I'd like to apply a function to every second element in a list:
> mapToEverySecond (*2) [1..10]
[1,4,3,8,5,12,7,16,9,20]
I've written the following function:
mapToEverySecond :: (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapToEverySecond f l = map (\(i,x) -> if odd i then f x else x) $ zip [0..] l
This works, but I wonder if there is a more idiomatic way to do things like that.
I haven't written very much Haskell, but here's the first thing that came into mind:
func :: (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
func f [] = []
func f [x] = [x]
func f (x:s:xs) = x:(f s):(func f xs)
It is a little ulgy, since you have to not only take care of the empty list, but also the list with one element. This doesn't really scale well either (what if you want every third, or
One could do as #Landei points out, and write
func :: (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
func f (x:s:xs) = x:(f s):(func f xs)
func f xs = xs
In order to get rid of the ugly checks for both [] and [x], though, IMHO, this makes it a little harder to read (at least the first time).
Here is how I would do it:
mapOnlyOddNumbered f [] = []
mapOnlyOddNumbered f (x:xs) = f x : mapOnlyEvenNumbered f xs
mapOnlyEvenNumbered f [] = []
mapOnlyEvenNumbered f (x:xs) = x : mapOnlyOddNumbered f xs
Whether this is "idiomatic" is a matter of opinion (and I would have given it as a comment if it would fit there) , but it may be useful to see a number of different approaches. Your solution is just as valid as mine, or the ones in the comments, and easier to change into say mapOnlyEvery13nd or mapOnlyPrimeNumbered
mapToEverySecond = zipWith ($) (cycle [id, (*2)])
Is the smallest I can think of, also looks pretty clear in my opinion. It also kinda scales with every nth.
Edit: Oh, people already suggested it in comments. I don't want to steal it, but I really think this is the answer.
Here's how I would probably do it:
mapToEverySecond f xs = foldr go (`seq` []) xs False
where
go x cont !mapThisTime =
(if mapThisTime then f x else x) : cont (not mapThisTime)
But if I were writing library code, I'd probably wrap that up in a build form.
Edit
Yes, this can also be done using mapAccumL or traverse.
import Control.Applicative
import Control.Monad.Trans.State.Strict
import Data.Traversable (Traversable (traverse), mapAccumL)
mapToEverySecond :: Traversable t => (a -> a) -> t a -> t a
-- Either
mapToEverySecond f = snd . flip mapAccumL False
(\mapThisTime x ->
if mapThisTime
then (False, f x)
else (True, x))
-- or
mapToEverySecond f xs = evalState (traverse step xs) False
where
step x = do
mapThisTime <- get
put (not mapThisTime)
if mapThisTime then return (f x) else return x
Or you can do it with scanl, which I'll leave for you to figure out.
This is more a comment to #MartinHaTh's answer. I'd slightly optimize his solution to
func :: (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
func f = loop
where
loop [] = []
loop [x] = [x]
loop (x:s:xs) = x : f s : loop xs
Not very elegant, but this is my take:
mapToEverySecond f = reverse . fst . foldl' cmb ([], False) where
cmb (xs, b) x = ((if b then f else id) x : xs, not b)
Or improving on MartinHaTh's answer:
mapToEverySecond f (x : x' : xs) = x : f x' : mapToEverySecond f xs
mapToEverySecond _ xs = xs
Related
just recently I started to try out haskell.
It's fun trying out different exercises, but sometimes I get the feeling, that my found solutions are far from elegant: The following Code Snipplet will find the longest sub-sequence in a list, which will satisfy a given condition (for example uppercase letters etc.)
Could you help a noob to make everything shorter and more elegant - every advice is highly appreciated.
import Data.Char
longer :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
longer x y = if length x > length y
then x
else y
longest :: [[a]]->[a]
longest = foldl longer []
nextSequence :: (a->Bool) -> [a] ->([a],[a])
nextSequence f x = span f (dropWhile (not . f) x)
longestSubsequence :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
longestSubsequence _ x | null x = []
longestSubsequence f x =
longest $ (\y -> [fst y , longestSubsequence f $ snd y]) (nextSequence f x)
testSequence :: String
testSequence = longestSubsequence Data.Char.isUpper
"hkerhklehrERJKJKJERKJejkrjekERHkhkerHERKLJHERJKHKJHERdjfkj"
At first, you can define your longest like this:
import Data.Function
import Data.List
longest :: [[a]] -> [a]
longest = maximumBy (compare `on` length)
And to get all subsequences that satisfy a given condition you can write a function like this:
import Data.List
getSatisfyingSubseqs :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [[a]]
getSatisfyingSubseqs f = filter (f . head) . groupBy same
where same x y = f x == f y
Here we group elements where the condition yields the same result and filter only subsequences that satisfy the condition.
In the total:
longestSubsequence :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
longestSubsequence f = longest . getSatisfyingSubseqs f
UPDATE: And if you want to make it shorter, you can just throw out the auxiliary functions and write the whole at a time:
longestSubsequence :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
longestSubsequence f = maximumBy (compare `on` length) . filter (f . head) . groupBy same
where same x y = f x == f y
(Don't forget the imports)
You can run it there: https://repl.it/#Yuri12358/so-longestsequence
The span :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a], [a]) function could be very handy here. Also note that f <$> (a,b) = (a,f b). Probably not very efficient due to the length checks but it should do the job.
lss :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
lss f [] = []
lss f ls#(x:xs) = if f x then longer (lss f <$> span f ls)
else lss f xs
where
longer ::([a],[a]) -> [a]
longer (xs,ys) = if length xs >= length ys then xs else ys
Your longer function uses length, which means it doesn't work if either input is infinite. However, it can be improved to work when at most one is infinite:
longer l1 l2 = go l1 l2
where
go [] _ = l2
go _ [] = l1
go (_:xs) (_:ys) = go xs ys
This is also a performance optimization. Before, if you had a 10-element list and a 10-million-element list, it would walk through all 10 million elements of the 10-million-element list before returning it. Here, it will return it as soon as it gets to the 11th element instead.
I try to learn haskell and have exercise -try to rewrite standart list operation(map, foldr, zip, iterate, etc.) with function fix.
I have example with repeat:
repeat a = fix $ \xs -> a : xs
and it's further simplify
repeat a = fix (a:)
repeat = fix . (:)
Can anyone help me with map?
Sorry for my bad engl and thank u in advance.
To use fix, one needs to write the recursive definition in the form
map = .... something involving map ....
Then, we let
map = fix (\m -> .... something involving m ....)
For instance,
map = \f xs -> case xs of
[] -> []
y:ys -> f y : map f ys
so,
map = fix (\m f xs -> case xs of
[] -> []
y:ys -> f y : m f ys)
Alternatively, since the argument f is the same for each recursive call, we can let
map f = \xs -> case xs of
[] -> []
y:ys -> f y : map f ys
and obtain
map f = fix (\m xs -> case xs of
[] -> []
y:ys -> f y : m ys)
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
I'm looking for a function in haskell to zip two lists that may vary in length.
All zip functions I could find just drop all values of a lists that is longer than the other.
For example:
In my exercise I have two example lists.
If the first one is shorter than the second one I have to fill up using 0's. Otherwise I have to use 1's.
I'm not allowed to use any recursion. I just have to use higher order functions.
Is there any function I can use?
I really could not find any solution so far.
There is some structure to this problem, and here it comes. I'll be using this stuff:
import Control.Applicative
import Data.Traversable
import Data.List
First up, lists-with-padding are a useful concept, so let's have a type for them.
data Padme m = (:-) {padded :: [m], padder :: m} deriving (Show, Eq)
Next, I remember that the truncating-zip operation gives rise to an Applicative instance, in the library as newtype ZipList (a popular example of a non-Monad). The Applicative ZipList amounts to a decoration of the monoid given by infinity and minimum. Padme has a similar structure, except that its underlying monoid is positive numbers (with infinity), using one and maximum.
instance Applicative Padme where
pure = ([] :-)
(fs :- f) <*> (ss :- s) = zapp fs ss :- f s where
zapp [] ss = map f ss
zapp fs [] = map ($ s) fs
zapp (f : fs) (s : ss) = f s : zapp fs ss
I am obliged to utter the usual incantation to generate a default Functor instance.
instance Functor Padme where fmap = (<*>) . pure
Thus equipped, we can pad away! For example, the function which takes a ragged list of strings and pads them with spaces becomes a one liner.
deggar :: [String] -> [String]
deggar = transpose . padded . traverse (:- ' ')
See?
*Padme> deggar ["om", "mane", "padme", "hum"]
["om ","mane ","padme","hum "]
This can be expressed using These ("represents values with two non-exclusive possibilities") and Align ("functors supporting a zip operation that takes the union of non-uniform shapes") from the these library:
import Data.Align
import Data.These
zipWithDefault :: Align f => a -> b -> f a -> f b -> f (a, b)
zipWithDefault da db = alignWith (fromThese da db)
salign and the other specialised aligns in Data.Align are also worth having a look at.
Thanks to u/WarDaft, u/gallais and u/sjakobi over at r/haskell for pointing out this answer should exist here.
You can append an inifinte list of 0 or 1 to each list and then take the number you need from the result zipped list:
zipWithDefault :: a -> b -> [a] -> [b] -> [(a,b)]
zipWithDefault da db la lb = let len = max (length la) (length lb)
la' = la ++ (repeat da)
lb' = lb ++ (repeat db)
in take len $ zip la' lb'
This should do the trick:
import Data.Maybe (fromMaybe)
myZip dx dy xl yl =
map (\(x,y) -> (fromMaybe dx x, fromMaybe dy y)) $
takeWhile (/= (Nothing, Nothing)) $
zip ((map Just xl) ++ (repeat Nothing)) ((map Just yl) ++ (repeat Nothing))
main = print $ myZip 0 1 [1..10] [42,43,44]
Basically, append an infinite list of Nothing to the end of both lists, then zip them, and drop the results when both are Nothing. Then replace the Nothings with the appropriate default value, dropping the no longer needed Justs while you're at it.
No length, no counting, no hand-crafted recursions, no cooperating folds. transpose does the trick:
zipLongest :: a -> b -> [a] -> [b] -> [(a,b)]
zipLongest x y xs ys = map head . transpose $ -- longest length;
[ -- view from above:
zip xs
(ys ++ repeat y) -- with length of xs
, zip (xs ++ repeat x)
ys -- with length of ys
]
The result of transpose is as long a list as the longest one in its input list of lists. map head takes the first element in each "column", which is the pair we need, whichever the longest list was.
(update:) For an arbitrary number of lists, efficient padding to the maximal length -- aiming to avoid the potentially quadratic behaviour of other sequentially-combining approaches -- can follow the same idea:
padAll :: a -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
padAll x xss = transpose $
zipWith const
(transpose [xs ++ repeat x | xs <- xss]) -- pad all, and cut
(takeWhile id . map or . transpose $ -- to the longest list
[ (True <$ xs) ++ repeat False | xs <- xss])
> mapM_ print $ padAll '-' ["ommmmmmm", "ommmmmm", "ommmmm", "ommmm", "ommm",
"omm", "om", "o"]
"ommmmmmm"
"ommmmmm-"
"ommmmm--"
"ommmm---"
"ommm----"
"omm-----"
"om------"
"o-------"
You don't have to compare list lengths. Try to think about your zip function as a function taking only one argument xs and returning a function which will take ys and perform the required zip. Then, try to write a recursive function which recurses on xs only, as follows.
type Result = [Int] -> [(Int,Int)]
myZip :: [Int] -> Result
myZip [] = map (\y -> (0,y)) -- :: Result
myZip (x:xs) = f x (myZip xs) -- :: Result
where f x k = ??? -- :: Result
Once you have found f, notice that you can turn the recursion above into a fold!
As you said yourself, the standard zip :: [a] -> [b] -> [(a, b)] drops elements from the longer list. To amend for this fact you can modify your input before giving it to zip. First you will have to find out which list is the shorter one (most likely, using length). E.g.,
zip' x xs y ys | length xs <= length ys = ...
| otherwise = ...
where x is the default value for shorter xs and y the default value for shorter ys.
Then you extend the shorter list with the desired default elements (enough to account for the additional elements of the other list). A neat trick for doing so without having to know the length of the longer list is to use the function repeat :: a -> [a] that repeats its argument infinitely often.
zip' x xs y ys | length xs <= length ys = zip {-do something with xs-} ys
| otherwise = zip xs {-do something with ys-}
Here is another solution, that does work on infinite lists and is a straightforward upgrade of Prelude's zip functions:
zipDefault :: a -> b -> [a] -> [b] -> [(a,b)]
zipDefault _da _db [] [] = []
zipDefault da db (a:as) [] = (a,db) : zipDefault da db as []
zipDefault da db [] (b:bs) = (da,b) : zipDefault da db [] bs
zipDefault da db (a:as) (b:bs) = (a,b) : zipDefault da db as bs
and
zipDefaultWith :: a -> b -> (a->b->c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
zipDefaultWith _da _db _f [] [] = []
zipDefaultWith da db f (a:as) [] = f a db : zipDefaultWith da db f as []
zipDefaultWith da db f [] (b:bs) = f da b : zipDefaultWith da db f [] bs
zipDefaultWith da db f (a:as) (b:bs) = f a b : zipDefaultWith da db f as bs
#pigworker, thank you for your enlightening solution!
Yet another implementation:
zipWithDefault :: a -> b -> (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
zipWithDefault dx _ f [] ys = zipWith f (repeat dx) ys
zipWithDefault _ dy f xs [] = zipWith f xs (repeat dy)
zipWithDefault dx dy f (x:xs) (y:ys) = f x y : zipWithDefault dx dy f xs ys
And also:
zipDefault :: a -> b -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
zipDefault dx dy = zipWithDefault dx dy (,)
I would like to address the second part of Will Ness's solution, with its excellent use of known functions, by providing another to the original question.
zipPadWith :: a -> b -> (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
zipPadWith n _ f [] l = [f n x | x <- l]
zipPadWith _ m f l [] = [f x m | x <- l]
zipPadWith n m f (x:xs) (y:ys) = f x y : zipPadWith n m f xs ys
This function will pad a list with an element of choice. You can use a list of the same element repeated as many times as the number of lists in another like this:
rectangularWith :: a -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
rectangularWith _ [] = []
rectangularWith _ [ms] = [[m] | m <- ms]
rectangularWith n (ms:mss) = zipPadWith n [n | _ <- mss] (:) ms (rectangularWith n mss)
The end result will have been a transposed rectangular list of lists padded by the element that we provided so we only need to import transpose from Data.List and recover the order of the elements.
mapM_ print $ transpose $ rectangularWith 0 [[1,2,3,4],[5,6],[7,8],[9]]
[1,2,3,4]
[5,6,0,0]
[7,8,0,0]
[9,0,0,0]
I'm trying to write a function that takes a predicate f and a list and returns a list consisting of all items that satisfy f with preserved order. The trick is to do this using only higher order functions (HoF), no recursion, no comprehensions, and of course no filter.
You can express filter in terms of foldr:
filter p = foldr (\x xs-> if p x then x:xs else xs) []
I think you can use map this way:
filter' :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
filter' p xs = concat (map (\x -> if (p x) then [x] else []) xs)
You see? Convert the list in a list of lists, where if the element you want doesn't pass p, it turns to an empty list
filter' (> 1) [1 , 2, 3 ] would be: concat [ [], [2], [3]] = [2,3]
In prelude there is concatMap that makes the code simplier :P
the code should look like:
filter' :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
filter' p xs = concatMap (\x -> if (p x) then [x] else []) xs
using foldr, as suggested by sclv, can be done with something like this:
filter'' :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
filter'' p xs = foldr (\x y -> if p x then (x:y) else y) [] xs
You're obviously doing this to learn, so let me show you something cool. First up, to refresh our minds, the type of filter is:
filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
The interesting part of this is the last bit [a] -> [a]. It breaks down one list and it builds up a new list.
Recursive patterns are so common in Haskell (and other functional languages) that people have come up with names for some of these patterns. The simplest are the catamorphism and it's dual the anamorphism. I'll show you how this relates to your immediate problem at the end.
Fixed points
Prerequisite knowledge FTW!
What is the type of Nothing? Firing up GHCI, it says Nothing :: Maybe a and I wouldn't disagree. What about Just Nothing? Using GHCI again, it says Just Nothing :: Maybe (Maybe a) which is also perfectly valid, but what about the value that this a Nothing embedded within an arbitrary number, or even an infinite number, of Justs. ie, what is the type of this value:
foo = Just foo
Haskell doesn't actually allow such a definition, but with a slight tweak we can make such a type:
data Fix a = In { out :: a (Fix a) }
just :: Fix Maybe -> Fix Maybe
just = In . Just
nothing :: Fix Maybe
nothing = In Nothing
foo :: Fix Maybe
foo = just foo
Wooh, close enough! Using the same type, we can create arbitrarily nested nothings:
bar :: Fix Maybe
bar = just (just (just (just nothing)))
Aside: Peano arithmetic anyone?
fromInt :: Int -> Fix Maybe
fromInt 0 = nothing
fromInt n = just $ fromInt (n - 1)
toInt :: Fix Maybe -> Int
toInt (In Nothing) = 0
toInt (In (Just x)) = 1 + toInt x
This Fix Maybe type is a bit boring. Here's a type whose fixed-point is a list:
data L a r = Nil | Cons a r
type List a = Fix (L a)
This data type is going to be instrumental in demonstrating some recursion patterns.
Useful Fact: The r in Cons a r is called a recursion site
Catamorphism
A catamorphism is an operation that breaks a structure down. The catamorphism for lists is better known as a fold. Now the type of a catamorphism can be expressed like so:
cata :: (T a -> a) -> Fix T -> a
Which can be written equivalently as:
cata :: (T a -> a) -> (Fix T -> a)
Or in English as:
You give me a function that reduces a data type to a value and I'll give you a function that reduces it's fixed point to a value.
Actually, I lied, the type is really:
cata :: Functor T => (T a -> a) -> Fix T -> a
But the principle is the same. Notice, T is only parameterized over the type of the recursion sites, so the Functor part is really saying "Give me a way of manipulating all the recursion sites".
Then cata can be defined as:
cata f = f . fmap (cata f) . out
This is quite dense, let me elaborate. It's a three step process:
First, We're given a Fix t, which is a difficult type to play with, we can make it easier by applying out (from the definition of Fix) giving us a t (Fix t).
Next we want to convert the t (Fix t) into a t a, which we can do, via wishful thinking, using fmap (cata f); we're assuming we'll be able to construct cata.
Lastly, we have a t a and we want an a, so we just use f.
Earlier I said that the catamorphism for a list is called fold, but cata doesn't look much like a fold at the moment. Let's define a fold function in terms of cata.
Recapping, the list type is:
data L a r = Nil | Cons a r
type List a = Fix (L a)
This needs to be a functor to be useful, which is straight forward:
instance Functor (L a) where
fmap _ Nil = Nil
fmap f (Cons a r) = Cons a (f r)
So specializing cata we get:
cata :: (L x a -> a) -> List x -> a
We're practically there:
construct :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> L a b -> b
construct _ x (In Nil) = x
construct f _ (In (Cons e n)) = f e n
fold :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> List a -> b
fold f m = cata (construct f m)
OK, catamorphisms break data structures down one layer at a time.
Anamorphisms
Anamorphisms over lists are unfolds. Unfolds are less commonly known than there fold duals, they have a type like:
unfoldr :: (b -> Maybe (a, b)) -> b -> [a]
As you can see anamorphisms build up data structures. Here's the more general type:
ana :: Functor a => (a -> t a) -> a -> Fix t
This should immediately look quite familiar. The definition is also reminiscent of the catamorphism.
ana f = In . fmap (ana f) . f
It's just the same thing reversed. Constructing unfold from ana is even simpler than constructing fold from cata. Notice the structural similarity between Maybe (a, b) and L a b.
convert :: Maybe (a, b) -> L a b
convert Nothing = Nil
convert (Just (a, b)) = Cons a b
unfold :: (b -> Maybe (a, b)) -> b -> List a
unfold f = ana (convert . f)
Putting theory into practice
filter is an interesting function in that it can be constructed from a catamorphism or from an anamorphism. The other answers to this question (to date) have also used catamorphisms, but I'll define it both ways:
filter p = foldr (\x xs -> if p x then x:xs else xs) []
filter p =
unfoldr (f p)
where
f _ [] =
Nothing
f p (x:xs) =
if p x then
Just (x, xs)
else
f p xs
Yes, yes, I know I used a recursive definition in the unfold version, but forgive me, I taught you lots of theory and anyway filter isn't recursive.
I'd suggest you look at foldr.
Well, are ifs and empty list allowed?
filter = (\f -> (>>= (\x -> if (f x) then return x else [])))
For a list of Integers
filter2::(Int->Bool)->[Int]->[Int]
filter2 f []=[]
filter2 f (hd:tl) = if f hd then hd:filter2 f tl
else filter2 f tl
I couldn't resist answering this question in another way, this time with no recursion at all.
-- This is a type hack to allow the y combinator to be represented
newtype Mu a = Roll { unroll :: Mu a -> a }
-- This is the y combinator
fix f = (\x -> f ((unroll x) x))(Roll (\x -> f ((unroll x) x)))
filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
filter =
fix filter'
where
-- This is essentially a recursive definition of filter
-- except instead of calling itself, it calls f, a function that's passed in
filter' _ _ [] = []
filter' f p (x:xs) =
if p x then
(x:f p xs)
else
f p xs