I want to create an ordered map with multiples nodes in SML . All i have found until now , exist here : https://www.smlnj.org/doc/smlnj-lib/Manual/binary-map-fn.html . So , i am trying something like this :
structure S = BinaryMapFn(struct
type ord_key = int
val compare = Int.compare
end);
and then , i am trying to insert for example 2 nodes with value 0 and key values 1 and 2 , respectively :
S.insert(S.empty,1,0);
S.insert(S.empty,2,0);
output:val it = T {cnt=1,key=2,left=E,right=E,value=0} : int S.map
S.numItems(it);
output:val it = 1 : int
So, i am assuming by the output of numItems that it creates 2 binary maps with 1 node each and not a single one . I am pretty sure i am missing something , but there is not enough material and examples related to that structure .
The thing to look at is the type of the insert function, as well as empty in the signature ORD_MAP to which BinaryMapFn conforms.
val empty : 'a map
val insert : ('a map * Key.ord_key * 'a) -> 'a map
So, insert takes a (fromMap, key, x) and returns a new map which contains the elements of fromMap with x/key added as well with duplicate keys handled in some fashion.
To get a map with 2 elements, rather than using S.empty in both calls, you need to pass the return value of the first call as a parameter to the second.
note: It is worth noting that the smlnj-lib documentation is very old, and
out of date, but i'm unaware of a newer link, so it is best to
consult the source.
Related
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.
I'm writing OCaml code that reads in a list and removes any char 'i's that appear at the beginning of the list. For instance, the list removeI['i';'i';'a';'c';'i'] should return -: int * char list = ['a';'c';'i'], because there are 2 'i's at the beginning of the list. I believe I know how to implement this properly; however, I want to return a tuple that includes the number of removed 'i's as well as the new list with the 'i's removed. I know that may sound confusing, but an example would be removeI['i';'i';'a';'c';'i'] -: int * char list = (2,['a';'c';'i']) There are 2 'i's removed and the new list with the removed 'i's.
So far, I have the following function:
let rec removeI list = match list with
| [] -> []
| x::[] -> x::[]
| x::y::t1 -> if x='i' then removeI (y::t1)
else list;;
This returns the list with the first 'i's removed, but I keep getting errors when I try to include the number of removed 'i's as part of a tuple. Could anyone push me in the right direction? Thanks!
Your recursive call will return the same type as the function overall. So if you change the function to reuturn (count, list), then the recursive call will return that also.
Generally you want to gather up the returned values and calculate a new value from them.
Right now you have just this:
removeI (y :: t1)
But you need something more like this:
let (count, list) = removeI (y :: t1) in
(* Newly calculated count and list *)
Note that your base cases also have to return a count and a list.
As a side comment, I don't actually understand your second base case. You don't want to remove an 'i' if it's the only thing in the list? That doesn't seem particularly consistent.
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]
I need a function that recursively returns (not prints) all values in a list with each iteration. However, every time I try programming this my function returns a list instead.
let rec elements list = match list with
| [] -> []
| h::t -> h; elements t;;
I need to use each element each time it is returned in another function that I wrote, so I need these elements one at a time, but I can't figure this part out. Any help would be appreciated.
Your function is equivalent to :
let rec elements list =
match list with
| [] -> []
| h :: t -> elements t
This happens because a ; b evaluates a (and discards the result) and then evaluates and returns b. Obviously, this is in turn equivalent to:
let elements (list : 'a list) = []
This is not a very useful function.
Before you try solving this, however, please understand that Objective Caml functions can only return one value. Returning more than one value is impossible.
There are ways to work around this limitation. One solution is to pack all the values you wish to return into a single value: a tuple or a list, usually. So, if you need to return an arbitrary number of elements, you would pack them together into a list and have the calling code process that list:
let my_function () = [ 1 ; 2; 3; 4 ] in (* Return four values *)
List.iter print_int (my_function ()) (* Print four values *)
Another less frequent solution is to provide a function and call it on every result:
let my_function action =
action 1 ;
action 2 ;
action 3 ;
action 4
in
my_function print_int
This is less flexible, but arguably faster, than returning a list : lists can be filtered, sorted, stored...
Your question is kind of confusing - you want a function that returns all the values in a list. Well the easiest way of returning a variable number of values is using a list! Are you perhaps trying to emulate Python generators? OCaml doesn't have anything similar to yield, but instead usually accomplishes the same by "passing" a function to the value (using iter, fold or map).
What you have currently written is equivalent to this in Python:
def elements(list):
if(len(list) == 0):
return []
else:
list[0]
return elements(list[1:])
If you are trying to do this:
def elements(list):
if(len(list) > 0):
yield list[0]
# this part is pretty silly but elements returns a generator
for e in elements(list[1:]):
yield e
for x in elements([1,2,3,4,5]):
dosomething(x)
The equivalent in OCaml would be like this:
List.iter dosomething [1;2;3;4;5]
If you are trying to determine if list a is a subset of list b (as I've gathered from your comments), then you can take advantage of List.mem and List.for_all:
List.for_all (fun x -> List.mem x b) a
fun x -> List.mem x b defines a function that returns true if the value x is equal to any element in (is a member of) b. List.for_all takes a function that returns a bool (in our case, the membership function we just defined) and a list. It applies that function to each element in the list. If that function returns true for every value in the list, then for_all returns true.
So what we have done is: for all elements in a, check if they are a member of b. If you are interested in how to write these functions yourself, then I suggest reading the source of list.ml, which (assuming *nix) is probably located in /usr/local/lib/ocaml or /usr/lib/ocaml.