I have a problem. I have a task that can't solve on my own. Here is the deal:
extPair :: Eq a => [(a,b)] -> [(a,[b])]
If I want to call this with:
extPair [(3,"pear"),(3,"fog"),(4,"dog"),(4,"x"),(3,"y")]
Should give the following result:
[(3, ["pear", "fog"]), (4, ["dog", "x"]), (3, ["y"])] :: [(Integer, [[Char]])]
All I know now is:
extPair [] = []
extPair (x:xs)
| length (x:xs) >= 2 && fst x == fst (head xs) = [(fst x, [snd x, snd (head xs)])] ++ extPair (drop 1 xs)
| otherwise = [(fst x, [snd x])]
This works fine for the example, but it doesn't work on the following, and I don't know how to make it, so I ask Your help. I would like to add as many pairs as I want like:
extPair [(3,"pear"),(3,"fog"),(3,"dark"),(3,"etc"), ... ,(4,"dog"),(4,"x"),(3,"y"),(3,"z")]
So the result should be:
[(3, ["pear", "fog", "dark", "etc", "...", "...", ...]), (4, ["dog", "x"]), (3, ["y", "z"])] :: [(Integer, [[Char]])]
Yet another solution using the foldr function:
extPair :: Eq a => [(a,b)] -> [(a,[b])]
extPair = foldr f []
where
f (key, elem) [] = [(key, [elem])]
f (key1, elem) l#((key2, elems):xs)
| key1 == key2 = (key2,elem:elems):xs
| otherwise = (key1,[elem]):l
You can start by pre-processing the list with groupBy:
> import Data.List
> import Data.Function
> groupBy ((==) `on` fst) [(3,"pear"),(3,"fog"),(4,"dog"),(4,"x"),(3,"y")]
[[(3,"pear"),(3,"fog")],[(4,"dog"),(4,"x")],[(3,"y")]]
From there, use map f for a suitable f.
If you instead want to write your own code, consider recursion:
extPair ((n,s):xs) = ???
where ys = extPair xs
the logic here would something like: if ys starts with (n,zs), then prepend s to zs, otherwise prepend (n,[s]) to ys.
Related
I need to compare if all elements of a given list are unique.
(For the record I am doing so for academic purposes.)
Here is what I have thus far:
allDifferent :: (Eq a) => [a] -> Bool
allDifferent list = case list of
[] -> True
(x:xs) -> if x `elem` xs then False else allDifferent xs
Which works wonderfully!
Now, when I try to do it like this...
allDifferent2 :: (Eq a) => [a] -> Bool
allDifferent2 list
| null list = True
| (head list) `elem` (tail list) || allDifferent2 (tail list) = False
| otherwise
It just doesn't work as intended.
I get the following output from GHCi:
*Main> allDifferent2 [1..4]
False
*Main> allDifferent2 [1..5]
True
*Main> allDifferent2 [1..6]
False
*Main> allDifferent2 [1..7]
True
i.e. For every list with an even amount of elements it outputs False and for an odd amount of elements, True.
What am I missing?
Would anyone care to shine some light?
An alternative exploiting notElem:
allDifferent :: (Eq a) => [a] -> Bool
allDifferent list = case list of
[] -> True
(x:xs) -> x `notElem` xs && allDifferent xs
Minor variant, using pattern matching directly in the equations:
allDifferent :: (Eq a) => [a] -> Bool
allDifferent [] = True
allDifferent (x:xs) = x `notElem` xs && allDifferent xs
I tend to stay away from partial functions like head,tail, so the variants based on guards look worse to me.
I would do this differently. Recursion + elem is O(n²). Alternatively you can first sort the list, and then compare elements pairwise. This way the sorting is O(n⋅log n), and the traversal O(n). So overall O(n⋅log n):
import Data.List
allDifferent :: (Ord a, Eq a) => [a] -> Bool
allDifferent = comparePairwise.sort
comparePairwise :: Eq a => [a] -> Bool
comparePairwise [] = True
comparePairwise [_] = True
comparePairwise (x:y:xs)
| x == y = False
| otherwise = comparePairwise (y : xs)
You can rely on library functions: allDifferent xs = nub xs == xs.
Or, written in point-free notation: allDifferent = uncurry (==) . (nub &&& id).
Using Data.Discrimination.nub, this happens in O(n) time.
The simplest reasonable idiomatic approach I can think of is
allDifferent :: Ord a => [a] -> Bool
allDifferent = pairwiseDifferent . sort
pairwiseDifferent :: Eq a => [a] -> Bool
pairwiseDifferent xs = and $ zipWith (/=) xs (drop 1 xs)
For fun with folds,
import Data.Maybe
pairwiseDifferent xs = foldr go (const True) xs Nothing
where
go x k Nothing = k (Just x)
go x k (Just prev) = x /= prev && k (Just x)
Another option is to use a Set (some of the strictness annotations may not actually be necessary):
import qualified Data.Set as S
allDifferent xs = foldr go (\s -> s `seq` True) xs S.empty
where
go x k s
| S.member x s = False
| otherwise = k $! S.insert x s
Try this:
allDifferent2::(Eq a) => [a] -> Bool
allDifferent2 list
| list == [] = True
| (head list) `elem` (tail list) = False
| otherwise = allDifferent2(tail list)
If the list is [] you should return True (As #bheklilr said :) )
If the list isn't null, you can verify if the first element is in the tail of the list. If it is, return False. Okay.
But when you say "if it is in the tail of the list OR allDifferent2 (tail list)" you are killing your function. "If all the elements are different in this list, return FALSE", and that isn't what you want.
EDIT: Yeah, it will #Luis. I fixed that by putting that "otherwise" there. When I put the guard before the allDifferent2(tail list) it checked if this function returned True. Thus it would work for [1, 1, 2] (my test-case) but not for [1, 2, 2] (similar to your case).
Sort the list, group runs of equal elements together, and check if all groups have exactly one element.
import Data.List (group, sort)
pairwiseDistinct :: Ord a => [a] -> Bool
pairwiseDistinct xs = all (\ys -> null (tail ys)) (group (sort xs))
Point-free version:
pairwiseDistinct = all (null . tail) . group . sort
This assumes that for any two elements x and y, x == y if and only if compare x y == EQ.
tail is fine here because none of the groups will ever be empty, but you can substitute drop 1 if you're averse to partial functions.
allDifferent [] = True
allDifferent (h:t) =
let (e,(l,r)) = segment h t
in e && allDifferent l && allDifferent r
segment p [] = (True,([],[])))
segment p (h:s)
| p > h = let (e,(l,r)) = segment p s in (e,(l,h:r))
| p < h = let (e,(l,r)) = segment p s in (e,(h:l,r))
| otherwise = (False,([],[])))
As you can see the structure of this solution is very similar to quickSort.
It shares as an intermediate data structure a binary tree and for that reason, the time complexity is extremely similar.
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'm trying to write a function that deletes the second occurrence of an element in a list.
Currently, I've written a function that removes the first element:
removeFirst _ [] = []
removeFirst a (x:xs) | a == x = xs
| otherwise = x : removeFirst a xs
as a starting point. However,I'm not sure this function can be accomplished with list comprehension. Is there a way to implement this using map?
EDIT: Now I have added a removeSecond function which calls the first
deleteSecond :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [a]
deleteSecond _ [] = []
deleteSecond a (x:xs) | x==a = removeFirst a xs
| otherwise = x:removeSecond a xs
However now the list that is returned removes the first AND second occurrence of an element.
Well, assuming you've got removeFirst - how about searching for the first occurence, and then using removeFirst on the remaining list?
removeSecond :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [a]
removeSecond _ [] = []
removeSecond a (x:xs) | x==a = x:removeFirst a xs
| otherwise = x:removeSecond a xs
You could also implement this as a fold.
removeNth :: Eq a => Int -> a -> [a] -> [a]
removeNth n a = concatMap snd . scanl go (0,[])
where go (m,_) b | a /= b = (m, [b])
| n /= m = (m+1, [b])
| otherwise = (m+1, [])
and in action:
λ removeNth 0 1 [1,2,3,1]
[2,3,1]
λ removeNth 1 1 [1,2,3,1]
[1,2,3]
I used scanl rather than foldl or foldr so it could both pass state left-to-right and work on infinite lists:
λ take 11 . removeNth 3 'a' $ cycle "abc"
"abcabcabcbc"
Here is an instinctive implementation using functions provided by List:
import List (elemIndices);
removeSecond x xs = case elemIndices x xs of
(_:i:_) -> (take i xs) ++ (drop (i+1) xs)
_ -> xs
removeNth n x xs = let indies = elemIndices x xs
in if length indies < n
then xs
else let idx = indies !! (n-1)
in (take idx xs) ++ (drop (idx+1) xs)
Note: This one cannot handle infinite list, and its performance may not be good for very large list.
Is there a better and more concise way to write the following code in Haskell? I've tried using if..else but that is getting less readable than the following. I want to avoid traversing the xs list (which is huge!) 8 times to just separate the elements into 8 groups. groupBy from Data.List takes only one test condition function: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [[a]].
x1 = filter (check condition1) xs
x2 = filter (check condition2) xs
x3 = filter (check condition3) xs
x4 = filter (check condition4) xs
x5 = filter (check condition5) xs
x6 = filter (check condition6) xs
x7 = filter (check condition7) xs
x8 = filter (check condition8) xs
results = [x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7,x8]
This only traverses the list once:
import Data.Functor
import Control.Monad
filterN :: [a -> Bool] -> [a] -> [[a]]
filterN ps =
map catMaybes . transpose .
map (\x -> map (\p -> x <$ guard (p x)) ps)
For each element of the list, the map produces a list of Maybes, each Maybe corresponding to one of the predicates; it is Nothing if the element does not satisfy the predicate, or Just x if it does satisfy the predicate. Then, the transpose shuffles all these lists so that the list is organised by predicate, rather than by element, and the map catMaybes discards the entries for elements that did not satisfy a predicate.
Some explanation: x <$ m is fmap (const x) m, and for Maybe, guard b is if b then Just () else Nothing, so x <$ guard b is if b then Just x else Nothing.
The map could also be written as map (\x -> [x <$ guard (p x) | p <- ps]).
If you insist on one traversing the list only once, you can write
filterMulti :: [a -> Bool] -> [a] -> [[a]]
filterMulti fs xs = go (reverse xs) (repeat []) where
go [] acc = acc
go (y:ys) acc = go ys $ zipWith (\f a -> if f y then y:a else a) fs acc
map (\ cond -> filter (check cond) xs) [condition1, condition2, ..., condition8]
I think you could use groupWith from GHC.Exts.
If you write the a -> b function to assign every element in xs its 'class', I belive groupWith would split xs just the way you want it to, traversing the list just once.
groupBy doesn't really do what you're wanting; even if it did accept multiple predicate functions, it doesn't do any filtering on the list. It just groups together contiguous runs of list elements that satisfy some condition. Even if your filter conditions, when combined, cover all of the elements in the supplied list, this is still a different operation. For instance, groupBy won't modify the order of the list elements, nor will it have the possibility of including a given element more than once in the result, while your operation can do both of those things.
This function will do what you're looking for:
import Control.Applicative
filterMulti :: [a -> Bool] -> [a] -> [[a]]
filterMulti ps as = filter <$> ps <*> pure as
As an example:
> filterMulti [(<2), (>=5)] [2, 5, 1, -2, 5, 1, 7, 3, -20, 76, 8]
[[1, -2, 1, -20], [5, 5, 7, 76, 8]]
As an addendum to nietaki's answer (this should be a comment but it's too long, so if his answer is correct, accept his!), the function a -> b could be written as a series of nested if ... then .. else, but that is not very idiomatic Haskell and not very extensible. This might be slightly better:
import Data.List (elemIndex)
import GHC.Exts (groupWith)
f xs = groupWith test xs
where test x = elemIndex . map ($ x) $ [condition1, ..., condition8]
It categorises each element by the first condition_ it satisfies (and puts those that don't satisfy any into their own category).
(The documentation for elemIndex is here.)
The first function will return a list of "uppdated" lists and the second function will go through the whole list and for each value uppdate the list
myfilter :: a -> [a -> Bool] -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
myfilter _ [] [] = []
myfilter x f:fs l:ls | f x = (x:l): Myfilter x fs ls
| otherwise = l:Myfilter x fs ls
filterall :: [a] -> [a -> Bool] -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
filterall [] _ l = l
filterall x:xs fl l:ls = filterall xs fl (myfilter x fl l)
This should be called with filterall xs [condition1,condition2...] [[],[]...]
okay, this is probably going to be in the prelude, but: is there a standard library function for finding the unique elements in a list? my (re)implementation, for clarification, is:
has :: (Eq a) => [a] -> a -> Bool
has [] _ = False
has (x:xs) a
| x == a = True
| otherwise = has xs a
unique :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a]
unique [] = []
unique (x:xs)
| has xs x = unique xs
| otherwise = x : unique xs
I searched for (Eq a) => [a] -> [a] on Hoogle.
First result was nub (remove duplicate elements from a list).
Hoogle is awesome.
The nub function from Data.List (no, it's actually not in the Prelude) definitely does something like what you want, but it is not quite the same as your unique function. They both preserve the original order of the elements, but unique retains the last
occurrence of each element, while nub retains the first occurrence.
You can do this to make nub act exactly like unique, if that's important (though I have a feeling it's not):
unique = reverse . nub . reverse
Also, nub is only good for small lists.
Its complexity is quadratic, so it starts to get slow if your list can contain hundreds of elements.
If you limit your types to types having an Ord instance, you can make it scale better.
This variation on nub still preserves the order of the list elements, but its complexity is O(n * log n):
import qualified Data.Set as Set
nubOrd :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
nubOrd xs = go Set.empty xs where
go s (x:xs)
| x `Set.member` s = go s xs
| otherwise = x : go (Set.insert x s) xs
go _ _ = []
In fact, it has been proposed to add nubOrd to Data.Set.
import Data.Set (toList, fromList)
uniquify lst = toList $ fromList lst
I think that unique should return a list of elements that only appear once in the original list; that is, any elements of the orginal list that appear more than once should not be included in the result.
May I suggest an alternative definition, unique_alt:
unique_alt :: [Int] -> [Int]
unique_alt [] = []
unique_alt (x:xs)
| elem x ( unique_alt xs ) = [ y | y <- ( unique_alt xs ), y /= x ]
| otherwise = x : ( unique_alt xs )
Here are some examples that highlight the differences between unique_alt and unqiue:
unique [1,2,1] = [2,1]
unique_alt [1,2,1] = [2]
unique [1,2,1,2] = [1,2]
unique_alt [1,2,1,2] = []
unique [4,2,1,3,2,3] = [4,1,2,3]
unique_alt [4,2,1,3,2,3] = [4,1]
I think this would do it.
unique [] = []
unique (x:xs) = x:unique (filter ((/=) x) xs)
Another way to remove duplicates:
unique :: [Int] -> [Int]
unique xs = [x | (x,y) <- zip xs [0..], x `notElem` (take y xs)]
Algorithm in Haskell to create a unique list:
data Foo = Foo { id_ :: Int
, name_ :: String
} deriving (Show)
alldata = [ Foo 1 "Name"
, Foo 2 "Name"
, Foo 3 "Karl"
, Foo 4 "Karl"
, Foo 5 "Karl"
, Foo 7 "Tim"
, Foo 8 "Tim"
, Foo 9 "Gaby"
, Foo 9 "Name"
]
isolate :: [Foo] -> [Foo]
isolate [] = []
isolate (x:xs) = (fst f) : isolate (snd f)
where
f = foldl helper (x,[]) xs
helper (a,b) y = if name_ x == name_ y
then if id_ x >= id_ y
then (x,b)
else (y,b)
else (a,y:b)
main :: IO ()
main = mapM_ (putStrLn . show) (isolate alldata)
Output:
Foo {id_ = 9, name_ = "Name"}
Foo {id_ = 9, name_ = "Gaby"}
Foo {id_ = 5, name_ = "Karl"}
Foo {id_ = 8, name_ = "Tim"}
A library-based solution:
We can use that style of Haskell programming where all looping and recursion activities are pushed out of user code and into suitable library functions. Said library functions are often optimized in ways that are way beyond the skills of a Haskell beginner.
A way to decompose the problem into two passes goes like this:
produce a second list that is parallel to the input list, but with duplicate elements suitably marked
eliminate elements marked as duplicates from that second list
For the first step, duplicate elements don't need a value at all, so we can use [Maybe a] as the type of the second list. So we need a function of type:
pass1 :: Eq a => [a] -> [Maybe a]
Function pass1 is an example of stateful list traversal where the state is the list (or set) of distinct elements seen so far. For this sort of problem, the library provides the mapAccumL :: (s -> a -> (s, b)) -> s -> [a] -> (s, [b]) function.
Here the mapAccumL function requires, besides the initial state and the input list, a step function argument, of type s -> a -> (s, Maybe a).
If the current element x is not a duplicate, the output of the step function is Just x and x gets added to the current state. If x is a duplicate, the output of the step function is Nothing, and the state is passed unchanged.
Testing under the ghci interpreter:
$ ghci
GHCi, version 8.8.4: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
λ>
λ> stepFn s x = if (elem x s) then (s, Nothing) else (x:s, Just x)
λ>
λ> import Data.List(mapAccumL)
λ>
λ> pass1 xs = mapAccumL stepFn [] xs
λ>
λ> xs2 = snd $ pass1 "abacrba"
λ> xs2
[Just 'a', Just 'b', Nothing, Just 'c', Just 'r', Nothing, Nothing]
λ>
Writing a pass2 function is even easier. To filter out Nothing non-values, we could use:
import Data.Maybe( fromJust, isJust)
pass2 = (map fromJust) . (filter isJust)
but why bother at all ? - as this is precisely what the catMaybes library function does.
λ>
λ> import Data.Maybe(catMaybes)
λ>
λ> catMaybes xs2
"abcr"
λ>
Putting it all together:
Overall, the source code can be written as:
import Data.Maybe(catMaybes)
import Data.List(mapAccumL)
uniques :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a]
uniques = let stepFn s x = if (elem x s) then (s, Nothing) else (x:s, Just x)
in catMaybes . snd . mapAccumL stepFn []
This code is reasonably compatible with infinite lists, something occasionally referred to as being “laziness-friendly”:
λ>
λ> take 5 $ uniques $ "abacrba" ++ (cycle "abcrf")
"abcrf"
λ>
Efficiency note:
If we anticipate that it is possible to find many distinct elements in the input list and we can have an Ord a instance, the state can be implemented as a Set object rather than a plain list, this without having to alter the overall structure of the solution.
Here's a solution that uses only Prelude functions:
uniqueList theList =
if not (null theList)
then head theList : filter (/= head theList) (uniqueList (tail theList))
else []
I'm assuming this is equivalent to running two or three nested "for" loops (running through each element, then running through each element again to check for other elements with the same value, then removing those other elements) so I'd estimate this is O(n^2) or O(n^3)
Might even be better than reversing a list, nubbing it, then reversing it again, depending on your circumstances.