I want to mix values using two lists:
List1 : [3; 2; 8; 1; 9; 3; 6]
List2: [5; 7; 0]
Output : [3; 5; 2; 7; 8; 0; 1; 9; 3; 6]
I only found info about list with the same length what about this example when i have diffrent ?
The same length :
let rec mix =function
|(x::xs,y::ys) -> x::y::(mix (xs,ys))
|([],[]) -> []
| _ -> failwith "mix:param";;
mix ([3;2;8;1;9;3;6], [5; 7; 0]) ;;
The best way to break this down is by considering each possible case for a particular step. You currently have:
|(x::xs,y::ys) This is the case where each of the lists has at least one more item left
|([],[]) This is the case where both lists are empty
_ This case handles everything else.
So the cases you are missing are the cases where one list is empty and the other list has at least one item left. Those cases are |(x::xs,[]) and |([],y::ys). So add those two options to your match statement like so:
let rec mix =function
|(x::xs,[]) |([],y::ys) -> failwith "do something here"
|(x::xs,y::ys) -> x::y::(mix (xs,ys))
|([],[]) -> []
| _ -> failwith "mix:param"
You'll notice that you now get a warning indicating that the last case will never be matched so it can be removed like so:
let rec mix =function
|([],[]) -> []
|(x,[]) |([],x) -> failwith "test"
|(x::xs,y::ys) -> x::y::(mix (xs,ys))
Notice how I moved the base case to the top so it gets matched before (x,[]) or ([], x). Now all that is needed is code to handle those last two cases. It looks like this:
|(x,[]) |([],x) -> x i.e. return the rest of the values in the list.
So the final solution looks like this:
let rec mix =function
|([],[]) -> []
|(x,[]) |([],x) -> x
|(x::xs,y::ys) -> x::y::(mix (xs,ys))
A further sneaky optimization you could make would be to remove the base case entirely since it will be covered by the second case. I.e (x,[]) also matches ([],[]) and will return [] as desired. This leaves us with just:
let rec mix =function
|(x,[]) |([],x) -> x
|(x::xs,y::ys) -> x::y::(mix (xs,ys))
Step 1: understand the example
This isn't too hard if you have a good understanding what the example function does. Make sure that you know what the following mean; look them up if you are unsure (search web/Stackoverflow):
Recursion
Basic F# pattern matching
Cons (::), both as an operator to create a list and as a pattern
F# list expressions [...], again both to create lists and as a pattern
If you fully understand the original function, you only need to remove the case(s) you no longer need from the pattern match, and add the new cases: how to finish mixing when reaching the end of one list.
So, I recommend that you solve it yourself before reading the second part of this answer. The MSDN reference for F# is a good place to start. For example, see this page for rules and examples on pattern matching.
Step 2: Solution variant (read Step 1 first!)
Modifying the original function isn't all you can do in this case. Here's a proposal with some improvements:
let rec private mixAux acc = function
| h1 :: t1, h2 :: t2 -> mixAux (h2 :: h1 :: acc) (t1, t2)
| [], t | t, [] -> List.rev acc # t
let mix l1 l2 = mixAux [] (l1, l2)
mix [3; 2; 8; 1; 9; 3; 6] [5; 7; 0] // yields [3; 5; 2; 7; 8; 0; 1; 9; 3; 6]
There are multiple techniques at work here which you might want to look up:
The line beginning with | [], t | t, [] is an or pattern where two cases have only one body. t is matched either one way or the other, but used in the same expression in both cases.
The use of an accumulator, acc, helps to make the function tail recursive. Look up tail recursion if the function needs to work on long inputs or needs to be fast.
The use of private hides the original "auxiliary" function and exposes a function that takes arguments in curried form, and doesn't need the accumulator argument when called.
The code in the question does not follow common formatting conventions. For example, function bodies are usually indented and commas usually followed by a space. See for example this page on formatting conventions for a starting point on how many people format F#.
Well, there are really only four cases, so here is a naive way of doing it:
let rec mx xs ys =
match (xs, ys) with
| (x::xs, y::ys) -> x:: y :: (mx xs ys)
| ([], y::ys) -> y :: (mx [] ys)
| (x::xs, []) -> x :: (mx xs [])
| ([], []) -> []
Related
Important: I am only allowed to use List.head, List.tail and List.length
No List.map List.rev ...........etc
Only List.hd, List.tl and List.length
How to duplicate the elements of a list in a list of lists only if the length of the list is odd
Here is the code I tried:
let rec listes_paires x =
if x=[] then []
else [List.hd (List.hd x)]
# (List.tl (List.hd x))
# listes_paires (List.tl x);;
(* editor's note: I don't know where this line is supposed to go*)
if List.length mod 2 = 1 then []
For exemple:
lists_odd [[]; [1];[1;2];[1;2;3];[];[5;4;3;2;1]];;
returns
[[]; [1; 1]; [1; 2]; [1; 2; 3; 1; 2; 3]; []; [5; 4; 3; 2; 1; 5; 4; 3; 2; 1]]
Any help would be very appreciated
thank you all
It looks like that your exercise is about writing recursive functions on lists so that you can learn how to write functions like List.length, List.filter, and so on.
Start with the most simple recursive function, the one that computes the length to the list. Recall, that you can pattern match on the input list structure and make decisions on it, e.g.,
let rec length xs = match xs with
| [] -> 0 (* the empty list has size zero *)
| hd :: tl ->
(* here you can call `length` and it will return you
the length of the list hing how you can use it to
compute the length of the list that is made of `tl`
prepended with `hd` *)
???
The trick is to first write the simple cases and then write the complex cases assuming that your recursive function already works. Don't overthink it and don't try to compute how recursion will work in your head. It will make it hurt :) Just write correctly the base cases (the simple cases) and make sure that you call your function recursively and correctly combine the results while assuming that it works correctly. It is called the induction principle and it works, believe me :)
The above length function was easy as it was producing an integer as output and it was very easy to build it, e.g., you can use + to build a new integer from other integers, something that we have learned very early in our lives so it doesn't surprise us. But what if we want to build something more complex (in fact it is not more complex but just less common to us), e.g., a list data structure? Well, it is the same, we can just use :: instead of + to add things to our result.
So, lets try writing the filter function that will recurse over the input list and build a new list from the elements that satisfy the given predicate,
let rec filter xs keep = match xs with
| [] -> (* the simple case - no elements nothing to filter *)
[]
| x :: xs ->
(* we call filter and it returns the correctly filtered list *)
let filtered = filter xs keep in
(* now we need to decide what to do with `x` *)
if keep x then (* how to build a list from `x` and `filtered`?*)
else filtered (* keep filtering *)
The next trick to learn with recursive functions is how to employ helper functions that add an extra state (also called an accumulator). For example, the rev function, which reverses a list, is much better to define with an extra accumulator. Yes, we can easily define it without it,
let rec rev xs = match xs with
| [] -> []
| x :: xs -> rev xs # [x]
But this is an extremely bad idea as # operator will have to go to the end of the first list and build a completely new list on the road to add only one element. That is our rev implementation will have quadratic performance, i.e., for a list of n elements it will build n list each having n elements in it, only to drop most of them. So a more efficient implementation will employ a helper function that will have an extra parameter, an accumulator,
let rev xs =
(* we will pump elements from xs to ys *)
let rec loop xs ys = match xs with
| [] -> ys (* nothing more to pump *)
| x :: xs ->
let ys = (* push y to ys *) in
(* continue pumping *) in
loop xs []
This trick will also help you in implementing your tasks, as you need to filter by the position of the element. That means that your recursive function needs an extra state that counts the position (increments by one on each recursive step through the list elements). So you will need a helper function with an extra parameter for that counter.
I'm trying to learn haskell by solving some online problems and training exercises.
Right now I'm trying to make a function that'd remove adjacent duplicates from a list.
Sample Input
"acvvca"
"1456776541"
"abbac"
"aabaabckllm"
Expected Output
""
""
"c"
"ckm"
My first though was to make a function that'd simply remove first instance of adjacent duplicates and restore the list.
module Test where
removeAdjDups :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a]
removeAdjDups [] = []
removeAdjDups [x] = [x]
removeAdjDups (x : y : ys)
| x == y = removeAdjDups ys
| otherwise = x : removeAdjDups (y : ys)
*Test> removeAdjDups "1233213443"
"122133"
This func works for first found pairs.
So now I need to apply same function over the result of the function.
Something I think foldl can help with but I don't know how I'd go about implementing it.
Something along the line of
removeAdjDups' xs = foldl (\acc x -> removeAdjDups x acc) xs
Also is this approach the best way to implement the solution or is there a better way I should be thinking of?
Start in last-first order: first remove duplicates from the tail, then check if head of the input equals to head of the tail result (which, by this moment, won't have any duplicates, so the only possible pair is head of the input vs. head of the tail result):
main = mapM_ (print . squeeze) ["acvvca", "1456776541", "abbac", "aabaabckllm"]
squeeze :: Eq a => [a] -> [a]
squeeze (x:xs) = let ys = squeeze xs in case ys of
(y:ys') | x == y -> ys'
_ -> x:ys
squeeze _ = []
Outputs
""
""
"c"
"ckm"
I don't see how foldl could be used for this. (Generally, foldl pretty much combines the disadvantages of foldr and foldl'... those, or foldMap, are the folds you should normally be using, not foldl.)
What you seem to intend is: repeating the removeAdjDups, until no duplicates are found anymore. The repetition is a job for
iterate :: (a -> a) -> a -> [a]
like
Prelude> iterate removeAdjDups "1233213443"
["1233213443","122133","11","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","",""...
This is an infinite list of ever reduced lists. Generally, it will not converge to the empty list; you'll want to add some termination condition. If you want to remove as many dups as necessary, that's the fixpoint; it can be found in a very similar way to how you implemented removeAdjDups: compare neighbor elements, just this time in the list of reductions.
bipll's suggestion to handle recursive duplicates is much better though, it avoids unnecessary comparisons and traversing the start of the list over and over.
List comprehensions are often overlooked. They are, of course syntactic sugar but some, like me are addicted. First off, strings are lists as they are. This functions could handle any list, too as well as singletons and empty lists. You can us map to process many lists in a list.
(\l -> [ x | (x,y) <- zip l $ (tail l) ++ " ", x /= y]) "abcddeeffa"
"abcdefa"
I don't see either how to use foldl. It's maybe because, if you want to fold something here, you have to use foldr.
main = mapM_ (print . squeeze) ["acvvca", "1456776541", "abbac", "aabaabckllm"]
-- I like the name in #bipll answer
squeeze = foldr (\ x xs -> if xs /= "" && x == head(xs) then tail(xs) else x:xs) ""
Let's analyze this. The idea is taken from #bipll answer: go from right to left. If f is the lambda function, then by definition of foldr:
squeeze "abbac" = f('a' f('b' f('b' f('a' f('c' "")))
By definition of f, f('c' "") = 'c':"" = "c" since xs == "". Next char from the right: f('a' "c") = 'a':"c" = "ac" since 'a' != head("c") = 'c'. f('b' "ac") = "bac" for the same reason. But f('b' "bac") = tail("bac") = "ac" because 'b' == head("bac"). And so forth...
Bonus: by replacing foldr with scanr, you can see the whole process:
Prelude> squeeze' = scanr (\ x xs -> if xs /= "" && x == head(xs) then tail(xs) else x:xs) ""
Prelude> zip "abbac" (squeeze' "abbac")
[('a',"c"),('b',"ac"),('b',"bac"),('a',"ac"),('c',"c")]
I'm supposed to remove consecutive duplicates from an int list without using recursion and using only List.fold, map, filter, fold_left, fold_right.
I almost got it, but the problem with my code is that it checks if each element equals the 2nd element, and not the next element.
For example if let z = int list [3;1;4;5;5;1;1] my code will return [3;4;5] and not [3;1;4;5;1]. I'm not sure how to change it so filter uses a dynamically changing list parameter and not simply the original one (so it doesn't compare each element to the second element (1 in this case) each time):
let dupe (ls: int list) : int list =
List.filter (fun x -> if List.length ls = 0 then true else if x = List.hd (List.tl xs) then false else true) ls
The type of List.filter is this:
# List.filter;;
- : ('a -> bool) -> 'a list -> 'a list = <fun>
Notably, the filter function can see only one element of the list at a time. You need to see two consecutive elements to decide what to do, so I'd say List.filter won't do the job.
You're going to have to use map or one of the folds, I'd say. You can figure out which one(s) will work, with similar reasoning.
(I assume this is the sort of reasoning the assignment is supposed to illustrate. So I'm going to leave it there.)
Without rec
let remove = function
[] -> []
| x::tl ->
let (_,lxRes)=
List.fold_left (
fun (xPrec,lxRes) xCour ->
if xPrec=xCour then
(xCour,lxRes)
else
(xCour,lxRes#[xCour])
) (x+1,[]) (x::tl)
in
lxRes
Test:
# remove [3;1;4;5;5;1;1];;
- : int list = [3; 1; 4; 5; 1]
# remove [1;1];;
- : int list = [1]
# remove [1;1;1;1;2;2;3;4;5;5];;
- : int list = [1; 2; 3; 4; 5]
With rec (just for information)
let rec remove =
function
| [] -> []
| x::[] -> x::[]
| x::y::tl ->
if x=y then remove (y::tl)
else x::remove (y::tl)
Using just List.fold_left can be a little bit more concise than the previous answer. Of course, this will build up the list in reverse order, so we need to reverse the result.
let remove lst =
List.(
lst
|> fold_left
(fun acc x ->
match acc with
| [] -> [x]
| hd::_ when x = hd -> acc
| _ -> x::acc)
[]
|> rev
)
Of course, if you're not allowed to use List.rev we can reimplement it easily using List.fold_left, List.cons and Fun.flip.
let rev lst =
List.fold_left (Fun.flip List.cons) [] lst
First off, I apologize if this is a confusing or backwards way to go about what I want to accomplish, but I'm new to "OCaml style".
I want to take the last element of a list, and move it to the front of the list, shifting all the elements up one.
For example: have [1;2;3;4;5] -> [5;1;2;3;4]
I understand that lists in OCaml are basically linked list, so I plan to recursively iterate through the list, find the last element, and then have that element's tail/remaining list point to the head of the list.
What I'm mainly confused about is how to break the link from the second last element to the last element. In the example above, I want to have the 5 point to the 1, but the 4 to no longer point to the 5.
How do I accomplish this, and is there a simpler way to look at this that I'm completely missing?
You can't "Break the link" because Ocaml lists are a persistent data-structure. You can't really modify the lists, so you have to produce a new list with the values in the order you want.
let thelist = [1;2;3;4;5] in
let lnewhead = List.hd (List.rev thelist) in
lnewhead :: (List.rev (List.tl (List.rev b)));;
You could also define this in a function:
let flipper = fun thelist ->
(List.hd (List.rev thelist)) :: (List.rev (List.tl (List.rev thelist)));;
val flipper : 'a list -> 'a list = <fun>
# flipper([1;2;3;4;5]);;
- : int list = [5; 1; 2; 3; 4]
Joshua's code can be slightly improved in terms of time complexity by making sure List.rev thelist is computed only once, as in:
let flipper =
fun thelist ->
let r = List.rev thelist in
List.hd r :: List.rev (List.tl r)
A safe implementation is the following:
let rot1 l =
let rec aux acc = function
[] -> []
| [x] -> x :: List.rev acc
| x :: l -> aux (x :: acc) l
in
aux [] l
It is safe in the sense that passing the empty list returns the empty list instead of raising an exception. Note that I strongly discourage the use of List.hd and List.tl because they may fail, with a generic error message.
Also, the recursive call to aux is a tail call (last thing to do before returning). The OCaml compilers will detect this and avoid growing the stack with each function call (and possibly raise an exception or crash). This is something to be aware of when dealing with long lists and recursive functions.
In order to do this operation efficiently, i.e. in O(1) rather than O(length), you cannot use a regular list. You can use the Queue module from the standard library or implementations of doubly-linked lists provided by third parties.
Here is an example using the Queue module:
let rotate_queue q =
if not (Queue.is_empty q) then
let x = Queue.take q in
Queue.add x q
# let q = Queue.create ();;
val q : '_a Queue.t = <abstr>
# Queue.add 1 q;;
- : unit = ()
# Queue.add 2 q;;
- : unit = ()
# Queue.add 3 q;;
- : unit = ()
# Queue.iter print_int q;;
123- : unit = ()
# rotate_queue q;;
- : unit = ()
# Queue.iter print_int q;;
231- : unit = ()
#
The Dllist module of the Batteries library might be what you are looking for. It is an imperative list structure.
I'm working with a list of lists in OCaml, and I'm trying to write a function that combines all of the lists that share the same head. This is what I have so far, and I make use of the List.hd built-in function, but not surprisingly, I'm getting the failure "hd" error:
let rec combineSameHead list nlist = match list with
| [] -> []#nlist
| h::t -> if List.hd h = List.hd (List.hd t)
then combineSameHead t nlist#uniq(h#(List.hd t))
else combineSameHead t nlist#h;;
So for example, if I have this list:
[[Sentence; Quiet]; [Sentence; Grunt]; [Sentence; Shout]]
I want to combine it into:
[[Sentence; Quiet; Grunt; Shout]]
The function uniq I wrote just removes all duplicates within a list. Please let me know how I would go about completing this. Thanks in advance!
For one thing, I generally avoid functions like List.hd, as pattern maching is usually clearer and less error-prone. In this case, your if can be replaced with guarded patterns (a when clause after the pattern). I think what is happening to cause your error is that your code fails when t is []; guarded patterns help avoid this by making the cases more explicit. So, you can do (x::xs)::(y::ys)::t when x = y as a clause in your match expression to check that the heads of the first two elements of the list are the same. It's not uncommon in OCaml to have several successive patterns which are identical except for guards.
Further things: you don't need []#nlist - it's the same as just writing nlist.
Also, it looks like your nlist#h and similar expressions are trying to concatenate lists before passing them to the recursive call; in OCaml, however, function application binds more tightly than any operator, so it actually appends the result of the recursive call to h.
I don't, off-hand, have a correct version of the function. But I would start by writing it with guarded patterns, and then see how far that gets you in working it out.
Your intended operation has a simple recursive description: recursively process the tail of your list, then perform an "insert" operation with the head which looks for a list that begins with the same head and, if found, inserts all elements but the head, and otherwise appends it at the end. You can then reverse the result to get your intended list of list.
In OCaml, this algorithm would look like this:
let process list =
let rec insert (head,tail) = function
| [] -> head :: tail
| h :: t ->
match h with
| hh :: tt when hh = head -> (hh :: (tail # t)) :: t
| _ -> h :: insert (head,tail) t
in
let rec aux = function
| [] -> []
| [] :: t -> aux t
| (head :: tail) :: t -> insert (head,tail) (aux t)
in
List.rev (aux list)
Consider using a Map or a hash table to keep track of the heads and the elements found for each head. The nlist auxiliary list isn't very helpful if lists with the same heads aren't adjacent, as in this example:
# combineSameHead [["A"; "a0"; "a1"]; ["B"; "b0"]; ["A"; "a2"]]
- : list (list string) = [["A"; "a0"; "a1"; "a2"]; ["B"; "b0"]]
I probably would have done something along the lines of what antonakos suggested. It would totally avoid the O(n) cost of searching in a list. You may also find that using a StringSet.t StringMap.t be easier on further processing. Of course, readability is paramount, and I still find this hold under that criteria.
module OrderedString =
struct
type t = string
let compare = Pervasives.compare
end
module StringMap = Map.Make (OrderedString)
module StringSet = Set.Make (OrderedString)
let merge_same_heads lsts =
let add_single map = function
| hd::tl when StringMap.mem hd map ->
let set = StringMap.find hd map in
let set = List.fold_right StringSet.add tl set in
StringMap.add hd set map
| hd::tl ->
let set = List.fold_right StringSet.add tl StringSet.empty in
StringMap.add hd set map
| [] ->
map
in
let map = List.fold_left add_single StringMap.empty lsts in
StringMap.fold (fun k v acc-> (k::(StringSet.elements v))::acc) map []
You can do a lot just using the standard library:
(* compares the head of a list to a supplied value. Used to partition a lists of lists *)
let partPred x = function h::_ -> h = x
| _ -> false
let rec combineHeads = function [] -> []
| []::t -> combineHeads t (* skip empty lists *)
| (hh::_ as h)::t -> let r, l = List.partition (partPred hh) t in (* split into lists with the same head as the first, and lists with different heads *)
(List.fold_left (fun x y -> x # (List.tl y)) h r)::(combineHeads l) (* combine all the lists with the same head, then recurse on the remaining lists *)
combineHeads [[1;2;3];[1;4;5;];[2;3;4];[1];[1;5;7];[2;5];[3;4;6]];;
- : int list list = [[1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 5; 7]; [2; 3; 4; 5]; [3; 4; 6]]
This won't be fast (partition, fold_left and concat are all O(n)) however.