I have a list of values that I would like to take from while the value is increasing. I assume it would always take the head of the list and then compare it to the next value. The function will continue to take as long as this continues to increase. Upon reaching an list element that is less than or equal the pervious value the list is returned.
takeIncreasing :: (Ord a) => [a] -> [a]
takeIncreasing [1,2,3,4,3,5,6,7,8] -- Should return [1,2,3,4]
A fold could compare the last element of the accumulation with the next value and append if the condition is met, but would continue to the end of the list. I would like the function to stop taking at the first instance the constraint is not met.
This seems like an application of a monad but cannot determine if an existing monad accomplishes this.
A fold [...] would continue to the end of the list. I would like the function to stop taking at the first instance the constraint is not met.
A right fold can short circuit:
fun :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
fun [] = []
fun (x:xs) = x: foldr go (const []) xs x
where go x f i = if i < x then x: f x else []
then,
\> fun [1,2,3,4,3,undefined]
[1,2,3,4]
or infinite size list:
\> fun $ [1,2,3,4,3] ++ [1..]
[1,2,3,4]
Right folds are magical, so you never even have to pattern match on the list.
twi xs = foldr go (const []) xs Nothing where
go x _ (Just prev)
| x < prev = []
go x r _ = x : r (Just x)
Or one that IMO has a bit less code complexity:
takeIncreasing :: Ord x => [x] -> [x]
takeIncreasing (x:x':xs) | x < x' = x : takeIncreasing (x':xs)
| otherwise = [x]
takeIncreasing xs = xs
This one is just a bit less clever than previous suggestions. I like un-clever code.
A solution without folds:
takeIncreasing :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
takeIncreasing [] = []
takeIncreasing (x:xs) = (x :) . map snd . takeWhile (uncurry (<)) $ zip (x:xs) xs
Related
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.
Implementing Haskell's take and drop functions using foldl.
Any suggestions on how to implement take and drop functions using foldl ??
take x ls = foldl ???
drop x ls = foldl ???
i've tried these but it's showing errors:
myFunc :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
myFunc n list = foldl func [] list
where
func x y | (length y) > n = x : y
| otherwise = y
ERROR PRODUCED :
*** Expression : foldl func [] list
*** Term : func
*** Type : a -> [a] -> [a]
*** Does not match : [a] -> [a] -> [a]
*** Because : unification would give infinite type
Can't be done.
Left fold necessarily diverges on infinite lists, but take n does not. This is so because left fold is tail recursive, so it must scan through the whole input list before it can start the processing.
With the right fold, it's
ntake :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
ntake 0 _ = []
ntake n xs = foldr g z xs 0
where
g x r i | i>=n = []
| otherwise = x : r (i+1)
z _ = []
ndrop :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
ndrop 0 xs = xs
ndrop n xs = foldr g z xs 0 xs
where
g x r i xs#(_:t) | i>=n = xs
| otherwise = r (i+1) t
z _ _ = []
ndrop implements a paramorphism nicely and faithfully, up to the order of arguments to the reducer function g, giving it access to both the current element x and the current list node xs (such that xs == (x:t)) as well as the recursive result r. A catamorphism's reducer has access only to x and r.
Folds usually encode catamorphisms, but this shows that right fold can be used to code up a paramorphism just as well. It's universal that way. I think it is beautiful.
As for the type error, to fix it just switch the arguments to your func:
func y x | ..... = .......
The accumulator in the left fold comes as the first argument to the reducer function.
If you really want it done with the left fold, and if you're really sure the lists are finite, two options:
ltake n xs = post $ foldl' g (0,id) xs
where
g (i,f) x | i < n = (i+1, f . (x:))
| otherwise = (i,f)
post (_,f) = f []
rltake n xs = foldl' g id xs r n
where
g acc x = acc . f x
f x r i | i > 0 = x : r (i-1)
| otherwise = []
r _ = []
The first counts from the left straight up, potentially stopping assembling the prefix in the middle of the full list traversal that it does carry to the end nevertheless, being a left fold.
The second also traverses the list in full turning it into a right fold which then gets to work counting down from the left again, being able to actually stop working as soon as the prefix is assembled.
Implementing drop this way is bound to be (?) even clunkier. Could be a nice exercise.
I note that you never specified the fold had to be over the supplied list. So, one approach that meets the letter of your question, though probably not the spirit, is:
sillytake :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
sillytake n xs = foldl go (const []) [1..n] xs
where go f _ (x:xs) = x : f xs
go _ _ [] = []
sillydrop :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
sillydrop n xs = foldl go id [1..n] xs
where go f _ (_:xs) = f xs
go _ _ [] = []
These each use left folds, but over the list of numbers [1..n] -- the numbers themselves are ignored, and the list is just used for its length to build a custom take n or drop n function for the given n. This function is then applied to the original supplied list xs.
These versions work fine on infinite lists:
> sillytake 5 $ sillydrop 5 $ [1..]
[6,7,8,9,10]
Will Ness showed a nice way to implement take with foldr. The least repulsive way to implement drop with foldr is this:
drop n0 xs0 = foldr go stop xs0 n0
where
stop _ = []
go x r n
| n <= 0 = x : r 0
| otherwise = r (n - 1)
Take the efficiency loss and rebuild the whole list if you have no choice! Better to drive a nail in with a screwdriver than drive a screw in with a hammer.
Both ways are horrible. But this one helps you understand how folds can be used to structure functions and what their limits are.
Folds just aren't the right tools for implementing drop; a paramorphism is the right tool.
You are not too far. Here are a pair of fixes.
First, note that func is passed the accumulator first (i.e. a list of a, in your case) and then the list element (an a). So, you need to swap the order of the arguments of func.
Then, if we want to mimic take, we need to add x when the length y is less than n, not greater!
So we get
myFunc :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
myFunc n list = foldl func [] list
where
func y x | (length y) < n = x : y
| otherwise = y
Test:
> myFunc 5 [1..10]
[5,4,3,2,1]
As you can see, this is reversing the string. This is because we add x at the front (x:y) instead of at the back (y++[x]). Or, alternatively, one could use reverse (foldl ....) to fix the order at the end.
Also, since foldl always scans the whole input list, myFunc 3 [1..1000000000] will take a lot of time, and myFunc 3 [1..] will fail to terminate. Using foldr would be much better.
drop is more tricky to do. I don't think you can easily do that without some post-processing like myFunc n xs = fst (foldl ...) or making foldl return a function which you immediately call (which is also a kind of post-processing).
I'm having trouble writing this function that takes a predicate and a list of integers, then eliminates the last occurrence of the integer that satisfies the predicate in the list. I was able to take out the first occurrence of the predicate in the list with my function below:
fun :: (Int -> Bool) -> [Int] -> [Int]
fun check (s:ss)
|check s = ss
|otherwise = s : fun check ss
What I need help on is how I should modify this function to take out the last occurrence of the integer, instead of the first. For example, fun (<2) [3,4,1,5,0,-3,9] would return [3,4,1,5,0,9].
(I couldn't use where due to some indentation problems)
removeLast :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
removeLast p xs =
let
go c [] = tail (c [])
go c (x:xs)
| p x = c (go (x:) xs)
| otherwise = go (c . (x:)) xs
in case break p xs of
(ok, []) -> ok
(ok, x:xs) -> ok ++ go (x:) xs
go collects elements for which the predicate doesn't hold in a difference list and prepends this list to the result once a new satisfying the predicate element is found. Pattern matching on break p xs ensures that difference lists always start with an element that satisfies the predicate and we can drop it if it's the last.
Works with infinite lists:
main = do
print $ removeLast (< 2) [3,4,1,5,0,-3,9] -- [3,4,1,5,0,9]
print $ removeLast (== 2) [1,3] -- [1,3]
print $ take 10 $ removeLast (< 2) (cycle [1,3]) -- [1,3,1,3,1,3,1,3,1,3]
Here is an obfuscated version:
removeLast :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
removeLast p xs = case break p xs of
(ok, []) -> ok
(ok, x:xs) -> ok ++ foldr step (tail . ($[])) xs (x:) where
step x r c = if p x then c (r (x:)) else r (c . (x:))
If you want to have fun with it, try this version.
removeLast :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
removeLast p = fst . foldr go ([], False) where
go x ~(r, more)
| p x = (if more then x : r else r, True)
| otherwise = (x : r, more)
This seems to be almost as lazy as it can be, and it gets to the point pretty quickly. It could produce the list spine more lazily with some effort, but it produces list elements maximally lazily.
After some more thought, I realize that there is some tension between different aspects of laziness in this case. Consider
removeLast p (x : xs)
There are two ways we can try to find out whether to produce a [] or (:) constructor.
We can check xs; if xs is not [], then we can produce (:).
We can check p x. If p x is False, then we can produce (:).
These are the only ways to do it, and their strictness is not comparable. The only "maximally lazy" approach would be to use parallelism to try it both ways, which is not the most practical approach.
How about this:
fun :: (Num a) => (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
fun check (s:ss)
|check s = ss
|otherwise = s : fun check ss
Then, apply your fun function like this:
reverse $ fun (\ x -> x `mod` 3 == 0) (reverse [1..10])
HTH
Is there a Haskell function that takes a list and returns a list of duplicates/redundant elements in that list?
I'm aware of the the nub and nubBy functions, but they remove the duplicates; I would like to keep the dupes and collects them in a list.
The simplest way to do this, which is extremely inefficient, is to use nub and \\:
import Data.List (nub, (\\))
getDups :: Eq a => [a] -> [a]
getDups xs = xs \\ nub xs
If you can live with an Ord constraint, everything gets much nicer:
import Data.Set (member, empty, insert)
getDups :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
getDups xs = foldr go (const []) xs empty
where
go x cont seen
| member x seen = x : r seen
| otherwise = r (insert x seen)
I wrote these functions which seems to work well.
The first one return the list of duplicates element in a list with a basic equlity test (==)
duplicate :: Eq a => [a] -> [a]
duplicate [] = []
duplicate (x:xs)
| null pres = duplicate abs
| otherwise = x:pres++duplicate abs
where (pres,abs) = partition (x ==) xs
The second one make the same job by providing a equality test function (like nubBy)
duplicateBy :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
duplicateBy eq [] = []
duplicateBy eq (x:xs)
| null pres = duplicateBy eq abs
| otherwise = x:pres++duplicateBy eq abs
where (pres,abs) = partition (eq x) xs
Is there a Haskell function that takes a list and returns a list of duplicates/redundant elements in that list?
You can write such a function yourself easily enough. Use a helper function that takes two list arguments, the first one of which being the list whose dupes are sought; walk along that list and accumulate the dupes in the second argument; finally, return the latter when the first argument is the empty list.
dupes l = dupes' l []
where
dupes' [] ls = ls
dupes' (x:xs) ls
| not (x `elem` ls) && x `elem` xs = dupes' xs (x:ls)
| otherwise = dupes' xs ls
Test:
λ> dupes [1,2,3,3,2,2,3,4]
[3,2]
Be aware that the asymptotic time complexity is as bad as that of nub, though: O(n^2). If you want better asymptotics, you'll need an Ord class constraint.
If you are happy with an Ord constraint you can use group from Data.List:
getDups :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
getDups = concatMap (drop 1) . group . sort
I want to replace an element in a list with a new value only at first time occurrence.
I wrote the code below but using it, all the matched elements will change.
replaceX :: [Int] -> Int -> Int -> [Int]
replaceX items old new = map check items where
check item | item == old = new
| otherwise = item
How can I modify the code so that the changing only happen at first matched item?
Thanks for helping!
The point is that map and f (check in your example) only communicate regarding how to transform individual elements. They don't communicate about how far down the list to transform elements: map always carries on all the way to the end.
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
map _ [] = []
map f (x:xs) = f x : map f xs
Let's write a new version of map --- I'll call it mapOnce because I can't think of a better name.
mapOnce :: (a -> Maybe a) -> [a] -> [a]
There are two things to note about this type signature:
Because we may stop applying f part-way down the list, the input list and the output list must have the same type. (With map, because the entire list will always be mapped, the type can change.)
The type of f hasn't changed to a -> a, but to a -> Maybe a.
Nothing will mean "leave this element unchanged, continue down the list"
Just y will mean "change this element, and leave the remaining elements unaltered"
So:
mapOnce _ [] = []
mapOnce f (x:xs) = case f x of
Nothing -> x : mapOnce f xs
Just y -> y : xs
Your example is now:
replaceX :: [Int] -> Int -> Int -> [Int]
replaceX items old new = mapOnce check items where
check item | item == old = Just new
| otherwise = Nothing
You can easily write this as a recursive iteration like so:
rep :: Eq a => [a] -> a -> a -> [a]
rep items old new = rep' items
where rep' (x:xs) | x == old = new : xs
| otherwise = x : rep' xs
rep' [] = []
A direct implementation would be
rep :: Eq a => a -> a -> [a] -> [a]
rep _ _ [] = []
rep a b (x:xs) = if x == a then b:xs else x:rep a b xs
I like list as last argument to do something like
myRep = rep 3 5 . rep 7 8 . rep 9 1
An alternative using the Lens library.
>import Control.Lens
>import Control.Applicative
>_find :: (a -> Bool) -> Simple Traversal [a] a
>_find _ _ [] = pure []
>_find pred f (a:as) = if pred a
> then (: as) <$> f a
> else (a:) <$> (_find pred f as)
This function takes a (a -> Bool) which is a function that should return True on an type 'a' that you wan to modify.
If the first number greater then 5 needs to be doubled then we could write:
>over (_find (>5)) (*2) [4, 5, 3, 2, 20, 0, 8]
[4,5,3,2,40,0,8]
The great thing about lens is that you can combine them together by composing them (.). So if we want to zero the first number <100 in the 2th sub list we could:
>over ((element 1).(_find (<100))) (const 0) [[1,2,99],[101,456,50,80,4],[1,2,3,4]]
[[1,2,99],[101,456,0,80,4],[1,2,3,4]]
To be blunt, I don't like most of the answers so far. dave4420 presents some nice insights on map that I second, but I also don't like his solution.
Why don't I like those answers? Because you should be learning to solve problems like these by breaking them down into smaller problems that can be solved by simpler functions, preferably library functions. In this case, the library is Data.List, and the function is break:
break, applied to a predicate p and a list xs, returns a tuple where first element is longest prefix (possibly empty) of xs of elements that do not satisfy p and second element is the remainder of the list.
Armed with that, we can attack the problem like this:
Split the list into two pieces: all the elements before the first occurence of old, and the rest.
The "rest" list will either be empty, or its first element will be the first occurrence of old. Both of these cases are easy to handle.
So we have this solution:
import Data.List (break)
replaceX :: Eq a => a -> a -> [a] -> [a]
replaceX old new xs = beforeOld ++ replaceFirst oldAndRest
where (beforeOld, oldAndRest) = break (==old) xs
replaceFirst [] = []
replaceFirst (_:rest) = new:rest
Example:
*Main> replaceX 5 7 ([1..7] ++ [1..7])
[1,2,3,4,7,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
So my advice to you:
Learn how to import libraries.
Study library documentation and learn standard functions. Data.List is a great place to start.
Try to use those library functions as much as you can.
As a self study exercise, you can pick some of the standard functions from Data.List and write your own versions of them.
When you run into a problem that can't be solved with a combination of library functions, try to invent your own generic function that would be useful.
EDIT: I just realized that break is actually a Prelude function, and doesn't need to be imported. Still, Data.List is one of the best libraries to study.
Maybe not the fastest solution, but easy to understand:
rep xs x y =
let (left, (_ : right)) = break (== x) xs
in left ++ [y] ++ right
[Edit]
As Dave commented, this will fail if x is not in the list. A safe version would be:
rep xs x y =
let (left, right) = break (== x) xs
in left ++ [y] ++ drop 1 right
[Edit]
Arrgh!!!
rep xs x y = left ++ r right where
(left, right) = break (== x) xs
r (_:rs) = y:rs
r [] = []
replaceValue :: Int -> Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
replaceValue a b (x:xs)
|(a == x) = [b] ++ xs
|otherwise = [x] ++ replaceValue a b xs
Here's an imperative way to do it, using State Monad:
import Control.Monad.State
replaceOnce :: Eq a => a -> a -> [a] -> [a]
replaceOnce old new items = flip evalState False $ do
forM items $ \item -> do
replacedBefore <- get
if item == old && not replacedBefore
then do
put True
return new
else
return old