Some functions in the List module fail when the argument is an empty list. List.rev is an example. The problem is the dreaded Value Restriction.
I met the same problem while trying to define a function that returns a list with all but the last element of a list:
let takeAllButLast (xs: 'a list) =
xs |> List.take (xs.Length - 1)
The function works well with nonempty lists, but a version that would handle empty lists fails:
let takeAllButLast (xs: 'a list) =
if List.isEmpty xs then []
else xs |> List.take (xs.Length - 1)
takeAllButLast []
error FS0030: Value restriction. The value 'it' has been inferred to have generic type
val it : '_a list, etc.
I tried several things: making it an inline function, not specifying a type for the argument, specifying a type for the returned value, making the function depend on a type argument, and using the Option type to obtain an intermediate result later converted to list<'a>. Nothing worked.
For example, this function has the same problem:
let takeAllButLast<'a> (xs: 'a list) =
let empty : 'a list = []
if List.isEmpty xs then empty
else xs |> List.take (xs.Length - 1)
A similar question was asked before in SO: F# value restriction in empty list but the only answer also fails when the argument is an empty list.
Is there a way to write a function that handles both empty and nonempty lists?
Note: The question is not specific to a function that returns all but the last element of a list.
The function itself is completely fine. The function does not "fail".
You do not need to modify the body of the function. It is correct.
The problem is only with the way you're trying to call the function: takeAllButLast []. Here, the compiler doesn't know what type the result should have. Should it be string list? Or should it be int list? Maybe bool list? No way for the compiler to know. So it complains.
In order to compile such call, you need to help the compiler out: just tell it what type you expect to get. This can be done either from context:
// The compiler gleans the result type from the type of receiving variable `l`
let l: int list = takeAllButLast []
// Here, the compiler gleans the type from what function `f` expects:
let f (l: int list) = printfn "The list: %A" l
f (takeAllButLast [])
Or you can declare the type of the call expression directly:
(takeAllButLast [] : int list)
Or you can declare the type of the function, and then call it:
(takeAllButLast : int list -> int list) []
You can also do this in two steps:
let takeAllButLast_Int : int list -> int list = takeAllButLast
takeAllButLast_Int []
In every case the principle is the same: the compiler needs to know from somewhere what type you expect here.
Alternatively, you can give it a name and make that name generic:
let x<'a> = takeAllButLast [] : 'a list
Such value can be accessed as if it was a regular value, but behind the scenes it is compiled as a parameterless generic function, which means that every access to it will result in execution of its body. This is how List.empty and similar "generic values" are implemented in the standard library.
But of course, if you try to evaluate such value in F# interactive, you'll face the very same gotcha again - the type must be known - and you'll have to work around it anyway:
> x // value restriction
> (x : int list) // works
Related
I'm trying to built a function that zips the 2 given function, ignoring the longer list's length.
fun zipTail L1 L2 =
let
fun helper buf L1 L2 = buf
| helper buf [x::rest1] [y::rest2] = helper ((x,y)::buf) rest1 rest2
in
reverse (helper [] L1 L2)
end
When I did this I got the error message:
Error: right-hand-side of clause doesn't agree with function result type [circularity]
I'm curious as of what a circularity error is and how should I fix this.
There are a number of problems here
1) In helper buf L1 L2 = buf, the pattern buf L1 L2 would match all possible inputs, rendering your next clause (once debugged) redundant. In context, I think that you meant helper buf [] [] = buf, but then you would run into problems of non-exhaustive matching in the case of lists of unequal sizes. The simplest fix would be to move the second clause (the one with x::rest1) into the top line and then have a second pattern to catch the cases in which at least one of the lists are empty.
2) [xs::rest] is a pattern which matches a list of 1 item where the item is a nonempty list. That isn't your attention. You need to use (,) rather than [,].
3) reverse should be rev.
Making these changes, your definition becomes:
fun zipTail L1 L2 =
let
fun helper buf (x::rest1) (y::rest2) = helper ((x,y)::buf) rest1 rest2
| helper buf rest1 rest2 = buf
in
rev (helper [] L1 L2)
end;
Which works as intended.
The error message itself is a bit hard to understand, but you can think of it like this. In
helper buf [x::rest1] [y::rest2] = helper ((x,y)::buf) rest1 rest2
the things in the brackets on the left hand side are lists of lists. So their type would be 'a list list where 'a is the type of x. In x::rest1 the type of rest1 would have to be 'a list Since rest1 also appears on the other side of the equals sign in the same position as [x::rest1] then the type of rest1 would have to be the same as the type of [x::rest1], which is 'a list list. Thus rest1 must be both 'a list and 'a list list, which is impossible.
The circularity comes from if you attempt to make sense of 'a list list = 'a list, you would need a type 'a with 'a = 'a list. This would be a type whose values consists of a list of values of the same type, and the values of the items in that list would have to themselves be lists of elements of the same type ... It is a viscous circle which never ends.
The problem with circularity shows up many other places.
You want (x::rest1) and not [x::rest1].
The problem is a syntactic misconception.
The pattern [foo] will match against a list with exactly one element in it, foo.
The pattern x::rest1 will match against a list with at least one element in it, x, and its (possibly empty) tail, rest1. This is the pattern you want. But the pattern contains an infix operator, so you need to add a parenthesis around it.
The combined pattern [x::rest1] will match against a list with exactly one element that is itself a list with at least one element. This pattern is valid, although overly specific, and does not provoke a type error in itself.
The reason you get a circularity error is that the compiler can't infer what the type of rest1 is. As it occurs on the right-hand side of the :: pattern constructor, it must be 'a list, and as it occurs all by itself, it must be 'a. Trying to unify 'a = 'a list is like finding solutions to the equation x = x + 1.
You might say "well, as long as 'a = 'a list list list list list ... infinitely, like ∞ = ∞ + 1, that's a solution." But the Damas-Hindley-Milner type system doesn't treat this infinite construction as a well-defined type. And creating the singleton list [[[...x...]]] would require an infinite amount of brackets, so it isn't entirely practical anyways.
Some simpler examples of circularity:
fun derp [x] = derp x: This is a simplification of your case where the pattern in the first argument of derp indicates a list, and the x indicates that the type of element in this list must be the same as the type of the list itself.
fun wat x = wat [x]: This is a very similar case where wat takes an argument of type 'a and calls itself with an argument of type 'a list. Naturally, 'a could be an 'a list, but then so must 'a list be an 'a list list, etc.
As I said, you're getting circularity because of a syntactic misconception wrt. list patterns. But circularity is not restricted to lists. They're a product of composed types and self-reference. Here's an example without lists taken from Function which applies its argument to itself?:
fun erg x = x x: Here, x can be thought of as having type 'a to begin with, but seeing it applied as a function to itself, it must also have type 'a -> 'b. But if 'a = 'a -> 'b, then 'a -> b = ('a -> 'b) -> 'b, and ('a -> 'b) -> b = (('a -> 'b) -> b) -> b, and so on. SML compilers are quick to determine that there are no solutions here.
This is not to say that functions with circular types are always useless. As newacct points out, turning purely anonymous functions into recursive ones actually requires this, like in the Y-combinator.
The built-in ListPair.zip
is usually tail-recursive, by the way.
I am trying to implement the following:
let list = [1;2;3;4];;
if ((List.exists 3 list) = true)
print_string "element exists in list\n"
But it is giving me the error: This expression has type int list
but an expression was expected of type 'a -> bool
I am not sure what this means.
List.exists takes a function and a list, not a value and a list. For testing whether a value is in a list, use List.mem.
Your if looks like C syntax. In OCaml you need to use then (but you don't need the parentheses).
As a side comment, if e = true then ... is the same as if e then .... If you use good names for things, the latter is usually clearer.
First of all I usually programming in imperative languaes, that makes me hard to explain certain things. First of all is functions without args, and return types. Example is function that flattens a list:
# let rec flat = function
[] -> []
| h :: t -> h # flat t;;
val flat : 'a list list -> 'a list = <fun>
How OCaml interpreter know that:
My function flat need exactly one argument which is "list of lists".
Flat returns type is a list. Do the interpreter checks it with [] -> [] line?
let rec flat = function
[] -> []
| h :: t -> h # flat t;;
You used function keyword. function is a shortcut for match ... with. So the function you wrote is exactly like
let rec flat l =
match l with
[] -> []
| h :: t -> h # flat t
That's why ocaml knows your function has one parameter
Your function is recursive. [] -> [] is the basic case and it is also where the function will be stopped. And yes, interpreter checks it with [] -> [].
Furthermore, a function must have at least a unit parameter which is () or a normal parameter. If a function does not have anything, it is not a function, instead, it is a variable with a fixed value.
Let's have an example:
let f1 = Random.int 10;
f1 does not have any parameter, even without a () (here () is just like a method in Java without any parameter). Then f1 is a constant value which was generated by the Random. No matter when you call it, f1 will always be fixed.
let f2 () = Random.int 10;
f2 is a function. And each time you call f2(), the Random inside will generate a random in and returns it.
let rec flat = function
[] -> []
| h :: t -> h # flat t;;
Let's go through this a step at a time. The function keyword, as you might expect, gives a function. The basic syntax is function | pat1 -> branch1 | pat2 -> branch2, and what you get is a function of one argument that tries to match that argument against each pattern in turn, and for the first pattern that matches the result is the corresponding branch.
So that's how we know flat is a function. Moreover, we can see that its one argument is matched against [], which is a list. So flat must be a function that takes a list. We see that if the input is [] then the output is [], so it's a function that takes a list and returns a list.
Now let's look at that second pattern. h :: t is a pattern that matches a list and creates two new variable bindings: h is the first element of the list and t is all the rest of the elements. In particular, h has whatever type the elements of the input list have.
If you look at what happens if this pattern match succeeds, h # flat t, we see the list concatenation operator # applied to h and flat t. This means that h must be a list, and must be the same kind of list as flat t. So the elements of the input list are lists, and so is the output of the function.
This gives you flat : 'a list list -> 'a list.
To answer your questions directly, flat needs exactly one argument because it is defined with the function keyword and the return values of the branches are values and not functions (if the function branches were also functions, that would meant flat could have two or more arguments). It is a list because the pattern match is against list constructors, and it is a list of lists because h is an element of the list and is used with the # operator, which requires its arguments to be lists, so the elements of the list are lists.
There are actually three reasons why the return type must be a list:
In the first branch, a list [] is returned.
In the second branch, the result of # is returned, and # returns lists
Also in the second branch, flat t is called recursively, and then given as an argument to #. Since it is an argument to #, it must be a list, and so flat must return a list.
The third bullet point is especially interesting, because it shows you that it's not just how you create values that determines their type, but how you use them as well.
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
I'm trying to extract the given elements from a list, but I get an Match exception?
The goal is to make my function behave like:
fun extract [#"a",#"b",#"c"] [0,1,0] = [#"a",#"b",#"a"];
And I'm trying to do it like this:
fun extract [] _ = []
| extract xr (y::yr) = List.nth(xr, y) :: extract xr yr;
But as said, I get an
! Uncaught exception:
! Match
Any ideas?
Maybe theres some more List functions I could use for this?
I've head about the curry function, which should make a function into a higher-order function, but I don't really know how that works?
The reason that you get a match error is that there's no case for when the second list is empty, but the first is not (which will always happen unless the first list is empty to begin with because only the second list gets shorter).
Basically you can change the first line to fun extract _ [] = [] and it will work.
And yes, you can also solve this using higher-order function. You can use curry to turn List.nth into a function of type 'a list -> int -> 'a instead of 'a list * int -> 'a. You can then partially apply that function to xr, which turns it into a function of type int -> 'a, which will return the ith list of xr when given a number i. You can then use List.map to apply the function to each number in the list of indices you're given. So the function becomes:
fun extract xr yr = List.map (curry List.nth xr) yr
But what you came up with works fine, so you should just stick with that.