I have written a function to deoptionalize an integer list and I would like to know if there is a better way to write it.
let deoptionalize (lst:'a option list) : 'a list =
List.map ~f:(fun x -> match x with Some x -> x | None -> assert false)
(List.filter ~f:(fun x -> x <> None) lst)
;;
In the assignment I am currently working its using map and filter is a must.
I suppose that a "hand-coded" solution (i.e. without map and filter) is easier to read, but if you really need to use them, here you go:
It seems that you are using the Core library. If so, I think your solution is not so bad, but can be written a bit more compact:
let deoptionalize lst =
List.filter ~f:(is_some) lst
|> List.map ~f:(function | Some x -> x | None -> assert false)
If you don't mind warnings (which I discourage you to do), you can even leave out some more:
let deoptionalize lst =
List.filter ~f:(is_some) lst
|> List.map ~f:(fun (Some x) -> x)
Actually, Core provides filter_map (thanks #Ramon Snir for the hint) which combines both, so you can use:
let deopt lst =
List.filter_map ~f:(fun x -> x) lst;;
In your case, I prefer doing in this way:
let deoptionalize l =
let rec deopt acc = function
| [] -> List.rev acc
| None::tl -> deopt acc tl
| Some x::tl -> deopt (x::acc) tl
in
deopt [] l
It is more clear and tail-recursive and performance is better
Another solution,
let deoptionalize l =
List.concat ## List.map (function | None -> [] | Some x -> [x]) l
Related
I have basically completed my homework, as I only needed a certain amount of working test examples. My only issue is I cannot figure out why this does not work, and I would like to know for my sanity.
let list_helper (x: 'a -> bool) head = if (x head) then true else false
let take_while (x: 'a -> bool) lst =
let rec take_while_helper x lst acc = match lst with
| [] -> []
| h::t -> if list_helper x h then take_while_helper x t (h::acc) else acc in take_while_helper x lst []
take_while (fun _ -> true) [1; 2; 3] should evaluate to [1; 2; 3]. This one does not work.
take_while ((=) "a") ["a"; "a"; "b"; "a"] should evaluate to ["a"; "a"]. Works as expected.
take_while (fun _ -> false) ["say"; "anything"] should evaluate to []. Works as expected.
The last two test cases work, but the first one does not. I made another similar function, and again it does not work. It seems my function does not handle integers well, and I do not know why. I would like to know why it is not behaving correctly, as I though through it logically and it seems like it should work. Maybe I'm missing something about integers and lists.
You also have to return the accumulator in the case of an empty list. And you have to reverse the result, since you add the elements to the accumulator in the wrong order.
So your function could look like
let take_while (x: 'a -> bool) lst =
let rec take_while_helper lst acc = match lst with
| [] -> acc
| h::t -> if x h then (take_while_helper t (h::acc)) else acc
in List.rev (take_while_helper lst [])
let rec isolate (l:'a list) =
match l with
| [] -> []
| x::xs ->
if memberof(x,xs)
then remove (x,l)
else isolate xs
I've already created functions memberof and remove, the only problem is that when line 6 remove(x,l) executes it doesn't continue with isolate(xs) for continued search through the list.
Is there a way to say,
if x then f(x) and f(y)
?
As you are using F# immutable lists, the result of remove needs to be stored somewhere:
let rec isolate (l:'a list) =
match l with
| [] -> []
| x::xs ->
if memberof(x,xs)
then
let xs = remove (x,l)
isolate xs
else isolate xs
To answer your more general question:
let f _ = ()
let f' z = z
let x = true
let y = 42
let z = 3.141
if x then
f y
f' z |> ignore
The ignore is needed here because in F# there are no statements, just expressions, so you can think of if x then f' z as
if x then
f' z
else
()
and thus the first branch needs to return () as well.
In addition to CaringDev's answer.
You may look at this simple solution.
It is worth note, that it's not a fastest way to do this.
let rec isolate (acc : 'a list) (l : 'a list) =
match l with
| [] -> acc
| head :: tail ->
if memberof (head, tail)
then remove (head, tail) |> isolate (acc # [head])
else isolate (acc # [head]) tail
let recursiveDistinct = isolate []
let uniqValues = recursiveDistinct [ 1; 1; 2; 3] //returns [1;2;3]
let isolate list =
let rec isolateInner searchList commonlist =
match searchList with
| x::xs ->
if (memberof commonlist x) then
isolateInner xs commonlist
else
let commonlist = (x :: commonlist)
isolateInner xs commonlist
| [] -> reverse commonlist
isolateInner list []
This is part of an answer to your larger problem.
Notice that this does not use remove. Since you have to pass over each item in the original list and list are immutable, it is better to create a new list and only add the unique items to the new list, then return the new list.
Is there a library function to find List1 minus elements that appear in List2? I've been googling around and haven't found much.
It doesn't seem too trivial to write it myself. I've written a function to remove a specific element from a list but that's much more simple:
let rec difference l arg = match l with
| [] -> []
| x :: xs ->
if (x = arg) then difference xs arg
else x :: difference xs arg;;
Will this do?
let diff l1 l2 = List.filter (fun x -> not (List.mem x l2)) l1
What I ended up actually doing was just writing another function which would call the first one I posted
let rec difference l arg = match l with
| [] -> []
| x :: xs ->
if (x = arg) then difference xs arg
else x :: difference xs arg;;
let rec list_diff l1 l2 = match l2 with
| [] -> l1
| x :: xs -> list_diff (difference l1 x) xs;;
Although the solution I accepted is much more elegant
I wrote this F# function to partition a list up to a certain point and no further -- much like a cross between takeWhile and partition.
let partitionWhile c l =
let rec aux accl accr =
match accr with
| [] -> (accl, [])
| h::t ->
if c h then
aux (h::accl) t
else
(accl, accr)
aux [] l
The only problem is that the "taken" items are reversed:
> partitionWhile ((>=) 5) [1..10];;
val it : int list * int list = ([5; 4; 3; 2; 1], [6; 7; 8; 9; 10])
Other than resorting to calling rev, is there a way this function could be written that would have the first list be in the correct order?
Here's a continuation-based version. It's tail-recursive and returns the list in the original order.
let partitionWhileCps c l =
let rec aux f = function
| h::t when c h -> aux (fun (acc, l) -> f ((h::acc), l)) t
| l -> f ([], l)
aux id l
Here are some benchmarks to go along with the discussion following Brian's answer (and the accumulator version for reference):
let partitionWhileAcc c l =
let rec aux acc = function
| h::t when c h -> aux (h::acc) t
| l -> (List.rev acc, l)
aux [] l
let test =
let l = List.init 10000000 id
(fun f ->
let r = f ((>) 9999999) l
printfn "%A" r)
test partitionWhileCps // Real: 00:00:06.912, CPU: 00:00:07.347, GC gen0: 78, gen1: 65, gen2: 1
test partitionWhileAcc // Real: 00:00:03.755, CPU: 00:00:03.790, GC gen0: 52, gen1: 50, gen2: 1
Cps averaged ~7s, Acc ~4s. In short, continuations buy you nothing for this exercise.
I expect you can use continuations, but calling List.rev at the end is the best way to go.
I usually prefer Sequences over List as they are lazy and you got List.toSeq and Seq.toList functions to convert between them. Below is the implementation of your partitionWhile function using sequences.
let partitionWhile (c:'a -> bool) (l:'a list) =
let fromEnum (e:'a IEnumerator) =
seq { while e.MoveNext() do yield e.Current}
use e = (l |> List.toSeq).GetEnumerator()
(e |> fromEnum |> Seq.takeWhile c |> Seq.toList)
,(e |> fromEnum |> Seq.toList)
You can rewrite the function like this:
let partitionWhile c l =
let rec aux xs =
match xs with
| [] -> ([], [])
| h :: t ->
if c h then
let (good, bad) = aux t in
(h :: good, bad)
else
([], h :: t)
aux l
Yes, as Brian has noted it is no longer tail recursive, but it answers the question as stated. Incidentally, span in Haskell is implemented exactly the same way in Hugs:
span p [] = ([],[])
span p xs#(x:xs')
| p x = (x:ys, zs)
| otherwise = ([],xs)
where (ys,zs) = span p xs'
A good reason for preferring this version in Haskell is laziness: In the first version all the good elements are visited before the list is reversed. In the second version the first good element can be returned immediately.
I don't think I'm the only one to learn a lot from (struggling with) Daniel's CPS solution. In trying to figure it out, it helped me change several potentially (to the beginner) ambiguous list references, like so:
let partitionWhileCps cond l1 =
let rec aux f l2 =
match l2 with
| h::t when cond h -> aux (fun (acc, l3) -> f (h::acc, l3)) t
| l4 -> f ([], l4)
aux id l1
(Note that "[]" in the l4 match is the initial acc value.) I like this solution because it feels less kludgey not having to use List.rev, by drilling to the end of the first list and building the second list backwards. I think the other main way to avoid .rev would be to use tail recursion with a cons operation. Some languages optimize "tail recursion mod cons" in the same way as proper tail recursion (but Don Syme has said that this won't be coming to F#).
So this is not tail-recursive safe in F#, but it makes my answer an answer and avoids List.rev (this is ugly to have to access the two tuple elements and would be a more fitting parallel to the cps approach otherwise, I think, like if we only returned the first list):
let partitionWhileTrmc cond l1 =
let rec aux acc l2 =
match l2 with
| h::t when cond h -> ( h::fst(aux acc t), snd(aux acc t))
| l3 -> (acc, l3)
aux [] l1
Suppose I have some code like this:
List.map (fun e -> if (e <> 1) then e + 1 else (*add nothing to the list*))
Is there a way to do this? If so, how?
I want to both manipulate the item if it matches some criteria and ignore it if it does not. Thus List.filter wouldn't seem to be the solution.
SML has a function mapPartial which does exactly this. Sadly this function does not exist in OCaml. However you can easily define it yourself like this:
let map_partial f xs =
let prepend_option x xs = match x with
| None -> xs
| Some x -> x :: xs in
List.rev (List.fold_left (fun acc x -> prepend_option (f x) acc) [] xs)
Usage:
map_partial (fun x -> if x <> 1 then Some (x+1) else None) [0;1;2;3]
will return [1;3;4].
Or you can use filter_map from extlib as ygrek pointed out.
Both Batteries and Extlib provide an equivalent of mapPartial: their extended List module sprovide a filter_map function of the type ('a -> 'b option) -> 'a list -> 'b list, allowing the map function to select items as well.
Another solution would be to use directly a foldl :
let f e l = if (e <> 1)
then (e + 1)::l
else l
in List.fold_left f [] list
But my preference is filter_map as Michael Ekstrand provided
Alternatively you can filter your list then apply the map on the resulted list as follows :
let map_bis predicate map_function lst =
List.map map_function (List.filter predicate lst);;
# val map_bis : ('a -> bool) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a list -> 'b list = <fun>
Usage :
# map_bis (fun e -> e<>1) (fun e -> e+1) [0;1;2;3];;
- : int list = [1; 3; 4]
You can also map values to singleton lists if you want to keep them or empty lists if you don't, and then concat the results.
List.concat (List.map (fun e -> if (e <> 1) then [e + 1] else []) my_list)
use
let rec process = function
| 1 :: t -> process t
| h :: t -> (h + 1) :: (process t)
| [] -> []
or tail recursive
let process =
let rec f acc = function
| 1 :: t -> f acc t
| h :: t -> f ((h + 1) :: acc) t
| [] -> List.rev acc in
f []
or with a composition of standard functions
let process l =
l |> List.filter ((<>)1)
|> List.map ((+)1)
The OCaml standard library has had List.filter_map since 4.08. This can therefore now be written as:
List.filter_map (fun e -> if e <> 1 then Some (e + 1) else None)