Related
This is a followup to a recent question that wasn't asked clearly. The poster Aditi Jain's clarifications invalidate the answer somewhat that's already posted there, hence this new post.
The objective is to check whether there's no diagonally adjacent pair of elements in the nested lists which are negative of one another. The poster is new to Haskell programming.
The function signature is:
checkNegation :: [[Int]] -> Bool
Examples:
checkNegation [[1,2], [-2,3]] will return False:
[ [ 1 , 2], -- 2, -2 are diagonally adjacent
[-2 , 3] ]
checkNegation [[1,2], [3,-1]] will return False:
[ [ 1 , 2], -- 1, -1 are diagonally adjacent
[ 3 , -1] ]
checkNegation [[1,2], [-1,3]] will return True:
[ [ 1 , 2], -- no diagonally adjacent negatives
[-1 , 3] ]
checkNegation [[0,2,1], [3,1,-2], [3,-1,3]] will return False:
[ [ 0 , 2, 1], -- 2, -2 are diagonally adjacent
[ 3 , 1, -2],
[ 3 , -1, 3] ]
No coding attempts were provided in the original post.
(I'm not marking this as CW so as not to prevent the answerers getting reputation points for their efforts)
It's a little easier to do things if we take the matrix row-by-row. For the following, for instance:
[a,b,c],
[d,e,f],
We only want to compare the pairs:
[(a,e),(b,f),(b,d),(c,e)]
So the first step is to write a function which constructs that list from two adjacent rows.
diags xs ys = zip xs (drop 1 ys) ++ zip (drop 1 xs) ys
We're using drop 1 rather than tail because it doesn't error on the empty list, and the way I'm going to use this function later will use empty lists.
If we use this in a fold, then, it looks like the following:
anyDiags :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [[a]] -> Bool
anyDiags p = fst . foldr f (False, [])
where
f xs (a, ys) = (a || or (zipWith p xs (drop 1 ys)) || or (zipWith p (drop 1 xs) ys), xs)
We've also made it generic over any relation.
Next we will want to figure out how to check if two numbers are negations of each other.
negEachOther x y = negate x == y
And then our check negation function is as follows:
checkNegation = anyDiags negEachOther
There are some fun things we can do with the anyDiags function here. There's actually a use of the writer monad hidden in it. With that, we can rewrite the fold to use that fact:
anyDiags :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [[a]] -> Bool
anyDiags p = getAny . fst . foldrM f []
where
f xs ys = (Any (or (zipWith p xs (drop 1 ys)) || or (zipWith p (drop 1 xs) ys)), xs)
Though I'm not sure if it's any clearer.
Alternatively, we could do the whole thing using the zip xs (tail xs) trick:
anyDiags :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [[a]] -> Bool
anyDiags p xs = or (zipWith f xs (tail xs))
where
f xs ys = or (zipWith p xs (drop 1 ys)) || or (zipWith p (drop 1 xs) ys)
We can use the diagonals utility from Data.Universe.Helpers package. Such that
λ> diagonals [[0,2,1], [3,1,-2], [3,-1,3]]
[[0],[3,2],[3,1,1],[-1,-2],[3]]
which is only half of what we need. So lets flip our 2D list and apply diagonals once more. Flipping a list would take reverse . transpose operation such that
λ> (reverse . transpose) [[0,2,1], [3,1,-2], [3,-1,3]]
[[1,-2,3],[2,1,-1],[0,3,3]]
now we can use diagonals on this flipped list to obtain the remaining diagonals.
λ> (diagonals . reverse . transpose) [[0,2,1], [3,1,-2], [3,-1,3]]
[[1],[2,-2],[0,1,3],[3,-1],[3]]
For all diagonals we need to concatenate them. So altogether we may do like;
allDiags = (++) <$> diagonals . reverse . transpose <*> diagonals
The rest is applying necessary boolean test.
import Data.List (transpose)
import Data.Universe.Helpers (diagonals)
checkNegation :: Num a => Eq a => [[a]] -> Bool
checkNegation = and . map (and . (zipWith (\x y -> 0 /= (x + y)) <*> tail)) . allDiags
where
allDiags = (++) <$> diagonals . reverse . transpose <*> diagonals
λ> checkNegation [[0,2,1], [3,1,-2], [3,-1,3]]
False
λ> checkNegation [[1,2], [-1,3]]
True
If you have a matrix like this and want to compare adjacent diagonal elements:
m = [[ 1, 2, 3, 4]
,[ 5, 6, 7, 8]
,[ 9,10,11,12]]
then you want to make two comparisons. First, you want to compare, element by element, the sub-matrix you get by dropping the first row and first column (left) with the sub-matrix you get by dropping the last row and last column (right):
[[ 6, 7, 8] [[ 1, 2, 3]
,[10,11,12] ,[ 5, 6, 7]]
Second, you want to compare, element by element, the sub-matrix you get by dropping the first row and last column (left) with the sub-matrix you get by dropping the last row and first column (right):
[[ 5, 6, 7] [[ 2, 3, 4]
,[ 9,10,11]] ,[ 6, 7, 8]]
We can construct these submatrices using init, tail, and maps of these:
m1 = tail (map tail m) -- drop first row and first column
m2 = init (map init m) -- drop last row and last column
m3 = tail (map init m) -- drop first row and last column
m4 = init (map tail m) -- drop last row and first column
giving:
λ> m1
[[6,7,8],[10,11,12]]
λ> m2
[[1,2,3],[5,6,7]]
λ> m3
[[5,6,7],[9,10,11]]
λ> m4
[[2,3,4],[6,7,8]]
How do we compare two sub-matrices? Well, we can write a two-dimensional version of zipWith to apply a binary function (a comparison, say) element by element to two matrices, the same way zipWith applies a binary function element by element to two lists:
zipZipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [[a]] -> [[b]] -> [[c]]
zipZipWith f m1 m2 = zipWith zipRow m1 m2
where zipRow r1 r2 = zipWith f r1 r2
This works by zipping the matrices together, row by row, using the zipRow helper function. For each pair of rows, zipRow zips the rows together, element by element, with the function f. This definition can be simplified to the slightly less clear:
zipZipWith f m1 m2 = zipWith (zipWith f) m1 m2
Anyway, to check if corresponding pairs of elements in two matrices are negatives of each other, we can use zipZipWith isNeg where:
isNeg :: (Num a, Eq a) => a -> a -> Bool
isNeg x y = x == -y
Then, to check if any of these pairs are negatives, we can use concat to change the matrix of booleans into a long list and or to check for any True values:
anyNegPairs :: (Num a, Eq a) => [[a]] -> [[a]] -> Bool
anyNegPairs ma mb = or . concat $ zipZipWith isNeg ma mb
Finally, then, a complete function to perform the comparison would be:
noDiagNeg :: (Num a, Eq a) => [[a]] -> Bool
noDiagNeg m = not (anyNegPairs m1 m2 || anyNegPairs m3 m4)
Since zipZipWith, like zipWith, ignores "extra" elements when comparing arguments of different sizes, it's not actually necessary to trim off the last column/row, so the sub-matrix definitions can be simplified by removing all the inits:
m1 = tail (map tail m)
m2 = m
m3 = tail m
m4 = map tail m
We could actually write m1 in terms of m4 to save double-calculating map tail m:
m1 = tail m4
but the compiler is smart enough to figure this out on its own.
So, a reasonable final solution would be:
noDiagNeg :: (Num a, Eq a) => [[a]] -> Bool
noDiagNeg m = not (anyNegPairs m1 m2 || anyNegPairs m3 m4)
where
m1 = tail (map tail m)
m2 = m
m3 = tail m
m4 = map tail m
anyNegPairs ma mb = or . concat $ zipZipWith isNeg ma mb
isNeg x y = x == -y
zipZipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [[a]] -> [[b]] -> [[c]]
zipZipWith f m1 m2 = zipWith (zipWith f) m1 m2
and it seems to work as desired on the test cases:
λ> noDiagNeg [[1,2],[-2,3]]
False
λ> noDiagNeg [[1,2],[3,-1]]
False
λ> noDiagNeg [[1,2],[-1,3]]
True
λ> noDiagNeg [[0,2,1],[3,1,-2],[3,-1,3]]
False
This is quite similar to #oisdk's solution, though this version might be easier to understand if you aren't too familiar with folds yet.
It fails on (certain) matrices with no elements:
λ> noDiagNeg []
*** Exception: Prelude.tail: empty list
λ> noDiagNeg [[],[]]
*** Exception: Prelude.tail: empty list
so you could use #oisdk's technique of replacing tail with drop 1, if this is a problem. (Actually, I might define tail' = drop 1 as a helper and replace all tail calls with tail' calls, since that would look a little nicer.)
First we pair up the rows: first with second, then second with third, then third with fourth, and so on.
Then, for each pair of rows, we consider all wedge-shaped triples of cells, like this:
--*---
-*-*--
So that the bottom-row cells are diagonally adjacent to the top-row ones.
Then we just check if any of the bottom ones are a negative of the top.
Except this has (literally) an edge case: beginnings and ends of the rows. If we do this wedge-shaped triple thing, we're going to miss the first and the last elements of the top row. To get around this, we first wrap the whole matrix in Just and then extend each row with Nothings on left and right:
[a,b,c] ==> [Nothing, Just a, Just b, Just c, Nothing]
[d,e,f] ==> [Nothing, Just d, Just e, Just f, Nothing]
Now we can safely iterate in triples and not miss anything.
checkNegation :: [[Int]] -> Bool
checkNegation matrix = any rowPairHasNegation rowPairs
where
extendedMatrix = map extendRow matrix
extendRow row = [Nothing] ++ map Just row ++ [Nothing]
rowPairs = extendedMatrix `zip` drop 1 extendedMatrix
rowPairHasNegation (row, nextRow) =
any cellTripleHasNegation $
drop 1 row `zip` nextRow `zip` drop 2 nextRow
cellTripleHasNegation ((x1y0, x0y1), x2y1) =
isNegation x1y0 x0y1 || isNegation x1y0 x2y1
isNegation (Just a) (Just b) = a == -b
isNegation _ _ = False
As far as I understand, this will result in iterating over the whole matrix exactly thrice - once as top row and twice as bottom row, meaning O(n*m)
Need increment every second item starting from the right in Haskell list but keeping origin order (e.g. reverse is not a case). For example:
f [1, 2, 3] -- [1, 3, 3]
f [1, 2, 3, 4] -- [2, 2, 4, 4]
I've tried something like a following:
fc ([]) = []
fc (x:[]) = [x]
fc (x:[y]) = [x+1,y]
fc( x:xs ) = fc [x] : ( fc xs ) -- this line is wrong
p.s. Obviously I could reverse (but prefer to understand original task) the list twice and apply something like:
helper (x:y:tail) = [x, y+1] ++ tail
fc x = reverse (helper (reverse x) )
The typical way to process a Haskell list from right to left would be to reverse it. Since you want to have the original order for the result, you would simply reverse again:
f1 = reverse . zipWith (+) (cycle [0,1]) . reverse
But if you really want to, you can have each recursive call return both the updated tail and a flag that indicates whether that position is even when counted from the end so you know whether to increase the element at that position or not:
f2 = snd . g
where
g [] = (False, [])
g (x:xs) = let (addOne, xs') = g xs
x' = if addOne then x + 1 else x
in (not addOne, x':xs')
We're basically mapping a function over the list, but this function requires an extra parameter that gets computed starting from the right end of the list. There's a standard function we can use:
import Data.List (mapAccumR)
f2' = snd . mapAccumR g False
where
g addOne x = (not addOne, if addOne then x + 1 else x)
I think a cleaner specification for what you want is that you increment even indicies if the length is even and odd indicies if the length is odd. For example, when indexing from zero, the list of length 3 resulted in index 1 being incremented. One way to do this is with the obvious two pass solution:
f xs = zipWith (+) (cycle sol) xs
where sol = map fromEnum [even len, odd len]
len = length xs
This can be done in one pass (without relying on the compiler fusion rules) by "tying the knot". For example (using manual recursive style as means of communication).
f2 xs = let (isEven, result) = go isEven xs in result
where
go _ [] = (True, [])
go e (x:xs) = let (ne,rest) = go (not e) xs
in (not ne, x+fromEnum e : rest)
This can be done efficiently using a left fold:
inc :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
inc xs = foldl go (\_ _ acc -> acc) xs id (+ 1) []
where go run x f g acc = run g f (f x: acc)
Note that even thought this is a left fold, the list is built using cons (:) operator; and it will perform linearly and not quadratic (similar construct as in difference lists).
\> inc [1, 2, 3]
[1,3,3]
\> inc [1, 2, 3, 4]
[2,2,4,4]
It can also be generalized to alternating functions other than id and (+ 1).
I like Thomas's solution. However, I think a simple foldr is enough here.
process = snd . foldr (\x (b,xs) -> (not b, x + fromEnum b:xs)) (False,[])
I have [[Integer]] -> [Integer] and want to take the first element of the first sub-list, the second element of the second sub-list and .. the n-th element of the n-th sub-list and so on.
I am trying to achieve this using list comprehensions. However, I first drop an incrementing number of elements and the take the head of the remaining. But there again I don't know how to use drop (inc z) where z = 0 with inc c = c + 1 as an already defined function, in presumably this:
getNext :: [[Integer]] -> [Integer]
getNext xs = [y | drop (inc z) (y:ys) <- xs, (y:_) <- xs]
where z = 0
I know that the code above is not working, but again I had only so far come up to this and hit a wall.
You can do it like this:
getNext :: [[a]] -> [a]
getNext xs = [ head $ drop y x | (x,y) <- zip xs [0..]]
Although note that this function is partial because of head.
As the other answers suggest, you can use a zip function and zip with the list of indices.
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC) however offers the Parallel List Comp extension:
{-# LANGUAGE ParallelListComp #-}
diagonal :: [[a]] -> [a]
diagonal ls = [l !! i | l <- ls | i <- [0..]]
The (!!) operator gets the i-th element from a list.
Furthermore it is always advisable to use the most generic function signature; so [[a]] -> [a] instead of [[Integer]] -> [Integer]. This can be useful if you later decide to take the diagonal of a matrix of Double's, String, lists, custom types,...
You can zip the actual list of list of integers and another list which runs from 0 to infinity and get the corresponding elements, like this
picker :: [[Integer]] -> [Integer]
picker xs = [(x !! y) | (x, y) <- (zip xs [0..])]
main = print $ picker [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9]]
-- [1,5,9]
The expression [0..] will create an infinite list, lazily, starting from 0 and we zip it with xs. So, on every iteration, the result of zip would be used like this
[1, 2, 3] !! 0
[4, 5, 6] !! 1
[7, 8, 9] !! 2
We get element at index 0, which is 1, on the first iteration and 5 and 9 on the following iterations.
I am trying to write a function like this:
updateMatrix:: [[a]] -> a -> (x, y) ->[[a]]
This is supposed to take in a list of lists such as:
[ [1, 2, 3, 4],
[5, 6, 7, 8]]
and put the given element at the specified coordinates, so, given:
[ [1, 2, 3, 4],
[5, 6, 7, 8]] 9 (0, 1)
it should return
[ [1, 9, 3, 4],
[5, 6, 7, 8]]
I can't figure out how to do this without having to rebuild the whole matrix, please help!
You need to rebuild the matrix every time. So as long as you don't need high performance computing, you could use this legible implementation:
replace :: (a -> a) -> Int -> [a] -> [a]
replace f 0 (x:xs) = (f x):xs
replace f i (x:xs) = x : replace f (i-1) xs
replace f i [] = []
replace2D :: (a -> a) -> (Int, Int) -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
replace2D f (x,y) = replace (replace f y) x
Your function would be:
updateMatrix ll x c = replace2D (const x) c ll
Here's an implementation:
updateMatrix :: [[a]] -> a -> (Int, Int) -> [[a]]
updateMatrix m x (r,c) =
take r m ++
[take c (m !! r) ++ [x] ++ drop (c + 1) (m !! r)] ++
drop (r + 1) m
But maybe this "rebuilds the whole matrix" as you say? Note that
lists are not mutable in Haskell, so you can't destructively update
one entry, if that's what you would mean by not "rebuilding the whole
matrix".
Here’s a short one:
replace p f xs = [ if i == p then f x else x | (x, i) <- zip xs [0..] ]
replace2D v (x,y) = replace y (replace x (const v))
Now you can use it exactly like you wanted:
λ → let m = [[1, 2, 3, 4], [5, 6, 7, 8]]
λ → replace2D 9 (0, 1) m
[[1,2,3,4],[9,6,7,8]]
As others already said,
This approach is of course rather slow, and only makes sense if the structure is more complex than the lists are long. There’s easy documentation about the internal structure and complexity of things in Haskell out there.
Think of m as a pointer to a linked list of pointers, and you can see why it’s slower than a pure stream of bytes. There are better libs that use something closer to the latter.
Haskell’s values are immutable because there are no side-effects. Which is good for reliability. So you can’t change m. You can only build something out of m.
Haskell can simulate mutable references, with the help of monads. Like IORef. But using it for this would be rather wrong. There are many other questions here on Stack Overflow, explaining its usage, pros and cons.
Being a purely functional language, Haskell requires you to return a "brand new" matrix when you update an item, so you need to rebuild the whole matrix indeed (if you're actually interested in matrix processing, cast a look at matrix library rather than implementing your own).
Beware, lists are not a good choice for such manipulations, but if you do it for educational purposes, start with implementing a function that "replaces" an element in [a], then use it twice (function composition can help there) in order to get your updateMatrix function. Here is an answer that can help you on your way.
I've just started learning about Functional Programming, using Haskel.
I'm slowly getting through Erik Meijer's lectures on Channel 9 (I've watched the first 4 so far) and in the 4th video Erik explains how tail works, and it fascinated me.
I've tried to write a function that returns the middle of a list (2 items for even lengths, 1 for odd) and I'd like to hear how others would implement it in
The least amount of Haskell code
The fastest Haskell code
If you could explain your choices I'd be very grateful.
My beginners code looks like this:
middle as | length as > 2 = middle (drop 2 (reverse as))
| otherwise = as
Just for your amusement, a solution from someone who doesn't speak Haskell:
Write a recursive function that takes two arguments, a1 and a2, and pass your list in as both of them. At each recursion, drop 2 from a2 and 1 from a1. If you're out of elements for a2, you'll be at the middle of a1. You can handle the case of just 1 element remaining in a2 to answer whether you need 1 or 2 elements for your "middle".
I don't make any performance claims, though it only processes the elements of the list once (my assumption is that computing length t is an O(N) operation, so I avoid it), but here's my solution:
mid [] = [] -- Base case: the list is empty ==> no midpt
mid t = m t t -- The 1st t is the slow ptr, the 2nd is fast
where m (x:_) [_] = [x] -- Base case: list tracked by the fast ptr has
-- exactly one item left ==> the first item
-- pointed to by the slow ptr is the midpt.
m (x:y:_) [_,_] = [x,y] -- Base case: list tracked by the fast ptr has
-- exactly two items left ==> the first two
-- items pointed to by the slow ptr are the
-- midpts
m (_:t) (_:_:u) = m t u -- Recursive step: advance slow ptr by 1, and
-- advance fast ptr by 2.
The idea is to have two "pointers" into the list, one that increments one step at each point in the recursion, and one that increments by two.
(which is essentially what Carl Smotricz suggested)
Two versions
Using pattern matching, tail and init:
middle :: [a] -> [a]
middle l#(_:_:_:_) = middle $ tail $ init l
middle l = l
Using length, take, signum, mod, drop and div:
middle :: [a] -> [a]
middle xs = take (signum ((l + 1) `mod` 2) + 1) $ drop ((l - 1) `div ` 2) xs
where l = length xs
The second one is basically a one-liner (but uses where for readability).
I've tried to write a function that returns the middle of a list (2 items for even lengths, 1 for odd) and I'd like to hear how others would implement it in
The right datastructure for the right problem. In this case, you've specified something that only makes sense on a finite list, right? There is no 'middle' to an infinite list. So just reading the description, we know that the default Haskell list may not be the best solution: we may be paying the price for the laziness even when we don't need it. Notice how many of the solutions have difficulty avoiding 2*O(n) or O(n). Singly-linked lazy lists just don't match a quasi-array-problem too well.
Fortunately, we do have a finite list in Haskell: it's called Data.Sequence.
Let's tackle it the most obvious way: 'index (length / 2)'.
Data.Seq.length is O(1) according to the docs. Data.Seq.index is O(log(min(i,n-i))) (where I think i=index, and n=length). Let's just call it O(log n). Pretty good!
And note that even if we don't start out with a Seq and have to convert a [a] into a Seq, we may still win. Data.Seq.fromList is O(n). So if our rival was a O(n)+O(n) solution like xs !! (length xs), a solution like
middle x = let x' = Seq.fromList x in Seq.index(Seq.length x' `div` 2)
will be better since it would be O(1) + O(log n) + O(n), which simplifies to O(log n) + O(n), obviously better than O(n)+O(n).
(I leave as an exercise to the reader modifying middle to return 2 items if length be even and 1 if length be odd. And no doubt one could do better with an array with constant-time length and indexing operations, but an array isn't a list, I feel.)
Haskell solution inspired by Carl's answer.
middle = m =<< drop 1
where m [] = take 1
m [_] = take 2
m (_:_:ys) = m ys . drop 1
If the sequence is a linked list, traversal of this list is the dominating factor of efficiency. Since we need to know the overall length, we have to traverse the list at least once. There are two equivalent ways to get the middle elements:
Traverse the list once to get the length, then traverse it half to get at the middle elements.
Traverse the list in double steps and single steps at the same time, so that when the first traversal stops, the second traversal is in the middle.
Both need the same number of steps. The second is needlessly complicated, in my opinion.
In Haskell, it might be something like this:
middle xs = take (2 - r) $ drop ((div l 2) + r - 1) xs
where l = length xs
r = rem l 2
middle xs =
let (ms, len) = go xs 0 [] len
in ms
go (x:xs) i acc len =
let acc_ = case len `divMod` 2 of
(m, 0) -> if m == (i+1) then (take 2 (x:xs))
else acc
(m, 1) -> if m == i then [x]
else acc
in go xs (i+1) acc_ len
go [] i acc _ = (acc,i)
This solution traverses the list just once using lazy evaluation. While it traverses the list, it calculates the length and then backfeeds it to the function:
let (ms, len) = go xs 0 [] len
Now the middle elements can be calculated:
let acc' = case len `divMod` 2 of
...
F# solution based on Carl's answer:
let halve_list l =
let rec loop acc1 = function
| x::xs, [] -> List.rev acc1, x::xs
| x::xs, [y] -> List.rev (x::acc1), xs
| x::xs, y::y'::ys -> loop (x::acc1) (xs, ys)
| [], _ -> [], []
loop [] (l, l)
It's pretty easy to modify to get the median elements in the list too:
let median l =
let rec loop acc1 = function
| x::xs, [] -> [List.head acc1; x]
| x::xs, [y] -> [x]
| x::xs, y::y'::ys -> loop (x::acc1) (xs, ys)
| [], _ -> []
loop [] (l, l)
A more intuitive approach uses a counter:
let halve_list2 l =
let rec loop acc = function
| (_, []) -> [], []
| (0, rest) -> List.rev acc, rest
| (n, x::xs) -> loop (x::acc) (n - 1, xs)
let count = (List.length l) / 2
loop [] (count, l)
And a really ugly modification to get the median elements:
let median2 l =
let rec loop acc = function
| (n, [], isEven) -> []
| (0, rest, isEven) ->
match rest, isEven with
| x::xs, true -> [List.head acc; x]
| x::xs, false -> [x]
| _, _ -> failwith "Should never happen"
| (n, x::xs, isEven) -> loop (x::acc) (n - 1, xs, isEven)
let len = List.length l
let count = len / 2
let isEven = if len % 2 = 0 then true else false
loop [] (count, l, isEven)
Getting the length of a list requires traversing its entire contents at least once. Fortunately, it's perfectly easy to write your own list data structure which holds the length of the list in each node, allowing you get get the length in O(1).
Weird that this perfectly obvious formulation hasn't come up yet:
middle [] = []
middle [x] = [x]
middle [x,y] = [x,y]
middle xs = middle $ init $ tail xs
A very straightforward, yet unelegant and not so terse solution might be:
middle :: [a] -> Maybe [a]
middle xs
| len <= 2 = Nothing
| even len = Just $ take 2 . drop (half - 1) $ xs
| odd len = Just $ take 1 . drop (half) $ xs
where
len = length xs
half = len `div` 2
This iterates twice over the list.
mid xs = m where
l = length xs
m | l `elem` [0..2] = xs
m | odd l = drop (l `div` 2) $ take 1 $ xs
m | otherwise = drop (l `div` 2 - 1) $ take 2 $ xs
I live for one liners, although this example only works for odd lists. I just want to stretch my brain! Thank you for the fun =)
foo d = map (\(Just a) -> a) $ filter (/=Nothing) $ zipWith (\a b -> if a == b then Just a else Nothing) (Data.List.nub d) (Data.List.nub $ reverse d)
I'm not much of a haskeller myself but I tried this one.
First the tests (yes, you can do TDD using Haskell)
module Main
where
import Test.HUnit
import Middle
main = do runTestTT tests
tests = TestList [ test1
, test2
, test3
, test4
, test_final1
, test_final2
]
test1 = [0] ~=? middle [0]
test2 = [0, 1] ~=? middle [0, 1]
test3 = [1] ~=? middle [0, 1, 2]
test4 = [1, 2] ~=? middle [0, 1, 2, 3]
test_final1 = [3] ~=? middle [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
test_final2 = [3, 4] ~=? middle [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
And the solution I came to:
module Middle
where
middle a = midlen a (length a)
midlen (a:xs) 1 = [a]
midlen (a:b:xs) 2 = [a, b]
midlen (a:xs) lg = midlen xs (lg - (2))
It will traverse list twice, once for getting length and a half more to get the middle, but I don't care it's still O(n) (and getting the middle of something implies to get it's length, so no reason to avoid it).
My solution, I like to keep things simple:
middle [] = []
middle xs | odd (length xs) = [xs !! ((length xs) `div` 2)]
| otherwise = [(xs !! ((length xs) `div` 2)),(reverse $ xs) !! ((length xs)`div` 2)]
Use of !! in Data.List as the function to get the value at a given index, which in this case is half the length of the list.
Edit: it actually works now
I like Svante's answer. My version:
> middle :: [a] -> [a]
> middle [] = []
> middle xs = take (r+1) . drop d $ xs
> where
> (d,r) = (length xs - 1) `divMod` 2
Here is my version. It was just a quick run up. I'm sure it's not very good.
middleList xs#(_:_:_:_) = take (if odd n then 1 else 2) $ drop en xs
where n = length xs
en = if n < 5 then 1 else 2 * (n `div` 4)
middleList xs = xs
I tried. :)
If anyone feels like commenting and telling me how awful or good this solution is, I would deeply appreciate it. I'm not very well versed in Haskell.
EDIT: Improved with suggestions from kmc on #haskell-blah
EDIT 2: Can now accept input lists with a length of less than 5.
Another one-line solution:
--
middle = ap (take . (1 +) . signum . (`mod` 2) . (1 +) . length) $ drop =<< (`div` 2) . subtract 1 . length
--