I was trying to create a function in Standard ML which gets a list of string * int and returns a lexicography sorted list.
For example foo [("y",5),("x",10)] will return [("x,10),("y",5)] (only the first element of each tuple is important).
I wrote the following lines:
fun foo ([]:(string * int)) = []
| foo [x] = [x]
| foo ((x,y)::xs) =
let
val (s,t) = hd(xs) (* gets next element string *)
fun sort ... = ...
in
end
I don't know how to implement the sort function but I would like it to have the following code I wrote:
case String.compare(x,s) of
LESS => ...
| EQUAL => ...
| GREATER => ...
Also I need to use val (s,t) = hd(xs) in the sort function so it will be recursive but Im not sure. further more, I'm not allowed any additional libraries - only work with hidden let/local.
(If you were allowed to use library functions,) ListMergeSort.sort in SML/NJ looks like:
val sort : ('a * 'a -> bool) -> 'a list -> 'a list
sort f l returns a list of the elements in l, sorted in non-decreasing order as specified by the ``greater than'' predicate f. Specifically, if f(x,y) evaluates to true, then x will appear after y in the resulting list.
Using this library function to write your foo:
fun foo pairs = ListMergeSort.sort (fn ((s : string,_), (t,_)) => s > t)
This might look a little different if you use another compiler than SML/NJ.
To address your sub-problems,
I don't know how to implement the sort function
(Since you're not allowed any library functions,) you could build a sorting function that takes String.compare as argument. Depending on the sorting algorithm, a rough sketch of the sorting function could look like:
fun sort cmp [] = []
| sort cmp [x] = [x]
| sort cmp xs = ... partially sort xs using `cmp`, combine results ...
and its signature would be ('a * 'a -> order) -> 'a list -> 'a list.
You're not asking how to make a sorting function (but merely saying that you don't know how to), and if you were, I would be inclined to say that this question is too broad when you don't specify what kind of algorithm you wish to implement, or where you got stuck in the process. See for example Rosetta Code's MergeSort, or the Q&A Standard sorting functions in SML?
I would like it to have the following code I wrote:
case String.compare (x,s) of ...
[...] I'm not allowed any additional libraries [...]
But String.compare is a library function, too! You could write your own String.compare. Either (a) explode the strings into char lists and use list recursion to determine their lexicographical order, or (b) count the length of the strings and use String.sub (s, i) to get the ith char of s for each string until the lexicographical order is determined. While (b) is more efficient (since it uses a small, constant amount of memory), (a) is a fine exercise in list recursion.
For (a) you could start with:
fun stringCompare (s, t) =
let fun cmp (x::xs, y::ys) = if x < y then ... else ...
| cmp (_::_, []) = ...
| cmp ([], _::_) = ...
| cmp ([], []) = EQUAL
in cmp (explode s, explode t) end
You can then compose them in the same way:
fun foo pairs = sort (fn ((s,_), (t,_)) => stringCompare (s, t)) pairs
Related
I got a problem that needs to turn a list of tuples into a flattened list for example:
[(1,2), (3,4), (5,6)] can be turned into [1,2,3,4,5,6]
I have tried to write a function like this:
fun helper2(nil,b) = []
| helper2(a,nil) = []
| helper2(a::l1,b::l2) =l1::l2
fun flatten2 [] = []
| flatten2 ((a,b)::tl) = helper2(a,b)
It shows:
val flatten2 = fn : ('a list * 'a list list) list -> 'a list list
And when I tried to run it using command flatten2[(1,2),(3,4),(5,6)];
It will give me the following error message:
stdIn:1.2-1.29 Error: operator and operand do not agree [overload conflict]
operator domain: ('Z list * 'Z list list) list
operand: ([int ty] * [int ty]) list
in expression:
flatten2 ((1,2) :: (3,4) :: (<exp>,<exp>) :: nil)
My questions are:
Why SML see the a and b values as lists, not just simply a and b
How can I revise my code so SML can see a and b as 'a and 'b not lists
How to make this code work the way it should be?
Thanks
First question: As to why the type comes out as ('a list * 'a list list) it's because type inference is looking at this part of the code:
| helper2(a::l1,b::l2) =l1::l2
^^
here
Keep in mind that the type of the "cons" (::) operator is 'a -> 'a list -> 'a list, it is gluing a single element onto a list of that same type of element. So SML has concluded that whatever l1 and l2 are, the relationship is that l2 is a list of whatever l1 is.
fun helper2(nil,b) = []
Says that a must be a list because nil has type 'a list. Therefore, l2 has to be a list of lists (of some type 'a).
Question 2 and 3: I'm not quite sure how to correct the code as it is written. I'd probably write something like this:
fun helper2 [] accum = List.rev accum
| helper2 ((a,b)::tl) accum = helper2 tl (b :: a :: accum);
fun flatten2 list = helper2 list [];
helper2 does all of the dirty work. If the input list is empty then we're all done and we can return the reversed accumulator that we've been building up. The second case is where we actually add things to the accumulator. We pattern match on the head and the tail of the list. This pattern match means that the input has type ('a * 'a) list (a list of tuples where both elements are the same type). In the head, we have a tuple and we name the first and second element a and b, respectively. We prepend a then b onto the accumulator and recursively call helper2 on the tail of the list. Eventually, we'll chew through all the elements in the list and then we'll be left with just the accumulator -- which, recall, has all the elements but in the reverse order. Calling List.rev reverses the accumulator and that's our answer.
And when I load and run it I get this:
- flatten2 [(1,2), (3,4), (5,6)];
val it = [1,2,3,4,5,6] : int list
Why SML see the a and b values as lists, not just simply a and b
Chris already answered this in-depth.
You're passing a as the first argument to helper2, which expects a list as its first argument. And you're passing b as the second argument to helper2, which uses its second argument, b::l2, also a list, as the tail of a list where a is the head. So b must be a list of those lists.
This doesn't make any sense, and is most likely a consequence of confusing syntax: You are passing in what you think of single elements a and b in flatten2, but when you deal with them in helper2 they're now lists where the heads are called a and b. Those are not the same a and b.
How can I revise my code so SML can see a and b as 'a and 'b not lists
You could ditch the helper function to begin with:
fun flatten2 [] = []
| flatten2 ((a,b)::pairs) = a :: b :: flatten2 pairs
The purpose of having a helper function is so that it can accumulate the result during recursion, because this version of flatten2 uses a lot of stack space. It can do this with an extra argument so that flatten2 doesn't need to mention it:
This is the version Chris made.
How to make this code work the way it should be?
You can make this code in a lot of ways. Two ways using explicit recursion were mentioned.
Here are some alternatives using higher-order functions:
(* Equivalent to my first version *)
fun flatten2 pairs =
foldr (fn ((a,b), acc) => a :: b :: acc) [] pairs
(* Equivalent to Chris'es version *)
fun flatten2 pairs =
rev (foldl (fn ((a,b), acc) => b :: a :: acc) [] pairs)
(* Yet another alternative *)
fun concatMap f xs =
List.concat (List.map f xs)
fun flatten2 pairs =
concatMap (fn (a,b) => [a,b]) pairs
I'm learning about the map and fold functions. I'm trying to write a function that takes a list and returns a list with all of the values in the original, each followed by that value's double.
Example: add_dbls [2;5;8] = [2;4;5;10;8;16]
Everything I try results in a list of lists, instead of a list. I'm struggling to come up with a better approach, using either map or fold (or both).
This is what I came up with originally. I understand why this returns a list of lists, but can't figure out how to fix it. Any ideas would be appreciated!
let add_dbls list =
match list with
| h::t -> map (fun a-> [a;(a*2)]) list
| [] -> []
Also, my map function:
let rec map f list =
match list with
| h::t -> (f h)::(map f t)
| [] -> []
You are nearly there. As you have observed, since we get list of lists, we need to flatten it to get a final list. List.concat function does exactly that:
let add_dbls list =
let l =
match list with
| h::t -> List.map (fun a -> [a;(a*2)]) list
| [] -> []
in
List.concat l
Here is the updated function that that computes the output that you require.
Now the output of add_dbls [2;5;8] = [2;4;5;10;8;16].
Although this works, it probably isn't efficient as it allocates a new list per item in your original list. Below are variations of the same function with different characteristics which depend on the size of l.
(* Safe version - no stack overflow exception. Less efficient(time and size) than add_dbls3 below. *)
let add_dbls2 l =
List.fold_left
(fun acc a -> (a*2)::a::acc)
[]
l
|> List.rev
(* Fastest but unsafe - stack overflow exception possible if 'l' is large - fold_right is not tail-recursive. *)
let add_dbls3 l =
List.fold_right
(fun a acc -> a::(a*2)::acc)
l
[]
It's should be simple to see that List.map always returns a list of the same length as the input list. But you want a list that's twice as long. So List.map cannot work for you.
You can solve this using List.fold_left or List.fold_right. If you're still having trouble after you switch to using a fold, you could update your question with the new information.
Update
The type of your fold function (a left fold) is this:
('a -> 'b -> 'a) -> 'a -> 'b list -> 'a
So, the folded function takes an accumulated answer and an element of the list, and it returns a new accumulated answer.
Your folded function is like this:
fun a b -> a::b::(b*2)
It attempts to use the :: operator to add new elements to the end of the accumulated list. But that's not what the :: operator does. It adds an element to the beginning of a list.
There's no particularly nice way to add an element to the end of a list. This is intentional, because it's a slow operation.
When using a left fold, you need to reconcile yourself to building up the result in reverse order and possibly reversing it at the end. Or you can use a right fold (which is generally not tail recursive).
I've defined functions:
fun concaten(x,y) =
if (x = [])
then y
else hd(x) :: concaten(tl(x),y);
as well as:
fun existsin(x,L) =
if (L=[])
then false
else if (x = hd(L))
then true
else existsin(x,tl(L));
and am now trying to define a function of type (((list * list) -> list) -> list) that looks vaguely like the following:
fun strongunion(x,y) =
val xy = concaten(x,y);
if xy=[]
then []
if (existsin(hd(xy),tl(xy)) andalso x!= [])
then strongunion(tl(x),y)
else if (existsin(hd(xy),tl(xy)) andalso x = [])
then strongunion(x,tl(y))
else if (x != [])
then hd(xy) :: strongunion(tl(x),y)
else hd(xy) :: strongunion(x,tl(y));
which takes the "strong" union of two lists, i.e. it combats faulty inputs (lists with element duplicates). This code is, of course, syntactically invalid, but the reason I included it was to show what such a function would look like in an imperative language.
The way I started going about doing this was to first concatenate the lists, then remove duplicated elements from that concatenation (well, technically I am adding non-duplicates to an empty list, but these two operations are consequentially equivalent). To do this, I figured I would design the function to take two lists (type list*list), transform them into their concatenation (type list), then do the duplicate removal (type list), which would be of type (((list*list) -> list) -> list).
My issue is that I have no idea how to do this in SML. I'm required to use SML for a class for which I'm a TA, otherwise I wouldn't bother with it, and instead use something like Haskell. If someone can show me how to construct such higher-order functions, I should be able to take care of the rest, but I just haven't come across such constructions in my reading of SML literature.
I'm a bit unsure if strong union means anything other than just union. If you assume that a function union : ''a list * ''a list -> ''a list takes two lists of elements without duplicates as inputs, then you can make it produce the unions without duplicates by conditionally inserting each element from the one list into the other:
(* insert a single element into a list *)
fun insert (x, []) = [x]
| insert (x, xs as (y::ys)) =
if x = y
then xs
else y::insert(x, ys)
(* using manual recursion *)
fun union ([], ys) = ys
| union (x::xs, ys) = union (xs, insert (x, ys))
(* using higher-order list-combinator *)
fun union (xs, ys) = foldl insert ys xs
Trying this:
- val demo = union ([1,2,3,4], [3,4,5,6]);
> val demo = [3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2] : int list
Note, however, that union wouldn't be a higher-order function, since it doesn't take functions as input or return functions. You could use a slightly stretched definition and make it curried, i.e. union : ''a list -> ''a list -> ''a list, and say that it's higher-order when partially applying it to only one list, e.g. like union [1,2,3]. It wouldn't even be fully polymorphic since it accepts only lists of types that can be compared (e.g. you can't take the union of two sets of functions).
I'm trying to write a function that checks whether a set (denoted by a list) is a subset of another.
I already wrote a helper function that gives me the intersection:
let rec intersect_helper a b =
match a, b with
| [], _ -> []
| _, [] -> []
| ah :: at, bh :: bt ->
if ah > bh then
intersect_helper a bt
else if ah < bh then
intersect_helper at b
else
ah :: intersect_helper at bt
I'm trying to use this inside of the subset function (if A is a subset of B, then A = A intersect B):
let subset a_ b_ =
let a = List.sort_uniq a_
and b = List.sort_uniq b_
in intersect_helper a b;;
Error: This expression has type 'a list -> 'a list but an expression was expected of type 'b list
What exactly is wrong here? I can use intersect_helper perfectly fine by itself, but calling it with lists here does not work. From what I know about 'a, it's just a placeholder for the first argument type. Shouldn't the lists also be of type 'a list?
I'm glad you could solve your own problem, but your code seems exceedingly intricate to me.
If I understood correctly, you want a function that tells whether a list is a subset of another list. Put another way, you want to know whether all elements of list a are present in list b.
Thus, the signature of your function should be
val subset : 'a list -> 'a list -> bool
The standard library comes with a variety of functions to manipulate lists.
let subset l1 l2 =
List.for_all (fun x -> List.mem x l2) l1
List.for_all checks that all elements in a list satisfy a given condition. List.mem checks whether a value is present in a list.
And there you have it. Let's check the results:
# subset [1;2;3] [4;2;3;5;1];;
- : bool = true
# subset [1;2;6] [4;2;3;5;1];;
- : bool = false
# subset [1;1;1] [1;1];; (* Doesn't work with duplicates, though. *)
- : bool = true
Remark: A tiny perk of using List.for_all is that it is a short-circuit operator. That means that it will stop whenever an item doesn't match, which results in better performance overall.
Also, since you specifically asked about sets, the standard library has a module for them. However, sets are a bit more complicated to use because they need you to create new modules using a functor.
module Int = struct
type t = int
let compare = Pervasives.compare
end
module IntSet = Set.Make(Int)
The extra overhead is worth it though, because now IntSet can use the whole Set interface, which includes the IntSet.subset function.
# IntSet.subset (IntSet.of_list [1;2;3]) (IntSet.subset [4;2;3;5;1]);;
- : bool = true
Instead of:
let a = List.sort_uniq a_
Should instead call:
let a = List.sort_uniq compare a_
Here's what I've got so far...
fun positive l1 = positive(l1,[],[])
| positive (l1, p, n) =
if hd(l1) < 0
then positive(tl(l1), p, n # [hd(l1])
else if hd(l1) >= 0
then positive(tl(l1), p # [hd(l1)], n)
else if null (h1(l1))
then p
Yes, this is for my educational purposes. I'm taking an ML class in college and we had to write a program that would return the biggest integer in a list and I want to go above and beyond that to see if I can remove the positives from it as well.
Also, if possible, can anyone point me to a decent ML book or primer? Our class text doesn't explain things well at all.
You fail to mention that your code doesn't type.
Your first function clause just has the variable l1, which is used in the recursive. However here it is used as the first element of the triple, which is given as the argument. This doesn't really go hand in hand with the Hindley–Milner type system that SML uses. This is perhaps better seen by the following informal thoughts:
Lets start by assuming that l1 has the type 'a, and thus the function must take arguments of that type and return something unknown 'a -> .... However on the right hand side you create an argument (l1, [], []) which must have the type 'a * 'b list * 'c list. But since it is passed as an argument to the function, that must also mean that 'a is equal to 'a * 'b list * 'c list, which clearly is not the case.
Clearly this was not your original intent. It seems that your intent was to have a function that takes an list as argument, and then at the same time have a recursive helper function, which takes two extra accumulation arguments, namely a list of positive and negative numbers in the original list.
To do this, you at least need to give your helper function another name, such that its definition won't rebind the definition of the original function.
Then you have some options, as to which scope this helper function should be in. In general if it doesn't make any sense to be calling this helper function other than from the "main" function, then it should not be places in a scope outside the "main" function. This can be done using a let binding like this:
fun positive xs =
let
fun positive' ys p n = ...
in
positive' xs [] []
end
This way the helper function positives' can't be called outside of the positive function.
With this take care of there are some more issues with your original code.
Since you are only returning the list of positive integers, there is no need to keep track of the
negative ones.
You should be using pattern matching to decompose the list elements. This way you eliminate the
use of taking the head and tail of the list, and also the need to verify whether there actually is
a head and tail in the list.
fun foo [] = ... (* input list is empty *)
| foo (x::xs) = ... (* x is now the head, and xs is the tail *)
You should not use the append operator (#), whenever you can avoid it (which you always can).
The problem is that it has a terrible running time when you have a huge list on the left hand
side and a small list on the right hand side (which is often the case for the right hand side, as
it is mostly used to append a single element). Thus it should in general be considered bad
practice to use it.
However there exists a very simple solution to this, which is to always concatenate the element
in front of the list (constructing the list in reverse order), and then just reversing the list
when returning it as the last thing (making it in expected order):
fun foo [] acc = rev acc
| foo (x::xs) acc = foo xs (x::acc)
Given these small notes, we end up with a function that looks something like this
fun positive xs =
let
fun positive' [] p = rev p
| positive' (y::ys) p =
if y < 0 then
positive' ys p
else
positive' ys (y :: p)
in
positive' xs []
end
Have you learned about List.filter? It might be appropriate here - it takes a function (which is a predicate) of type 'a -> bool and a list of type 'a list, and returns a list consisting of only the elements for which the predicate evaluates to true. For example:
List.filter (fn x => Real.>= (x, 0.0)) [1.0, 4.5, ~3.4, 42.0, ~9.0]
Your existing code won't work because you're comparing to integers using the intversion of <. The code hd(l1) < 0 will work over a list of int, not a list of real. Numeric literals are not automatically coerced by Standard ML. One must explicitly write 0.0, and use Real.< (hd(l1), 0.0) for your test.
If you don't want to use filter from the standard library, you could consider how one might implement filter yourself. Here's one way:
fun filter f [] = []
| filter f (h::t) =
if f h
then h :: filter f t
else filter f t