Related
So I already have a function that finds the number of occurrences in a list using maps.
occur :: [a] -> Map a a
occur xs = fromListWith (+) [(x, 1) | x <- xs]
For example if a list [1,1,2,3,3] is inputted, the code will output [(1,2),(2,1),(3,2)], and for a list [1,2,1,1] the output would be [(1,3),(2,1)].
I was wondering if there's any way I can change this function to use foldr instead to eliminate the use of maps.
You can make use of foldr where the accumulator is a list of key-value pairs. Each "step" we look if the list already contains a 2-tuple for the given element. If that is the case, we increment the corresponding value. If the item x does not yet exists, we add (x, 1) to that list.
Our function thus will look like:
occur :: Eq => [a] -> [(a, Int)]
occur = foldr incMap []
where incMap thus takes an item x and a list of 2-tuples. We can make use of recursion here to update the "map" with:
incMap :: Eq a => a -> [(a, Int)] -> [(a, Int)]
incMap x = go
where go [] = [(x, 1)]
go (y2#(y, ny): ys)
| x == y = … : ys
| otherwise = y2 : …
where I leave implementing the … parts as an exercise.
This algorithm is not very efficient, since it takes O(n) to increment the map with n the number of 2-tuples in the map. You can also implement incrementing the Map for the given item by using insertWith :: Ord k => (a -> a -> a) -> k -> a -> Map k a -> Map k a, which is more efficient.
My task is that I want to create a function that finds any possible "bondings" of a given list and a predicate but I can't find the right solution.
a bonding for ls for binary predicate p is a list of pairs bs :: [ (a,a) ] such that the following conditions hold
Every element in ls appears exactly once in map fst bs and exactly once in map snd bs
If a pair (x,y) appears in bs then both x and y must appear in ls.
If a pair (x,y) appears in bs then (y,x) also appears in bs.
If a pair (x,y) appears in bs then x does not equal y.
If a pair (x,y) appears in bs then p x y is True.
Furthermore, the function that I thought it will be useful for this problem is the following findBonding :: Eq a => (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Maybe [(a,a)] such that findBonding p ls takes p as predicate and ls as a list of integers.
For example, findBonding (\x -> \y -> odd(x+y)) [2,3,4,5,6,7] should return Just [(2,3),(3,2),(4,5),(5,4),(6,7),(7,6)]
Is it a good idea to declare findBonding with foldr of the ls (the list) and then p (the predicate) to be the function that should declare which pairs to find and then to loop over every two items to find the correct pairs and to return them as a list of lists.
With your final definition of a "bonding", this should do what you want:
import Data.Maybe
-- > removeEach [1,2,3,4] == [(1,[2,3,4]),(2,[1,3,4]),(3,[1,2,4]),(4,[1,2,3])]
removeEach :: [a] -> [(a,[a])]
removeEach [] = []
removeEach (x:xs) = (x,xs):map (fmap (x:)) (removeEach xs)
-- > findBonding (\x -> \y -> odd(x+y)) [2,3,4,5,6,7] == Just [(2,3),(3,2),(4,5),(5,4),(6,7),(7,6)]
-- > findBonding (\x -> \y -> even(x+y)) [2,3,4,5,6,7] == Nothing
findBonding :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Maybe [(a,a)]
findBonding f = listToMaybe . go where
go [] = [[]]
go (x:xs) = [(x,y):(y,x):xys | (y,ys) <- removeEach xs, f x y && f y x, xys <- go ys]
I created the helper function removeEach to, for each element in a list, provide that element plus the list without it.
The findBonding function takes the head of the list x, then finds an element y in the list such that f x y and f y x both hold, yields those pairs, and then recurses on the remainder of the list. It uses the outer list as a nondeterminism monad to ensure that if any possible combination of pairings work, it will find one.
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.
I'm new in haskell programming and I try to solve a problem by/not using list comprehensions.
The Problem is to find the index of an element in a list and return a list of the indexes (where the elements in the list was found.)
I already solved the problem by using list comprehensions but now i have some problems to solve the problem without using list comprehensions.
On my recursive way:
I tried to zip a list of [0..(length list)] and the list as it self.
then if the element a equals an element in the list -> make a new list with the first element of the Tupel of the zipped list(my index) and after that search the function on a recursive way until the list is [].
That's my list comprehension (works):
positions :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [Int]
positions a list = [x | (x,y) <- zip [0..(length list)] list, a == y]
That's my recursive way (not working):
positions' :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [Int]
positions' _ [] = []
positions' a (x:xs) =
let ((n,m):ns) = zip [0..(length (x:xs))] (x:xs)
in if (a == m) then n:(positions' a xs)
else (positions' a xs)
*sorry I don't know how to highlight words
but ghci says:
*Main> positions' 2 [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,8,9,2]
[0,0]
and it should be like that (my list comprehension):
*Main> positions 2 [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,8,9,2]
[1,10]
Where is my mistake ?
The problem with your attempt is simply that when you say:
let ((n,m):ns) = zip [0..(length (x:xs))] (x:xs)
then n will always be 0. That's because you are matching (n,m) against the first element of zip [0..(length (x:xs))] (x:xs), which will necessarily always be (0,x).
That's not a problem in itself - but it does mean you have to handle the recursive step properly. The way you have it now, positions _ _, if non-empty, will always have 0 as its first element, because the only way you allow it to find a match is if it's at the head of the list, resulting in an index of 0. That means that your result will always be a list of the correct length, but with all elements 0 - as you're seeing.
The problem isn't with your recursion scheme though, it's to do with the fact that you're not modifying the result to account for the fact that you don't always want 0 added to the front of the result list. Since each recursive call just adds 1 to the index you want to find, all you need to do is map the increment function (+1) over the recursive result:
positions' :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [Int]
positions' _ [] = []
positions' a (x:xs) =
let ((0,m):ns) = zip [0..(length (x:xs))] (x:xs)
in if (a == m) then 0:(map (+1) (positions' a xs))
else (map (+1) (positions' a xs))
(Note that I've changed your let to be explicit that n will always be 0 - I prefer to be explicit this way but this in itself doesn't change the output.) Since m is always bound to x and ns isn't used at all, we can elide the let, inlining the definition of m:
positions' :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [Int]
positions' _ [] = []
positions' a (x:xs) =
if a == x
then 0 : map (+1) (positions' a xs)
else map (+1) (positions' a xs)
You could go on to factor out the repeated map (+1) (positions' a xs) if you wanted to.
Incidentally, you didn't need explicit recursion to avoid a list comprehension here. For one, list comprehensions are basically a replacement for uses of map and filter. I was going to write this out explicitly, but I see #WillemVanOnsem has given this as an answer so I will simply refer you to his answer.
Another way, although perhaps not acceptable if you were asked to implement this yourself, would be to just use the built-in elemIndices function, which does exactly what you are trying to implement here.
We can make use of a filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a] and map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] approach, like:
positions :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [Int]
positions x = map fst . filter ((x ==) . snd) . zip [0..]
We thus first construct tuples of the form (i, yi), next we filter such that we only retain these tuples for which x == yi, and finally we fetch the first item of these tuples.
For example:
Prelude> positions 'o' "foobaraboof"
[1,2,8,9]
Your
let ((n,m):ns) = zip [0..(length (x:xs))] (x:xs)
is equivalent to
== {- by laziness -}
let ((n,m):ns) = zip [0..] (x:xs)
== {- by definition of zip -}
let ((n,m):ns) = (0,x) : zip [1..] xs
== {- by pattern matching -}
let {(n,m) = (0,x)
; ns = zip [1..] xs }
== {- by pattern matching -}
let { n = 0
; m = x
; ns = zip [1..] xs }
but you never reference ns! So we don't need its binding at all:
positions' a (x:xs) =
let { n = 0 ; m = x } in
if (a == m) then n : (positions' a xs)
else (positions' a xs)
and so, by substitution, you actually have
positions' :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [Int]
positions' _ [] = []
positions' a (x:xs) =
if (a == x) then 0 : (positions' a xs) -- NB: 0
else (positions' a xs)
And this is why all you ever produce are 0s. But you want to produce the correct index: 0, 1, 2, 3, ....
First, let's tweak your code a little bit further into
positions' :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [Int]
positions' a = go xs
where
go [] = []
go (x:xs) | a == x = 0 : go xs -- NB: 0
| otherwise = go xs
This is known as a worker/wrapper transform. go is a worker, positions' is a wrapper. There's no need to pass a around from call to call, it doesn't change, and we have access to it anyway. It is in the enclosing scope with respect to the inner function, go. We've also used guards instead of the more verbose and less visually apparent if ... then ... else.
Now we just need to use something -- the correct index value -- instead of 0.
To use it, we must have it first. What is it? It starts as 0, then it is incremented on each step along the input list.
When do we make a step along the input list? At the recursive call:
positions' :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [Int]
positions' a = go xs 0
where
go [] _ = []
go (x:xs) i | a == x = 0 : go xs (i+1) -- NB: 0
| otherwise = go xs (i+1)
_ as a pattern means we don't care about the argument's value -- it's there but we're not going to use it.
Now all that's left for us to do is to use that i in place of that 0.
I am trying to learn Haskell and I want to solve one task. I have a list of Integers and I need to add them to another list if they are bigger then both of their neighbors. For Example:
I have a starting list of [0,1,5,2,3,7,8,4] and I need to print out a list which is [5, 8]
This is the code I came up but it returns an empty list:
largest :: [Integer]->[Integer]
largest n
| head n > head (tail n) = head n : largest (tail n)
| otherwise = largest (tail n)
I would solve this as outlined by Thomas M. DuBuisson. Since we want the ends of the list to "count", we'll add negative infinities to each end before creating triples. The monoid-extras package provides a suitable type for this.
import Data.Monoid.Inf
pad :: [a] -> [NegInf a]
pad xs = [negInfty] ++ map negFinite xs ++ [negInfty]
triples :: [a] -> [(a, a, a)]
triples (x:rest#(y:z:_)) = (x,y,z) : triples rest
triples _ = []
isBig :: Ord a => (a,a,a) -> Bool
isBig (x,y,z) = y > x && y > z
scnd :: (a, b, c) -> b
scnd (a, b, c) = b
finites :: [Inf p a] -> [a]
finites xs = [x | Finite x <- xs]
largest :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
largest = id
. finites
. map scnd
. filter isBig
. triples
. pad
It seems to be working appropriately; in ghci:
> largest [0,1,5,2,3,7,8,4]
[5,8]
> largest [10,1,10]
[10,10]
> largest [3]
[3]
> largest []
[]
You might also consider merging finites, map scnd, and filter isBig in a single list comprehension (then eliminating the definitions of finites, scnd, and isBig):
largest :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
largest xs = [x | (a, b#(Finite x), c) <- triples (pad xs), a < b, c < b]
But I like the decomposed version better; the finites, scnd, and isBig functions may turn out to be useful elsewhere in your development, especially if you plan to build a few variants of this for different needs.
One thing you might try is lookahead. (Thomas M. DuBuisson suggested a different one that will also work if you handle the final one or two elements correctly.) Since it sounds like this is a problem you want to solve on your own as a learning exercise, I’ll write a skeleton that you can take as a starting-point if you want:
largest :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
largest [] = _
largest [x] = _ -- What should this return?
largest [x1,x2] | x1 > x2 = _
| x1 < x2 = _
| otherwise = _
largest [x1,x2,x3] | x2 > x1 && x2 > x3 = _
| x3 > x2 = _
| otherwise = _
largest (x1:x2:x3:xs) | x2 > x1 && x2 > x3 = _
| otherwise = _
We need the special case of [x1,x2,x3] in addition to (x1:x2:x3:[]) because, according to the clarification in your comment, largest [3,3,2] should return []. but largest [3,2] should return [3]. Therefore, the final three elements require special handling and cannot simply recurse on the final two.
If you also want the result to include the head of the list if it is greater than the second element, you’d make this a helper function and your largest would be something like largest (x1:x2:xs) = (if x1>x2 then [x1] else []) ++ largest' (x1:x2:xs). That is, you want some special handling for the first elements of the original list, which you don’t want to apply to all the sublists when you recurse.
As suggested in the comments, one approach would be to first group the list into tuples of length 3 using Preludes zip3 and tail:
*Main> let xs = [0,1,5,2,3,7,8,4]
*Main> zip3 xs (tail xs) (tail (tail xs))
[(0,1,5),(1,5,2),(5,2,3),(2,3,7),(3,7,8),(7,8,4)]
Which is of type: [a] -> [b] -> [c] -> [(a, b, c)] and [a] -> [a] respectively.
Next you need to find a way to filter out the tuples where the middle element is bigger than the first and last element. One way would be to use Preludes filter function:
*Main> let xs = [(0,1,5),(1,5,2),(5,2,3),(2,3,7),(3,7,8),(7,8,4)]
*Main> filter (\(a, b, c) -> b > a && b > c) xs
[(1,5,2),(7,8,4)]
Which is of type: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]. This filters out elements of a list based on a Boolean returned from the predicate passed.
Now for the final part, you need to extract the middle element from the filtered tuples above. You can do this easily with Preludes map function:
*Main> let xs = [(1,5,2),(7,8,4)]
*Main> map (\(_, x, _) -> x) xs
[5,8]
Which is of type: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]. This function maps elements from a list of type a to b.
The above code stitched together would look like this:
largest :: (Ord a) => [a] -> [a]
largest xs = map (\(_, x, _) -> x) $ filter (\(a, b, c) -> b > a && b > c) $ zip3 xs (tail xs) (tail (tail xs))
Note here I used typeclass Ord, since the above code needs to compare with > and <. It's fine to keep it as Integer here though.