I want to make a program insertAt where z is the place in the list, and y is the number being inserted into the list xs. Im new to haskell and this is what I have so far.
insertAt :: Int-> Int-> [Int]-> [Int]
insertAt z y xs
| z==1 = y:xs
but I'm not sure where to go from there.
I have an elementAt function, where
elementAt v xs
| v==1 = head xs
| otherwise = elementAt (v-1) (tail xs)
but I'm not sure how I can fit it in or if I even need to. If possible, I'd like to avoid append.
If this isn't homework: let (ys,zs) = splitAt n xs in ys ++ [new_element] ++ zs
For the rest of this post I'm going to assume you're doing this problem as homework or to teach yourself how to do this kind of thing.
The key to this kind of problem is to break it down into its natural cases. You're processing two pieces of data: the list you're inserting into, and the position in that list. In this case, each piece of data has two natural cases: the list you're procssing can be empty or not, and the number you're processing can be zero or not. So the first step is to write out all four cases:
insertAt 0 val [] = ...
insertAt 0 val (x:xs) = ...
insertAt n val [] = ...
insertAt n val (x:xs) = ...
Now, for each of these four cases, you need to think about what the answer should be given that you're in that case.
For the first two cases, the answer is easy: if you want to insert into the front of a list, just stick the value you're interested in at the beginning, whether the list is empty or not.
The third case demonstrates that there's actually an ambiguity in the question: what happens if you're asked to insert into, say, the third position of a list that's empty? Sounds like an error to me, but you'll have to answer what you want to do in that case for yourself.
The fourth case is most interesting: Suppose you want to insert a value into not-the-first position of a list that's not empty. In this case, remember that you can use recursion to solve smaller instances of your problem. In this case, you can use recursion to solve, for instance, insertAt (n-1) val xs -- that is, the result of inserting your same value into the tail of your input list at the n-1th position. For example, if you were trying to insert 5 into position 3 (the fourth position) of the list [100,200,300], you can use recursion to insert 5 into position 2 (the third position) of the list [200,300], which means the recursive call would produce [200,300,5].
We can just assume that the recursive call will work; our only job now is to convert the answer to that smaller problem into the answer to the original problem we were given. The answer we want in the example is [100,200,300,5] (the result of inserting 5 into position 4 of the list [100,200,300], and what we have is the list [200,300,5]. So how can we get the result we want? Just add back on the first element! (Think about why this is true.)
With that case finished, we've covered all the possible cases for combinations of lists and positions to update. Since our function will work correctly for all possibilities, and our possibilities cover all possible inputs, that means our function will always work correctly. So we're done!
I'll leave it to you to translate these ideas into Haskell since the point of the exercise is for you to learn it, but hopefully that lets you know how to solve the problem.
You could split the list at index z and then concatenate the first part of the list with the element (using ++ [y]) and then with the second part of the list. However, this would create a new list as data is immutable by default. The first element of the list by convention has the index 0 (so adjust z accordingly if you want the meaning of fist elemnt is indexed by 1).
insertAt :: Int -> Int-> [Int] -> [Int]
insertAt z y xs = as ++ (y:bs)
where (as,bs) = splitAt z xs
While above answers are correct, I think this is more concise:
insertAt :: Int -> Int-> [Int]-> [Int]
insertAt z y xs = (take z xs) ++ y:(drop z xs)
Related
I'm beginner in haskell and I tried to add a number in a 2D list with specific index in haskell but I don't know how to do
example i have this:
[[],[],[]]
and I would like to put a number (3) in the index 1 like this
[[],[3],[]]
I tried this
[array !! 1] ++ [[3]]
but it doesn't work
As you may have noticed in your foray so far, Haskell isn't like many other languages in that it is generally immutable, so trying to change a value, especially in a deeply nested structure like that, isn't the easiest thing. [array !! 1] would give you a nested list [[]] but this is not mutable, so any manipulations you do this structure won't be reflected in the original array, it'll be a separate copy.
(There are specialized environments where you can do local mutability, as with e.g. Vectors in the ST monad, but these are an exception.)
For what you're trying to do, you'll have to deconstruct the list to get it to a point where you can easily make the modification, then reconstruct the final structure from the (modified) parts.
The splitAt function looks like it will help you with this: it takes a list and separates it into two parts at the index you give it.
let array = [[],[],[]]
splitAt 1 array
will give you
([[]], [[],[]])
This helps you by getting you closer to the list you want, the middle nested list.
Let's do a destructuring bind to be able to reconstruct your final list later:
let array = [[],[],[]]
(beginning, end) = splitAt 1 array
Next, you'll need to get at the sub-list you want, which is the first item in the end list:
desired = head end
Now you can make your modification -- note, this will produce a new list, it won't modify the one that's there:
desired' = 3:desired
Now we need to put this back into the end list. Unfortunately, the end list is still the original value of [[],[]], so we'll have to replace the head of this with our desired' to make it right:
end' = desired' : (tail end)
This drops the empty sub-list at the beginning and affixes the modified list in its place.
Now all that's left is to recombine the modified end' with the original beginning:
in beginning ++ end'
making the whole snippet:
let array = [[],[],[]]
(beginning, end) = splitAt 1 array
desired = head end
desired' = 3:desired
end' = desired' : (tail end)
in beginning ++ end'
or, if you're entering all these as commands in the REPL:
let array = [[],[],[]]
let (beginning, end) = splitAt 1 array
let desired = head end
let desired' = 3:desired
let end' = desired' : (tail end)
beginning ++ end'
As paul mentions, things in Haskell are immutable. What you want to do must be done not be modifying the list in place, but by destructuring the list, transforming one of its parts, and restructuring the list with this changed part. One way of destructuring (via splitAt) is put forth there; I'd like to offer another.
Lists in Haskell are defined as follows:
data [] a = [] | a : [a]
This reads "A list of a is either empty or an a followed by a list of a". (:) is pronounced "cons" for "constructor", and with it, you can create nonempty lists.
1 : [] -> [1]
1 : [2,3] -> [1,2,3]
1 : 2 : 3 : [] -> [1,2,3]
This goes both ways, thanks to pattern matching. If you have a list [1,2,3], matching it to x : xs will bind its head 1 to the name x and its tail [2,3] to xs. As you can see, we've destructured the list into the two pieces that were initially used to create it. We can then operate on those pieces before putting the list back together:
λ> let x : xs = [1,2,3]
λ> let y = x - 5
λ> y : xs
[-4,2,3]
So in your case, we can match the initial list to x : y : z : [], compute w = y ++ [3], and construct our new list:
λ> let x : y : z : [] = [[],[],[]]
λ> let w = y ++ [3]
λ> [x,w,z]
[[],[3],[]]
But that's not very extensible, and it doesn't solve the problem you pose ("with specific index"). What if later on we want to change the thousandth item of a list? I'm not too keen on matching that many pieces. Fortunately, we know a little something about lists—index n in list xs is index n+1 in list x:xs. So we can recurse, moving one step along the list and decrementing our index each step of the way:
foo :: Int -> [[Int]] -> [[Int]]
foo 0 (x:xs) = TODO -- Index 0 is x. We have arrived; here, we concatenate with [3] before restructuring the list.
foo n (x:xs) = x : foo (n-1) xs
foo n [] = TODO -- Up to you how you would like to handle invalid indices. Consider the function error.
Implement the first of those three yourself, assuming you're operating on index zero. Make sure you understand the recursive call in the second. Then read on.
Now, this works. It's not all that useful, though—it performs a predetermined computation on a specified item in a list of one particular type. It's time to generalize. What we want is a function of the following type signature:
bar :: (a -> a) -> Int -> [a] -> [a]
where bar f n xs applies the transformation f to the value at index n in the list xs. With this, we can implement the function from before:
foo n xs = bar (++[3]) n xs
foo = bar (++[3]) -- Alternatively, with partial application
And believe it or not, changing the foo you already wrote into the much more useful bar is a very simple task. Give it a try!
As a followup to this question, I'm attempting to understand how not to add elements to a list using ++.
From this answer:
Again if you only want to append a single element to the list, that is
not a problem. This is a problem if you want to append n elements that
way to a list, so if you each time append a single element to the
list, and you do that n times, then the algorithm will be O(n2).
So from my understanding, this means you shouldn't do this:
let numbers = [1,3,5,10,15]
newNumbers = numbers ++ [27]
listofnumbers = newNumbers ++ [39]
Is this what the bold text in the quoted answer telling you not to do? If not, using code, what is the bold text warning you not to do?
The answer talks about a bad time complexity when it comes to appending elements to the end of the list. When you concat a list xs of length m and a list ys of length n together using (++) then xs ++ ys will have time complexity O(m) (under the assumption you evaluate xs ++ ys for a number of steps in proportion to m).
So if your list ys consists of a single element y (that is ys == [y]) then [y] ++ xs will be O(1) because you add it to the beginning but xs ++ [y] will be O(m) because you add it to the end of another list. So when you repeatedly add elements to the end of another list you will end up with O(m^2). So better do it within one go so you will have O(m).
Note that lists in Haskell are actually stacks which could have an infinite number of elements.
Try these two functions with a large list (like [1..10000]) and see if you notice any difference:
func1 a [] = a
func1 a (x:rest) = func (a ++ [x]) rest
func2 a b = a ++ b
I have a problem with writing a function which result is as shown below:
split([7;1;4;3;6;8;2], 4) = ([1;3;2;4], [7;6;8])
my current code i managed to write:
let split(list, number)=
let split1(list, number, lesser, greater)=
if list = [] then lesser::greater
else if List.hd list <= element then (List.hd list)::(lesser)
else (List.hd list)::(greater)
in
(List.tl lista, element, [], []);;
Thanks in advance for your help.
For the future, it helps to be more specific when asking a question on SO. What exactly is your problem? SO users will be skeptical of someone who wants others to help them, but won't help themselves.
Your code has nearly the correct structure, but there are a few errors in there that seem to be getting in your way.
Firstly lesser::greater is wrong, since the left hand side of a cons operator must be a list itself, but what you really want is a list where both of these are elements. So instead try [lesser;greater].
Secondly, if you think through your code, you will notice that it suddenly stops. You checked the first element, but you didn't look at the rest of the list. Since you want to keep splitting the list, you need your code to keep executing till the end of the list. To achieve this, we use recursion. Recursion mean that your function split1 will call itself again. It can be very confusing the first time you see it - each time split1 runs it will take the first element off, and then split the remainder of the list.
What does (List.hd list)::(lesser) actually mean? The lesser here really means all of the lesser elements in the rest of the list. You need to keep taking an element out of the list and putting it in either lesser or greater.
Finally avoid using List.hd excessively - it is neater to find the head and tail using pattern matching.
Here's a working version of the code:
let split(list, number)=
let rec split1(list, number, lesser, greater)=
match list with
| [] -> [List.rev lesser;List.rev greater]
| head::tail ->
match (head <= number) with
true -> split1(tail,number,head::lesser,greater)
| false -> split1(tail,number,lesser,head::greater)
in split1(list, number, [], []);;
split([1;2;3;4;5],3);;
The split1 function takes the elements off one at a time, and adds them to the lists.
Maybe my comments on the following code snippet would help:
let split list num =
let rec loop lesser greater list =
match list with
| [] -> (lesser, greater)
(* when your initial list is empty, you have to return the accumulators *)
| x :: xs ->
if x <= num then
(* x is lesser than num, so add x in the lesser list and
call loop on the tail of the list (xs) *)
else
(* x is greater than num, so add x in the greater list and
call loop on the tail of the list (xs) *)
in
(* here you make the first call to loop by initializing
your accumulators with empty list*)
loop [] [] list
I am looking for a way of walking through a list, grabbing an element (in that order its given I suppose), using it with another function, then returning to that list and continuing the operation WITHOUT losing that element from the list.
In examples I've seen the only way to accomplish this would be to do the following:
counter :: (Eq a1, Num a) => a1 -> [a1] -> a
counter a [] = 0
counter a [x] = if a == x then 1 else 0
counter a (x:xs) = if a == x then counter a xs + 1 else counter a xs
permut :: Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> Bool
permut [] [] = True
permut [x] [] = False
But this gets rid of the element x from the list xs when called again both within permut. I know that this also serves to end the recursive calls/terminate the function, but I need to have the whole list available in my counter function in order for it to work. I want to simply walk through the list and keep the whole thing intact. Is this possible?
EDIT: Updated use case. I am trying to work on checking if one list is a permutation of another. My thought process is within each list two properties will hold if they are a permutation:
They will have the same number of total elements (will implement this piece later)
They will have the same number of each element
Right now my counter function works, but I am losing elements as I iterate recursively through the permut function. I don't care about efficiency, I don't mind counting the same element again and comparing it if the number shows up in the list multiple times.
Your pattern match is a bit too exhaustive, and you need to check your condition for all elements. It should look like:
permut [] ys = null ys
permut xs ys = all condition xs
where
condition x = ....
Bonus suggestion: Whenever it is the case that it is true that you find yourself writing
if ..... then True else False
you write to much.
----- Addendum:
So you found all, it does walk through the list (xs in our case) and it checks if the condition is True for all elements (of xs in our case). For example:
all even [1,2,3]
is a short way to say:
even 1 && even 2 && even 3
So, in your where clause you have condition, and it has access to the original xs and ys lists, and it is called for each element in xs. Hence, all you need to check is if the argument x of condition occurs the same number of times in xs and ys. For this, you have already counter, so it'll be a one liner.
Scenario:
If there is an array of integers and I want to get array of integers in return that their total should not exceed 10.
I am a beginner in Haskell and tried below. If any one could correct me, would be greatly appreciated.
numbers :: [Int]
numbers = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11, 12]
getUpTo :: [Int] -> Int -> [Int]
getUpTo (x:xs) max =
if max <= 10
then
max = max + x
getUpTo xs max
else
x
Input
getUpTo numbers 0
Output Expected
[1,2,3,4]
BEWARE: This is not a solution to the knapsack problem :)
A very fast solution I came up with is the following one. Of course solving the full knapsack problem would be harder, but if you only need a quick solution this should work:
import Data.List (sort)
getUpTo :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
getUpTo max xs = go (sort xs) 0 []
where
go [] sum acc = acc
go (x:xs) sum acc
| x + sum <= max = go xs (x + sum) (x:acc)
| otherwise = acc
By sorting out the array before everything else, I can take items from the top one after another, until the maximum is exceeded; the list built up to that point is then returned.
edit: as a side note, I swapped the order of the first two arguments because this way should be more useful for partial applications.
For educational purposes (and since I felt like explaining something :-), here's a different version, which uses more standard functions. As written it is slower, because it computes a number of sums, and doesn't keep a running total. On the other hand, I think it expresses quite well how to break the problem down.
getUpTo :: [Int] -> [Int]
getUpTo = last . filter (\xs -> sum xs <= 10) . Data.List.inits
I've written the solution as a 'pipeline' of functions; if you apply getUpTo to a list of numbers, Data.List.inits gets applied to the list first, then filter (\xs -> sum xs <= 10) gets applied to the result, and finally last gets applied to the result of that.
So, let's see what each of those three functions do. First off, Data.List.inits returns the initial segments of a list, in increasing order of length. For example, Data.List.inits [2,3,4,5,6] returns [[],[2],[2,3],[2,3,4],[2,3,4,5],[2,3,4,5,6]]. As you can see, this is a list of lists of integers.
Next up, filter (\xs -> sum xs <= 10) goes through these lists of integer in order, keeping them if their sum is less than 10, and discarding them otherwise. The first argument of filter is a predicate which given a list xs returns True if the sum of xs is less than 10. This may be a bit confusing at first, so an example with a simpler predicate is in order, I think. filter even [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] returns [2,4,6] because that are the even values in the original list. In the earlier example, the lists [], [2], [2,3], and [2,3,4] all have a sum less than 10, but [2,3,4,5] and [2,3,4,5,6] don't, so the result of filter (\xs -> sum xs <= 10) . Data.List.inits applied to [2,3,4,5,6] is [[],[2],[2,3],[2,3,4]], again a list of lists of integers.
The last step is the easiest: we just return the last element of the list of lists of integers. This is in principle unsafe, because what should the last element of an empty list be? In our case, we are good to go, since inits always returns the empty list [] first, which has sum 0, which is less than ten - so there's always at least one element in the list of lists we're taking the last element of. We apply last to a list which contains the initial segments of the original list which sum to less than 10, ordered by length. In other words: we return the longest initial segment which sums to less than 10 - which is what you wanted!
If there are negative numbers in your numbers list, this way of doing things can return something you don't expect: getUpTo [10,4,-5,20] returns [10,4,-5] because that is the longest initial segment of [10,4,-5,20] which sums to under 10; even though [10,4] is above 10. If this is not the behaviour you want, and expect [10], then you must replace filter by takeWhile - that essentially stops the filtering as soon as the first element for which the predicate returns False is encountered. E.g. takeWhile [2,4,1,3,6,8,5,7] evaluates to [2,4]. So in our case, using takeWhile stops the moment the sum goes over 10, not trying longer segments.
By writing getUpTo as a composition of functions, it becomes easy to change parts of your algorithm: if you want the longest initial segment that sums exactly to 10, you can use last . filter (\xs -> sum xs == 10) . Data.List.inits. Or if you want to look at the tail segments instead, use head . filter (\xs -> sum xs <= 10) . Data.List.tails; or to take all the possible sublists into account (i.e. an inefficient knapsack solution!): last . filter (\xs -> sum xs <= 10) . Data.List.sortBy (\xs ys -> length xscomparelength ys) . Control.Monad.filterM (const [False,True]) - but I'm not going to explain that here, I've been rambling long enough!
There is an answer with a fast version; however, I thought it might also be instructive to see the minimal change necessary to your code to make it work the way you expect.
numbers :: [Int]
numbers = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11, 12]
getUpTo :: [Int] -> Int -> [Int]
getUpTo (x:xs) max =
if max < 10 -- (<), not (<=)
then
-- return a list that still contains x;
-- can't reassign to max, but can send a
-- different value on to the next
-- iteration of getUpTo
x : getUpTo xs (max + x)
else
[] -- don't want to return any more values here
I am fairly new to Haskell. I just started with it a few hours ago and as such I see in every question a challenge that helps me get out of the imperative way of thinking and a opportunity to practice my recursion thinking :)
I gave some thought to the question and I came up with this, perhaps, naive solution:
upToBound :: (Integral a) => [a] -> a -> [a]
upToBound (x:xs) bound =
let
summation _ [] = []
summation n (m:ms)
| n + m <= bound = m:summation (n + m) ms
| otherwise = []
in
summation 0 (x:xs)
I know there is already a better answer, I just did it for the fun of it.
I have the impression that I changed the signature of the original invocation, because I thought it was pointless to provide an initial zero to the outer function invocation, since I can only assume it can only be zero at first. As such, in my implementation I hid the seed from the caller and provided, instead, the maximum bound, which is more likely to change.
upToBound [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0] 10
Which outputs: [1,2,3,4]