haskell and recursion has always given me trouble. I think something is wrong with the function I'm using to combine the lists, it will only ever return a list where all the elements that were broken apart are combined, where [1,2,3,3,4,5] becomes [[1],[2],[3],[3],[4],[5]] but my split_help function will transform this into [[1,2,3,3,4,5]] instead of [[1,2,3],[3,4,5]]
I've pasted my incomplete code below, it doesn't work right now but it should give the general idea of what I'm trying to accomplish. Any feedback on general Haskell code etiquette would also be welcome.
split_breaker breaks the list into a list of list and split_help is what I'm trying to use to combine unequal elements.
split_help x y
| x /= y = x ++ y
| otherwise = []
split_breaker :: Eq a => [a] -> [[a]]
split_breaker [] = []
split_breaker [x] = [[x]]
split_breaker (x:xs) = [x]:split_breaker xs
split_at_duplicate :: Eq a => [a] -> [[a]]
split_at_duplicate [x] = [[x]]
split_at_duplicate (x:xs) = foldl1 (split_help) (split_breaker [xs])
Do you want to work it something like this?
splitAtDup [1,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,5,6]
[[1,2,3],[3],[3,4],[4,5],[5],[5],[5,6]]
Am I right?
Then do it simple:
splitAtDup :: Eq a => [a] -> [[a]]
splitAtDup (x : y : xs) | x == y = [x] : splitAtDup (y : xs)
splitAtDup (x : xs) =
case splitAtDup xs of
x' : xs' -> (x : x') : xs'
_ -> [[x]]
splitAtDup [] = []
Here's a maximally lazy approach:
splitWhen :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [[a]]
splitWhen f = foldr go [[]] where
go x acc = (x:xs):xss where
xs:xss = case acc of
(z:_):_ | f x z -> []:acc
_ -> acc
splitAtDup :: Eq a => [a] -> [[a]]
splitAtDup = splitWhen (==)
To verify the laziness, try this:
take 2 $ take 4 <$> splitAtDup (1:2:3:3:4:5:6:undefined)
It can be fully evaluated to normal form as [[1,2,3],[3,4,5,6]].
I'm trying to add two lists together and keep the extra elements that are unused and add those into the new list e.g.
addLists [1,2,3] [1,3,5,7,9] = [2,5,8,7,9]
I have this so far:
addLists :: Num a => [a] -> [a] -> [a]
addLists xs ys = zipWith (+) xs ys
but unsure of how to get the extra elements into the new list.
and the next step is changing this to a higher order function that takes the combining function
as an argument:
longZip :: (a -> a -> a) -> [a] -> [a] -> [a]
zipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c] is implemented as [src]:
zipWith :: (a->b->c) -> [a]->[b]->[c]
zipWith f = go
where
go [] _ = []
go _ [] = []
go (x:xs) (y:ys) = f x y : go xs ys
It thus uses explicit recursion where go will check if the two lists are non-empty and in that case yield f x y, otherwise it stops and returns an empty list [].
You can implement a variant of zipWith which will continue, even if one of the lists is empty. THis will look like:
zipLongest :: (a -> a -> a) -> [a] -> [a] -> [a]
zipLongest f = go
where go [] ys = …
go xs [] = …
go (x:xs) (y:ys) = f x y : go xs ys
where you still need to fill in ….
You can do it with higher order functions as simple as
import Data.List (transpose)
addLists :: Num a => [a] -> [a] -> [a]
addLists xs ys = map sum . transpose $ [xs, ys]
because the length of transpose[xs, ys, ...] is the length of the longest list in its argument list, and sum :: (Foldable t, Num a) => t a -> a is already defined to sum the elements of a list (since lists are Foldable).
transpose is used here as a kind of a zip (but cutting on the longest instead of the shortest list), with [] being a default element for the lists addition ++, like 0 is a default element for the numbers addition +:
cutLongest [xs, ys] $
zipWith (++) (map pure xs ++ repeat []) (map pure ys ++ repeat [])
See also:
Zip with default value instead of dropping values?
You're looking for the semialign package. It gives you an operation like zipping, but that keeps going until both lists run out. It also generalizes to types other than lists, such as rose trees. In your case, you'd use it like this:
import Data.Semialign
import Data.These
addLists :: (Semialign f, Num a) => f a -> f a -> f a
addLists = alignWith (mergeThese (+))
longZip :: Semialign f => (a -> a -> a) -> f a -> f a -> f a
longZip = alignWith . mergeThese
The new type signatures are optional. If you want, you can keep using your old ones that restrict them to lists.
just recently I started to try out haskell.
It's fun trying out different exercises, but sometimes I get the feeling, that my found solutions are far from elegant: The following Code Snipplet will find the longest sub-sequence in a list, which will satisfy a given condition (for example uppercase letters etc.)
Could you help a noob to make everything shorter and more elegant - every advice is highly appreciated.
import Data.Char
longer :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
longer x y = if length x > length y
then x
else y
longest :: [[a]]->[a]
longest = foldl longer []
nextSequence :: (a->Bool) -> [a] ->([a],[a])
nextSequence f x = span f (dropWhile (not . f) x)
longestSubsequence :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
longestSubsequence _ x | null x = []
longestSubsequence f x =
longest $ (\y -> [fst y , longestSubsequence f $ snd y]) (nextSequence f x)
testSequence :: String
testSequence = longestSubsequence Data.Char.isUpper
"hkerhklehrERJKJKJERKJejkrjekERHkhkerHERKLJHERJKHKJHERdjfkj"
At first, you can define your longest like this:
import Data.Function
import Data.List
longest :: [[a]] -> [a]
longest = maximumBy (compare `on` length)
And to get all subsequences that satisfy a given condition you can write a function like this:
import Data.List
getSatisfyingSubseqs :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [[a]]
getSatisfyingSubseqs f = filter (f . head) . groupBy same
where same x y = f x == f y
Here we group elements where the condition yields the same result and filter only subsequences that satisfy the condition.
In the total:
longestSubsequence :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
longestSubsequence f = longest . getSatisfyingSubseqs f
UPDATE: And if you want to make it shorter, you can just throw out the auxiliary functions and write the whole at a time:
longestSubsequence :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
longestSubsequence f = maximumBy (compare `on` length) . filter (f . head) . groupBy same
where same x y = f x == f y
(Don't forget the imports)
You can run it there: https://repl.it/#Yuri12358/so-longestsequence
The span :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a], [a]) function could be very handy here. Also note that f <$> (a,b) = (a,f b). Probably not very efficient due to the length checks but it should do the job.
lss :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
lss f [] = []
lss f ls#(x:xs) = if f x then longer (lss f <$> span f ls)
else lss f xs
where
longer ::([a],[a]) -> [a]
longer (xs,ys) = if length xs >= length ys then xs else ys
Your longer function uses length, which means it doesn't work if either input is infinite. However, it can be improved to work when at most one is infinite:
longer l1 l2 = go l1 l2
where
go [] _ = l2
go _ [] = l1
go (_:xs) (_:ys) = go xs ys
This is also a performance optimization. Before, if you had a 10-element list and a 10-million-element list, it would walk through all 10 million elements of the 10-million-element list before returning it. Here, it will return it as soon as it gets to the 11th element instead.
I'm trying to change a list in haskell to include 0 between every element. If we have initial list [1..20] then i would like to change it to [1,0,2,0,3..20]
What i thought about doing is actually using map on every function, extracting element then adding it to list and use ++[0] to it but not sure if this is the right approach or not. Still learning haskell so might have errors.
My code:
x = map classify[1..20]
classify :: Int -> Int
addingFunction 0 [Int]
addingFunction :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
addingFunction x xs = [a] ++ x ++ xs
intersperse is made for this. Just import Data.List (intersperse), then intersperse 0 yourList.
You cannot do this with map. One of the fundamental properties of map is that its output will always have exactly as many items as its input, because each output element corresponds to one input, and vice versa.
There is a related tool with the necessary power, though:
concatMap :: (a -> [b]) -> [a] -> [b]
This way, each input item can produce zero or more output items. You can use this to build the function you wanted:
between :: a -> [a] -> [a]
sep `between` xs = drop 1 . concatMap insert $ xs
where insert x = [sep, x]
0 `between` [1..10]
[1,0,2,0,3,0,4,0,5,0,6,0,7,0,8,0,9,0,10]
Or a more concise definition of between:
between sep = drop 1 . concatMap ((sep :) . pure)
With simple pattern matching it should be:
addingFunction n [] = []
addingFunction n [x] = [x]
addingFunction n (x:xs) = x: n : (addingFunction n xs)
addingFunction 0 [1..20]
=> [1,0,2,0,3,0,4,0,5,0,6,0,7,0,8,0,9,0,10,0,11,0,12,0,13,0,14,0,15,0,16,0,17,0,18,0,19,0,20]
If you want to use map to solve this, you can do something like this:
Have a function that get a int and return 2 element list with int and zero:
addZero :: List
addZero a = [0, a]
Then you can call map with this function:
x = map addZero [1..20] -- this will return [[0,1], [0, 2] ...]
You will notice that it is a nested list. That is just how map work. We need a way to combine the inner list together into just one list. This case we use foldl
combineList :: [[Int]] -> [Int]
combineList list = foldl' (++) [] list
-- [] ++ [0, 1] ++ [0, 2] ...
So the way foldl work in this case is that it accepts a combine function, initial value, and the list to combine.
Since we don't need the first 0 we can drop it:
dropFirst :: [Int] -> [Int]
dropFirst list = case list of
x:xs -> xs
[] -> []
Final code:
x = dropFirst $ combineList $ map addZero [1..20]
addZero :: Int -> [Int]
addZero a = [0, a]
combineList :: [[Int]] -> [Int]
combineList list = foldl (++) [] list
dropFirst :: [Int] -> [Int]
dropFirst list = case list of
x:xs -> xs
[] -> []
We here can make use of a foldr pattern where for each element in the original list, we prepend it with an 0:
addZeros :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
addZeros [] = []
addZeros (x:xs) = x : foldr (((0 :) .) . (:)) [] xs
If you don't want to use intersperse, you can write your own.
intersperse :: a -> [a] -> [a]
intersperse p as = drop 1 [x | a <- as, x <- [p, a]]
If you like, you can use Applicative operations:
import Control.Applicative
intersperse :: a -> [a] -> [a]
intersperse p as = drop 1 $ as <**> [const p, id]
This is basically the definition used in Data.Sequence.