Related
Implementing Haskell's take and drop functions using foldl.
Any suggestions on how to implement take and drop functions using foldl ??
take x ls = foldl ???
drop x ls = foldl ???
i've tried these but it's showing errors:
myFunc :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
myFunc n list = foldl func [] list
where
func x y | (length y) > n = x : y
| otherwise = y
ERROR PRODUCED :
*** Expression : foldl func [] list
*** Term : func
*** Type : a -> [a] -> [a]
*** Does not match : [a] -> [a] -> [a]
*** Because : unification would give infinite type
Can't be done.
Left fold necessarily diverges on infinite lists, but take n does not. This is so because left fold is tail recursive, so it must scan through the whole input list before it can start the processing.
With the right fold, it's
ntake :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
ntake 0 _ = []
ntake n xs = foldr g z xs 0
where
g x r i | i>=n = []
| otherwise = x : r (i+1)
z _ = []
ndrop :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
ndrop 0 xs = xs
ndrop n xs = foldr g z xs 0 xs
where
g x r i xs#(_:t) | i>=n = xs
| otherwise = r (i+1) t
z _ _ = []
ndrop implements a paramorphism nicely and faithfully, up to the order of arguments to the reducer function g, giving it access to both the current element x and the current list node xs (such that xs == (x:t)) as well as the recursive result r. A catamorphism's reducer has access only to x and r.
Folds usually encode catamorphisms, but this shows that right fold can be used to code up a paramorphism just as well. It's universal that way. I think it is beautiful.
As for the type error, to fix it just switch the arguments to your func:
func y x | ..... = .......
The accumulator in the left fold comes as the first argument to the reducer function.
If you really want it done with the left fold, and if you're really sure the lists are finite, two options:
ltake n xs = post $ foldl' g (0,id) xs
where
g (i,f) x | i < n = (i+1, f . (x:))
| otherwise = (i,f)
post (_,f) = f []
rltake n xs = foldl' g id xs r n
where
g acc x = acc . f x
f x r i | i > 0 = x : r (i-1)
| otherwise = []
r _ = []
The first counts from the left straight up, potentially stopping assembling the prefix in the middle of the full list traversal that it does carry to the end nevertheless, being a left fold.
The second also traverses the list in full turning it into a right fold which then gets to work counting down from the left again, being able to actually stop working as soon as the prefix is assembled.
Implementing drop this way is bound to be (?) even clunkier. Could be a nice exercise.
I note that you never specified the fold had to be over the supplied list. So, one approach that meets the letter of your question, though probably not the spirit, is:
sillytake :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
sillytake n xs = foldl go (const []) [1..n] xs
where go f _ (x:xs) = x : f xs
go _ _ [] = []
sillydrop :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
sillydrop n xs = foldl go id [1..n] xs
where go f _ (_:xs) = f xs
go _ _ [] = []
These each use left folds, but over the list of numbers [1..n] -- the numbers themselves are ignored, and the list is just used for its length to build a custom take n or drop n function for the given n. This function is then applied to the original supplied list xs.
These versions work fine on infinite lists:
> sillytake 5 $ sillydrop 5 $ [1..]
[6,7,8,9,10]
Will Ness showed a nice way to implement take with foldr. The least repulsive way to implement drop with foldr is this:
drop n0 xs0 = foldr go stop xs0 n0
where
stop _ = []
go x r n
| n <= 0 = x : r 0
| otherwise = r (n - 1)
Take the efficiency loss and rebuild the whole list if you have no choice! Better to drive a nail in with a screwdriver than drive a screw in with a hammer.
Both ways are horrible. But this one helps you understand how folds can be used to structure functions and what their limits are.
Folds just aren't the right tools for implementing drop; a paramorphism is the right tool.
You are not too far. Here are a pair of fixes.
First, note that func is passed the accumulator first (i.e. a list of a, in your case) and then the list element (an a). So, you need to swap the order of the arguments of func.
Then, if we want to mimic take, we need to add x when the length y is less than n, not greater!
So we get
myFunc :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
myFunc n list = foldl func [] list
where
func y x | (length y) < n = x : y
| otherwise = y
Test:
> myFunc 5 [1..10]
[5,4,3,2,1]
As you can see, this is reversing the string. This is because we add x at the front (x:y) instead of at the back (y++[x]). Or, alternatively, one could use reverse (foldl ....) to fix the order at the end.
Also, since foldl always scans the whole input list, myFunc 3 [1..1000000000] will take a lot of time, and myFunc 3 [1..] will fail to terminate. Using foldr would be much better.
drop is more tricky to do. I don't think you can easily do that without some post-processing like myFunc n xs = fst (foldl ...) or making foldl return a function which you immediately call (which is also a kind of post-processing).
I want to write a function in haskell that takes a list of integers and an integer value as input and outputs a list of all the lists that contain combinations of elements that add up to the input integer.
For example:
myFunc [3,7,5,9,13,17] 30 = [[13,17],[3,5,9,13]]
Attempt:
myFunc :: [Integer] -> Integer -> [[Integer]]
myFunc list sm = case list of
[] -> []
[x]
| x == sm -> [x]
| otherwise -> []
(x : xs)
| x + myFunc xs == sm -> [x] ++ myFunc[xs]
| otherwise -> myFunc xs
My code produces just one combination and that combination must be consecutive, which is not what I want to achieve
Write a function to create all subsets
f [] = [[]]
f (x:xs) = f xs ++ map (x:) (f xs)
then use the filter
filter ((==30) . sum) $ f [3,7,5,9,13,17]
[[13,17],[3,5,9,13]]
as suggested by #Ingo you can prune the list while it's generated, for example
f :: (Num a, Ord a) => [a] -> [[a]]
f [] = [[]]
f (x:xs) = f xs ++ (filter ((<=30) . sum) $ map (x:) $ f xs)
should work faster than generating all 2^N elements.
You can use subsequences from Data.List to give you every possible combination of values, then filter based on your requirement that they add to 30.
myFunc :: [Integer] -> Integer -> [[Integer]]
myFunc list sm =
filter (\x -> sum x == sm) $ subsequences list
An alternative would be to use a right fold:
fun :: (Foldable t, Num a, Eq a) => t a -> a -> [[a]]
fun = foldr go $ \a -> if a == 0 then [[]] else []
where go x f a = f a ++ ((x:) <$> f (a - x))
then,
\> fun [3,7,5,9,13,17] 30
[[13,17],[3,5,9,13]]
\> fun [3,7,5,9,13,17] 12
[[7,5],[3,9]]
An advantage of this approach is that it does not create any lists unless it adds up to the desired value.
Whereas, an approach based on filtering, will create all the possible sub-sequence lists only to drop most of them during filtering step.
Here is an alternate solution idea: Generate a list of lists that sum up to the target number, i.e.:
[30]
[29,1]
[28,2]
[28,1,1]
...
and only then filter the ones that could be build from your given list.
Pro: could be much faster, especially if your input list is long and your target number comparatively small, such that the list of list of summands is much smaller than the list of subsets of your input list.
Con: does only work when 0 is not in the game.
Finally, you can it do both ways and write a function that decides which algorthm will be faster given some input list and the target number.
I want to perform an arithmetic operation (e.g. doubling the value) on a list of integers, every n places.
For example, given the list [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], I want to double values every three places. In that case, we would have [1,2,6,4,5,12,7].
How can I do it?
applyEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
applyEvery n f = zipWith ($) (cycle (replicate (n-1) id ++ [f]))
The cycle subexpression builds a list of functions [id,id,...,id,f] with the correct number of elements and repeats it ad nauseam, while the zipWith ($) applies that list of functions to the argument list.
Since you asked for it, more detail! Feel free to ask for more explanation.
The main idea is maybe best explained with an ASCII picture (which won't stop me from writing a thousand a lot of ASCII words!):
functions : [ id, id, f , id, id, f , id, id, f, ...
input list: [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]
-----------------------------------------------------
result : [ 1, 2, f 3, 4, 5, f 6, 7 ]
Just like there's no reason to hardcode the fact that you want to double every third element in the list, there's nothing special about f (which in your example is doubling), except that it should have the same result type as doing nothing. So I made these the parameters of my function. It's even not important that you operate on a list of numbers, so the function works on lists of a, as long as it's given an 'interval' and an operation. That gives us the type signature applyEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]. I put the input list last, because then a partial application like doubleEveryThird = applyEvery 3 (*2) is something that returns a new list, a so-called combinator. I picked the order of the other two arguments basically at random :-)
To build the list of functions, we first assemble the basic building block, consisting of n-1 ids, followed by an f as follows: replicate (n-1) id ++ [f]. replicate m x makes a list containing m repetitions of the xargument, e.g. replicate 5 'a' = "aaaaa", but it also works for functions. We have to append the f wrapped in a list of its own, instead of using : because you can only prepend single elements at the front - Haskell's lists are singly-linked.
Next, we keep on repeating the basic building block with cycle (not repeat as I first had mistakenly). cycle has type [a] -> [a] so the result is a list of "the same level of nested-ness". Example cycle [1,2,3] evaluates to [1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,...]
[ Side note: the only repeat-y function we haven't used is repeat itself: that forms an infinite list consisting of its argument ]
With that out of the way, the slightly tricky zipWith ($) part. You might already know the plain zip function, which takes two lists and puts elements in the same place in a tuple in the result, terminating when either list runs out of elements. Pictorially:
xs : [ a , b , c , d, e]
ys: [ x, y , z ]
------------------------------
zip xs ys: [(a,x),(b,y),(c,z)]
This already looks an awful lot like the first picture, right? The only thing is that we don't want to put the individual elements together in a tuple, but apply the first element (which is a function) to the second instead. Zipping with a custom combining function is done with zipWith. Another picture (the last one, I promise!):
xs : [ a , b , c , d, e]
ys: [ x, y, z ]
----------------------------------------
zipWith f xs ys: [ f a x, f b y, f c z ]
Now, what should we choose to zipWith with? Well, we want to apply the first argument to the second, so (\f x -> f x) should do the trick. If lambdas make you uncomfortable, you can also define a top-level function apply f x = f x and use that instead. However, this already a standard operator in the Prelude, namely $! Since you can't use a infix operator as a standalone function, we have to use the syntactic sugar ($) (which really just means (\f x -> f $ x))
Putting all of the above together, we get:
applyEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
applyEvery n f xs = zipWith ($) (cycle (replicate (n-1) id ++ [f])) xs
But we can get rid of the xs at the end, leading to the definition I gave.
A common way to get indexes for values in a list is to zip the list into tuples of (value, index).
ghci > let zipped = zip [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] [1..]
ghci > zipped
[(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(4,4),(5,5),(6,6),(7,7)]
Then you just need to map over that list and return a new one. If index is divisible by 3 (index `rem` 3 == 0), we'll double the value, otherwise we'll return the same value:
ghci > map (\(value, index) -> if index `rem` 3 == 0 then value*2 else value) zipped
[1,2,6,4,5,12,7]
Tell me if that all makes sense—I can add more detail if you aren't familiar with zip and map and such.
Zip
You can find documentation on zip by looking at its Haddocks, which say: "zip takes two lists and returns a list of corresponding pairs." (Docs are hosted in several places, but I went to https://www.stackage.org and searched for zip).
Map
The map function applies a function to each item in a list, generating a new value for each element.
Lambdas
Lambdas are just functions without a specific name. We used one in the first argument to map to say what we should do to each element in the list. You may have seen these in other languages like Python, Ruby, or Swift.
This is the syntax for lambdas:
(\arg1, arg2 -> functionBodyHere)
We could have also written it without a lambda:
ghci > let myCalculation (value, index) = if index `rem` 3 == 0 then value*2 else value
ghci > map myCalculation zipped
[1,2,6,4,5,12,7]
Note: this code is not yet tested.
In lens land, this is called a Traversal. Control.Lens gives you these:
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes, ScopedTypeVariables #-}
type Traversal s t a b =
forall f . Applicative f => (a -> f b) -> s -> f t
type Traversal' s a = Traversal s s a a
We can use lens's itraverse from Control.Lens.Indexed:
-- everyNth :: (TraversableWithIndex i t, Integral i)
=> i -> Traversal' (t a) a
everyNth :: (TraversableWithIndex i t, Integral i, Applicative f)
=> i -> (a -> f a) -> t a -> f (t a)
everyNth n f = itraverse f where
g i x | i `rem` n == n - 1 = f x
| otherwise = pure x
This can be specialized to your specific purpose:
import Data.Profunctor.Unsafe
import Data.Functor.Identity
everyNthPureList :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
everyNthPureList n f = runIdentity #. everyNth n (Identity #. f)
mapIf :: (Int -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapIf pred f l = map (\(value,index) -> if (pred index) then f value else value) $ zip l [1..]
mapEveryN :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEveryN n = mapIf (\x -> x `mod` n == 0)
Live on Ideone.
A simple recursive approach:
everyNth n f xs = igo n xs where
igo 1 (y:ys) = f y : igo n ys
igo m (y:ys) = y : igo (m-1) ys
igo _ [] = []
doubleEveryThird = everyNth 3 (*2)
Basically, igo starts at n, counts down until it reaches 1, where it will apply the function, and go back up to n. doubleEveryThird is partially applied: everyNth expects three arguments, but we only gave it two, so dougleEveryThird will expect that final argument.
I have a simple function (used for some problems of project Euler, in fact). It turns a list of digits into a decimal number.
fromDigits :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits [x] = toInteger x
fromDigits (x:xs) = (toInteger x) * 10 ^ length xs + fromDigits xs
I realized that the type [Int] is not ideal. fromDigits should be able to take other inputs like e.g. sequences, maybe even foldables ...
My first idea was to replace the above code with sort of a "fold with state". What is the correct (= minimal) Haskell-category for the above function?
First, folding is already about carrying some state around. Foldable is precisely what you're looking for, there is no need for State or other monads.
Second, it'd be more natural to have the base case defined on empty lists and then the case for non-empty lists. The way it is now, the function is undefined on empty lists (while it'd be perfectly valid). And notice that [x] is just a shorthand for x : [].
In the current form the function would be almost expressible using foldr. However within foldl the list or its parts aren't available, so you can't compute length xs. (Computing length xs at every step also makes the whole function unnecessarily O(n^2).) But this can be easily avoided, if you re-thing the procedure to consume the list the other way around. The new structure of the function could look like this:
fromDigits' :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits' = f 0
where
f s [] = s
f s (x:xs) = f (s + ...) xs
After that, try using foldl to express f and finally replace it with Foldable.foldl.
You should avoid the use of length and write your function using foldl (or foldl'):
fromDigits :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits ds = foldl (\s d -> s*10 + (fromIntegral d)) 0 ds
From this a generalization to any Foldable should be clear.
A better way to solve this is to build up a list of your powers of 10. This is quite simple using iterate:
powersOf :: Num a => a -> [a]
powersOf n = iterate (*n) 1
Then you just need to multiply these powers of 10 by their respective values in the list of digits. This is easily accomplished with zipWith (*), but you have to make sure it's in the right order first. This basically just means that you should re-order your digits so that they're in descending order of magnitude instead of ascending:
zipWith (*) (powersOf 10) $ reverse xs
But we want it to return an Integer, not Int, so let's through a map fromIntegral in there
zipWith (*) (powersOf 10) $ map fromIntegral $ reverse xs
And all that's left is to sum them up
fromDigits :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits xs = sum $ zipWith (*) (powersOf 10) $ map fromIntegral $ reverse xs
Or for the point-free fans
fromDigits = sum . zipWith (*) (powersOf 10) . map fromIntegral . reverse
Now, you can also use a fold, which is basically just a pure for loop where the function is your loop body, the initial value is, well, the initial state, and the list you provide it is the values you're looping over. In this case, your state is a sum and what power you're on. We could make our own data type to represent this, or we could just use a tuple with the first element being the current total and the second element being the current power:
fromDigits xs = fst $ foldr go (0, 1) xs
where
go digit (s, power) = (s + digit * power, power * 10)
This is roughly equivalent to the Python code
def fromDigits(digits):
def go(digit, acc):
s, power = acc
return (s + digit * power, power * 10)
state = (0, 1)
for digit in digits:
state = go(digit, state)
return state[0]
Such a simple function can carry all its state in its bare arguments. Carry around an accumulator argument, and the operation becomes trivial.
fromDigits :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits xs = fromDigitsA xs 0 # 0 is the current accumulator value
fromDigitsA [] acc = acc
fromDigitsA (x:xs) acc = fromDigitsA xs (acc * 10 + toInteger x)
If you're really determined to use a right fold for this, you can combine calculating length xs with the calculation like this (taking the liberty of defining fromDigits [] = 0):
fromDigits xn = let (x, _) = fromDigits' xn in x where
fromDigits' [] = (0, 0)
fromDigits' (x:xn) = (toInteger x * 10 ^ l + y, l + 1) where
(y, l) = fromDigits' xn
Now it should be obvious that this is equivalent to
fromDigits xn = fst $ foldr (\ x (y, l) -> (toInteger x * 10^l + y, l + 1)) (0, 0) xn
The pattern of adding an extra component or result to your accumulator, and discarding it once the fold returns, is a very general one when you're re-writing recursive functions using folds.
Having said that, a foldr with a function that is always strict in its second parameter is a really, really bad idea (excessive stack usage, maybe a stack overflow on long lists) and you really should write fromDigits as a foldl as some of the other answers have suggested.
If you want to "fold with state", probably Traversable is the abstraction you're looking for. One of the methods defined in Traversable class is
traverse :: Applicative f => (a -> f b) -> t a -> f (t b)
Basically, traverse takes a "stateful function" of type a -> f b and applies it to every function in the container t a, resulting in a container f (t b). Here, f can be State, and you can use traverse with function of type Int -> State Integer (). It would build an useless data structure (list of units in your case), but you can just discard it. Here's a solution to your problem using Traversable:
import Control.Monad.State
import Data.Traversable
sumDigits :: Traversable t => t Int -> Integer
sumDigits cont = snd $ runState (traverse action cont) 0
where action x = modify ((+ (fromIntegral x)) . (* 10))
test1 = sumDigits [1, 4, 5, 6]
However, if you really don't like building discarded data structure, you can just use Foldable with somewhat tricky Monoid implementation: store not only computed result, but also 10^n, where n is count of digits converted to this value. This additional information gives you an ability to combine two values:
import Data.Foldable
import Data.Monoid
data Digits = Digits
{ value :: Integer
, power :: Integer
}
instance Monoid Digits where
mempty = Digits 0 1
(Digits d1 p1) `mappend` (Digits d2 p2) =
Digits (d1 * p2 + d2) (p1 * p2)
sumDigitsF :: Foldable f => f Int -> Integer
sumDigitsF cont = value $ foldMap (\x -> Digits (fromIntegral x) 10) cont
test2 = sumDigitsF [0, 4, 5, 0, 3]
I'd stick with first implementation. Although it builds unnecessary data structure, it's shorter and simpler to understand (as far as a reader understands Traversable).
I have a bit of homework to do and I am a complete newbie to Haskell. The question I am having trouble with is to write a function which when given an integer x and a list of integers apply (x-y)*(x-y) to each element in the list and output the new list, with y being each element of the input list.
I have a very rough idea I will have to use the map function but I'm unsure how to go about it.
I have been looking at examples for squaring each element in a list and kind of understand how that works, but how I would implement the (x-y)*(x-y) with y being the current element completely baffles me.
squares :: [Int] -> [Int]
squares (x:xs) = x * x : squares xs
squares [] = []
the exact question I have been set is,
Write a function rela which takes as arguments an integer x and a list of integers. It returns a similar list, but where each element y has been replaced by (x-y)*(x-y), e.g.
Main> rela 2 [3,5,7]
[1,9,25]
I have managed to get it working after reading through some books, but the code I have made misses out the first element in the list. Any explanation why?
equation1 :: Int -> Int -> Int
equation1 x y = (x-y)*(x-y)
rela :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
rela x [] =[]
rela x (y:ys) = [ equation1 x y | y <- ys ]
First of all, you should probably create a separate function that does what you want.
e.g.
f x y = (x-y)*(x-y)
Now, every time you create a function in Haskell with multiple parameters, it actually "curries" the function, which means that you get a new function when you apply the first argument to it.
So, you would get a new function by doing this
g = f 5
The expression f 5 is actually a function
And you can apply a number to 'g' and x will always be '5'
So if we want to create a function that takes two parameters, 'x' and 'y', and applies (x-y)*(x-y) to a list where y is the current element, then all we need to do is the following:
f x y = (x-y)*(x-y)
squareDifference x = map (f x) [1,2,3,4]
Which you can use by calling squareDifference 5 or any other number as an argument
A more general version would allow you to pass in a list as well
squareDifference x xs = map (f x) xs
Which you would call by doing squareDifference 3 [1,2,3]
do you understand lambda functions?
map (\val -> the function) xs
is what you need.
currying is even better, but not as simple.
edit:
more conceptual...
map iterates down a list applying a function.
map (+ 3) xs
uses the currying technique mentioned above. you could also:
map (\x -> x + 3) xs
to accomplish the same thing.
Simple example:
rela :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
rela x = map (\y -> (x-y)*(x-y))
Or might you want any perversions? -) Here you are with Applicatives:
import Control.Applicative
rela :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
rela x = map $ (*) <$> (x-) <*> (x-)
Hello I guess you mean this:
Prelude> let rela n = map (\ x -> (x - n)^2)
Prelude> rela 2 [3,5,7]
[1,9,25]