Im trying to add a tuple of type (int*int) on a for cycle to a list but i get an error saying : this expression should have type unit.
this is what i have right now:
let addtuple k lst =
for i=0 to k - 1 do
let (n,j) =Scanf.scanf " %d %d" (fun a b->(a,b))
in
(n,j)::lst
done;;
The purpose of the OCaml for is to do something, rather than compute a value. So the body of the loop should be an OCaml expression that has a useful side effect (like printing a value). For this reason, the body of a for loop should have the type unit, the type used for expressions that don't have an interesting value. But your loop has a body that is a list. The compiler is telling you (correctly) that this indicates that something is wrong.
Your code is written assuming that the expression (n, j) :: lst will change the value of lst. But this is not the case. In a functional language like OCaml, you can't change the values of variables.
If your function is supposed to return a list, it can't be based on a for loop, which always returns () (the unique value of type unit). Most likely it should be based on a fold (which accumulates a value while working through a series of inputs) or on your own recursive function.
With a for you need to use ref:
let addtuple k lst =
let r = ref lst in
for i = 1 to k do
r := (Scanf.scanf " %d %d" (fun x y -> (x, y))) :: !r
done;
!r;;
A more functional approach using a recursive function:
let rec addtuple k lst =
match k with
| 0 -> lst
| _ -> addtuple (k - 1) ((Scanf.scanf " %d %d" (fun x y -> (x, y))) :: lst);;
Related
I want to create a non-recursive function for my minimum
but I have some troubles with it
Can you help me please.
`let min_list lst=
let n=list.length lst ;;
let a=list.nth lst ;;
for i = 1 to n-1 ;;
let b=list.nth lst i;;
if a >b then a=b lst done ;;`
Honesly,It's difficult with non recursive fonction.So this is just for learning.I still have erreur in ligne 6
let min_list lst=
let a=List.hd lst in
let n=List.length lst in
for j =1 to n-1 do
let b=List.nth lst j in
if a > b then (let a=b) done ;;
Thank you it's useful It help me a lot .I have one other question what the difference between this
let min_array a =
let min =ref (List.hd a) in
for i = 1 to List.length a -1 do
if List.nth a i < !min then min := List.nth a i
done;
!min;;
print_int (min_array [ 10 ; 5 ; 7 ; 8 ; 12 ]);;
and
let min_array a =
let min =ref (List.hd a) in
for i = 1 to List.length a -1 do
if ref (List.nth a i) < min then min := List.nth a i
done;
!min;;
print_int (min_array [ 10 ; 5 ; 7 ; 8 ; 12 ]);;
It's the same ?I think
Why don't you want to use a recursive function ?
Liste are made to be crossed by recursive function. Everytime you use List.nth l n Ocaml has to cross n values until he found the nth element.
In Ocaml you can't change variable value as you do in other languages. You want a to be a ref.
Also your function won't return anything you'll have to put a !a between the done and the ;;. There will be a ! Because a will be a ref.
But if you want to practice use arrays instead because what you do here is in complexity O(n²) instead of O(n).
As said in the answer from Butanium, this kind of non-recursive function might be more relevant with arrays. And to work with mutable values, you need to use a reference.
A solution might then be something like (without dealing with case of an empty array):
let min_array a =
let min = ref a.(0) in
for i = 1 to Array.length a -1 do
if a.(i) < !min then min := a.(i)
done;
!min
The last line is important here, because it gets the value to be returned by the function.
Can then be used like that:
# min_array [| 10 ; 5 ; 7 ; 8 ; 12 |];;
- : int = 5
If you really do want to use lists instead of arrays, just use List.nth a i instead of a.(i) and List.length instead of Array.length.
Edit after question update
As Shawn and Jeffrey Scofield said in their respective comment, you should try to understand a bit better OCaml's syntax. And please don't use ;; in your programs, just keep it for the REPL.
As described in the documentation,
ref returns a fresh reference containing the given value.
Which means that when you write ref (List.nth a i) < min,
you create a fresh reference containing the i-th value the list, then compare it to min (which is also a reference). Luckily, mutable structures are compared by contents, which means that OCaml will access to your fresh reference's value, then access to min's value, and compare them. Thus, it will produce the same result as the direct comparison List.nth a i < !min, with a bit of useless memory allocation/access.
You can do this quite concisely by taking advantage of some features of the OCaml stdlib:
(* 'a list -> 'a option *)
let min_list l =
if List.length l > 0 then
Some (List.fold_left min (List.hd l) l)
else
None
Thanks to the min built-in, this works for lists of any type.
e.g. in a utop shell we can see:
min_list [99; 33; -1];;
- : int option = Some (-1)
min_list [99.1; 33.2; -1.3];;
- : float option = Some (-1.3)
min_list ["z"; "b"; "k"];;
- : string option = Some "b"
Explanation
First we recognise that the list may be empty, in which case we cannot return a meaningful value. This implies the function should return an option type, so either Some <value> or None.
Next we can use List.fold_left to iterate through the list.
Unfortunately the docs for List.fold_left are almost completely unhelpful:
val fold_left : ('a -> 'b -> 'a) -> 'a -> 'b list -> 'a
fold_left f init [b1; ...; bn] is f (... (f (f init b1) b2) ...) bn.
It's as if they assume that if you're using OCaml you're already an elite master of functional programming, who naturally knows what a "fold left" does.
I'm not an elite master of functional programming, but I've been around long enough to know that fold_left is basically the same as the reduce function in Python.
It's a function that iterates through a list, applies a function to each value as it goes, and returns a single value.
So we can start to make sense of the signature of fold_left...
It takes three arguments:
The first arg, f, is a function which itself takes two args - the first or 'left' arg is the 'accumulated' value, and the second arg is the current value from the list as we iterate through. Whatever value you return from this function will be passed back into it as the left 'accumulated' value on the next iteration. When the list is exhausted the accumulated value will be returned from fold_left.
The second arg, init is an initial value. It is passed to f as the left 'accumulated' arg in the first step, when nothing has been otherwise accumulated yet.
Third arg is our list of values
So when we return:
Some (List.fold_left min (List.hd l) l)
...we are passing the min function as f and (List.hd l) as init.
List.hd l just returns the first element of the list l. We could use any element from the list as an initial value, but List.hd exists and gives us the first.
So fold_left is going to iterate through the list and f will return min <accumulated> <current>. So at each iteration step the accumulated value passed forward is the lowest value seen so far.
Non-recursive?
I did wonder if perhaps the fold_left method does not count as non-recursive somehow, since no one else had suggested it. Even though we have not used let rec anywhere, maybe somewhere internally it is secretly recursive?
For fun I decided to try writing the reduce/fold function from scratch:
let reduce f init l =
let acc = ref init in
List.iter (fun el -> acc := f !acc el) l;
!acc
(* we can directly substitute `reduce` for `List.fold_left` *)
let min_list l =
if List.length l > 0 then
Some (reduce min (List.hd l) l)
else
None
...again, no let rec needed so I guess it counts as non-recursive.
I'm still trying to understand how fold_left exactly works. Does it iterate through the list like List.iter? Or is there just something else wrong with my code? I'm thinking that e is the element in the list (so it's a tuple) and fst e takes the first element of the tuple and snd e takes the second element in the tuple.
let rec pow x n =
if n < 0 then
0
else if n = 0 then
1
else
x * pow x (n - 1);;
let polynomial lst = function
| x -> List.fold_left (fun e -> (fst e) * (pow x (snd e))) 1 lst;;
lst is a list of tuples where each tuple has two integers and makes a polynomial function, so polynomial is supposed to return a function. So an example of what should happen is this
# let f = polynomial [3, 3; -2, 1; 5, 0];;
val f : int -> int = <fun>
# f 2;; (* f is the polynomial function f(x) = 3x^3 + (-2)x + 5 *)
- : int = 25
But I get this error message
"Error: This expression has type int but an expression was expected of type 'a -> int * int".
List.fold_left indeed iterates over a list, passing the value from one call to another, which basically works like a bucket brigade, with only one bucket, where on each iteration you can look into the bucket, take whatever is there and put something new.
More formally, fold_left f init elements has type
val fold_left : ('a -> 'b -> 'a) -> 'a -> 'b list -> 'a
and it takes three arguments, the function f, the initial value init, and a list of elements. The function f is called for each element x of elements as f acc x, where acc is either init if x is the first element of the list or a result returned by the previous invocation of f. Back to our analogy, it is either the initial empty bucket or a bucket passed from the previous call in the chain.
In your case, the role of the bucket is the final sum of all terms. Initially, it is empty, then each new term computes (fst e) * (pow x (snd e)) and adds it to the bucket so that at the end you will have the sum of all terms,
let polynomial coeffs x =
List.fold_left (fun sum (k,r) -> sum + k * pow x r) 0 coeffs
Note, that instead of using fst and snd to access the elements of the pair, I deconstructed the tuple directly in the parameter list. This makes code easier to understand and shorter.
The function, that is applied on each step takes two arguments, sum is the bucket (it is often called the "accumulator") and the element of the list, which is a pair (k,r) in our case. We multiply k by the value of the x variable raised to the power r and then we add the result to the accumulator.
For people with an imperative mindset the following pseudocode1 might be more insightful than the bucket brigade analogy:
def fold_left(user_func, init, elements):
acc = init
for elt in elts:
acc = user_func(acc, elt)
return acc
1) Any resemblance to Python is purely coincidental :)
I'm having a problem with understanding how F# works. I come from C# and I think that I'm trying to make F# work like C#. My biggest problem is returning values in the correct format.
Example:
Let's say I have function that takes a list of integers and an integer.
Function should print a list of indexes where values from list match passed integer.
My code:
let indeks myList n = myList |> List.mapi (fun i x -> if x=n then i else 0);;
indeks [0..4] 3;;
However it returns:
val it : int list = [0; 0; 0; 3; 0]
instead of just [3] as I cannot ommit else in that statement.
Also I have targeted signature of -> int list -> int -> int list and I get something else.
Same goes for problem no. 2 where I want to provide an integer and print every number from 0 to this integer n times (where n is the iterated value):
example:
MultiplyValues 3;;
output: [1;2;2;3;3;3]
Best I could do was to create list of lists.
What am I missing when returning elements?
How do I add nothing to the return
example: if x=n then n else AddNothingToTheReturn
Use List.choose:
let indeks lst n =
lst
|> List.mapi (fun i s -> if s = n then Some i else None)
|> List.choose id
Sorry, I didn't notice that you had a second problem too. For that you can use List.collect:
let f (n : int) : list<int> =
[1 .. n]
|> List.collect (fun s -> List.init s (fun t -> s))
printfn "%A" (f 3) // [1; 2; 2; 3; 3; 3]
Please read the documentation for List.collect for more information.
EDIT
Following s952163's lead, here is another version of the first solution without the Option type:
let indeks (lst : list<int>) (n : int) : list<int> =
lst
|> List.fold (fun (s, t) u -> s + 1, (if u = n then (s :: t) else t)) (0, [])
|> (snd >> List.rev)
This one traverses the original list once, and the (potentially much shorter) newly formed list once.
The previous answer is quite idiomatic. Here's one solution that avoids the use of Option types and id:
let indeks2 lst n =
lst
|> List.mapi (fun i x -> (i,x))
|> List.filter (fun x -> (fst x) % n = 0 )
|> List.map snd
You can modify the filter function to match your needs.
If you plan to generate lots of sequences it might be a good idea to explore Sequence (list) comprehensions:
[for i in 1..10 do
yield! List.replicate i i]
If statements are an expression in F# and they return a value. In this case both the IF and ELSE branch must return the same type of value. Using Some/None (Option type) gets around this. There are some cases where you can get away with just using If.
I am trying to achieve the following: Finding the element at a specific index.
So if I had a list of [5; 2; 3; 6] and ask for the element at index 2, it would return 3.
let counter = 0;;
let increase_counter c = c + 1;;
let rec get_val x n = match x with
[] -> -1
| (h::t) ->
if (counter = n) then
h
else
increase_counter counter ; get_val t n
;;
But this code is giving me a bug saying that -1 is not of type 'unit'?
As Jeffrey Scofield said, you should write let counter = ref 0 to make counter mutable. Now, you can use the built in incr function to increment it (equivalent to counter := !counter + 1), and you'll get its value with !counter.
There is also a problem in your algorithm : if the counter is equal to n, you return the head of the list... you mean : if the head of the list is equal to n, you return the counter.
Your program is then :
let counter = ref 0;;
let rec get_val x n = match x with
[] -> -1
| (h::t) ->
if (h = n) then
!counter
else
begin incr counter ; get_val t n end
;;
Note that I've added begin and end around the else block so it can be interpreted as a sequence of instructions.
Your program now works, but it is not the best way to solve this problem with ocaml.
You should write something like
let get_val x n =
let rec get_val_aux x n counter = match x with
| [] -> -1
| h :: _ when h = n -> counter
| _ :: t -> get_val_aux t n (succ counter)
in
get_val_aux x n 0
;;
Here, we add a parameter to the get_val_aux function which we increment at each call. This function is nested within the get_val function to hide this additional parameter which is initialized with 0 on the first call.
Instead of using an if statement, we use the when condition to know when the element has been found, and add a new case to match the last case (not found). Note the use of the _ wildcard to avoid an unused variable.
The succ function (for successor) only adds 1 to its parameter. It is equivalent to counter + 1.
There are many problems with this code. If you ignore your immediate problem for a moment, you are treating OCaml variables like the variables of an imperative language. However, OCaml variables are immutable. This function
let increase_counter c = c + 1
Doesn't change the value of any variable. It just returns a number 1 bigger than what you give it.
The only error I get from the toplevel when I enter your code is for this expression:
increase_counter counter ; get_val t n
The compiler is warning you that the expression before ; is supposed to be executed for its side effects. I.e., it should almost always have type unit. Since (as I say) your function increase_counter returns an int, the compiler is warning you about this.
i'm trying to learn ocaml right now and wanted to start with a little program, generating all bit-combinations:
["0","0","0"]
["0","0","1"]
["0","1","0"]
... and so on
My idea is the following code:
let rec bitstr length list =
if length = 0 then
list
else begin
bitstr (length-1)("0"::list);
bitstr (length-1)("1"::list);
end;;
But i get the following error:
Warning S: this expression should have type unit.
val bitstr : int -> string list -> string list = <fun>
# bitstr 3 [];;
- : string list = ["1"; "1"; "1"]
I did not understand what to change, can you help me?
Best regards
Philipp
begin foo; bar end executes foo and throws the result away, then it executes bar. Since this makes only sense if foo has side-effects and no meaningful return value ocaml emits a warning if foo has a return value other than unit, since everything else is likely to be a programmer error (i.e. the programmer does not actually intend for the result to be discarded) - as is the case here.
In this case it really does make no sense to calculate the list with "0" and then throw it away. Presumably you want to concatenate the two lists instead. You can do this using the # operator:
let rec bitstr length list =
if length = 0 then
[list]
else
bitstr (length-1)("0"::list) # bitstr (length-1)("1"::list);;
Note that I also made the length = 0 case return [list] instead of just list so the result is a list of lists instead of a flat list.
Although sepp2k's answer is spot on, I would like to add the following alternative (which doesn't match the signature you proposed, but actually does what you want) :
let rec bitstr = function
0 -> [[]]
| n -> let f e = List.map (fun x -> e :: x) and l = bitstr (n-1) in
(f "0" l)#(f "1" l);;
The first difference is that you do not need to pass an empty list to call the function bitsr 2 returns [["0"; "0"]; ["0"; "1"]; ["1"; "0"]; ["1"; "1"]]. Second, it returns a list of ordered binary values. But more importantly, in my opinion, it is closer to the spirit of ocaml.
I like to get other ideas!
So here it is...
let rec gen_x acc e1 e2 n = match n with
| 0 -> acc
| n -> (
let l = List.map (fun x -> e1 :: x) acc in
let r = List.map (fun x -> e2 :: x) acc in
gen_x (l # r) e1 e2 (n - 1)
);;
let rec gen_string = gen_x [[]] "0" "1"
let rec gen_int = gen_x [[]] 0 1
gen_string 2
gen_int 2
Result:
[["0"; "0"]; ["0"; "1"]; ["1"; "0"]; ["1"; "1"]]
[[0; 0]; [0; 1]; [1; 0]; [1; 1]]