Haskell
addm::[Int]->Int
addm (x:xs) = sum(x:xs)
I was able to achieve to get a sum of a list using sum function but is it possible to get the sum of a list using map function? Also what the use of map function?
You can't really use map to sum up a list, because map treats each list element independently from the others. You can use map for example to increment each value in a list like in
map (+1) [1,2,3,4] -- gives [2,3,4,5]
Another way to implement your addm would be to use foldl:
addm' = foldl (+) 0
Here it is, the supposedly impossible definition of sum in terms of map:
sum' xs = let { ys = 0 : map (\(a,b) -> a + b) (zip xs ys) } in last ys
this actually shows how scanl can be implemented in terms of map (and zip and last), the above being equivalent to foldl (+) 0 xs === last $ scanl (+) 0 xs:
scanl' f z xs = let { ys = z : map (uncurry f) (zip ys xs) } in ys
I expect one can calculate many things with map, arranging for all kinds of information flow through zip.
edit: the above is just a zipWith in disguise of course (and zipWith is kind of a map2):
sum' xs = let { ys = 0 : zipWith (+) ys xs } in last ys
This seems to suggest that scanl is more versatile than foldl.
It is not possible to use map to reduce a list to its sum. That recursive pattern is a fold.
sum :: [Int] -> Int
sum = foldr (+) 0
As an aside, note that you can define map as a fold as well:
map :: (a -> b) -> ([a] -> [b])
map f = fold (\x xs -> f x : xs) []
This is because foldr is the canonical recursive function on lists.
References: A tutorial on the universality and expressiveness of fold, Graham Hutton, J. Functional Programming 9 (4): 355–372, July 1999.
After some insights I have to add another answer: You can't get the sum of a list with map, but you can get the sum with its monadic version mapM. All you need to do is to use a Writer monad (see LYAHFGG) over the Sum monoid (see LYAHFGG).
I wrote a specialized version, which is probably easier to understand:
data Adder a = Adder a Int
instance Monad Adder where
return x = Adder x 0
(Adder x s) >>= f = let Adder x' s' = f x
in Adder x' (s + s')
toAdder x = Adder x x
sum' xs = let Adder _ s = mapM toAdder xs in s
main = print $ sum' [1..100]
--5050
Adder is just a wrapper around some type which also keeps a "running sum." We can make Adder a monad, and here it does some work: When the operation >>= (a.k.a. "bind") is executed, it returns the new result and the value of the running sum of that result plus the original running sum. The toAdder function takes an Int and creates an Adder that holds that argument both as wrapped value and as running sum (actually we're not interested in the value, but only in the sum part). Then in sum' mapM can do its magic: While it works similar to map for the values embedded in the monad, it executes "monadic" functions like toAdder, and chains these calls (it uses sequence to do this). At this point, we get through the "backdoor" of our monad the interaction between list elements that the standard map is missing.
Map "maps" each element of your list to an element in your output:
let f(x) = x*x
map f [1,2,3]
This will return a list of the squares.
To sum all elements in a list, use fold:
foldl (+) 0 [1,2,3]
+ is the function you want to apply, and 0 is the initial value (0 for sum, 1 for product etc)
As the other answers point out, the "normal" way is to use one of the fold functions. However it is possible to write something pretty similar to a while loop in imperative languages:
sum' [] = 0
sum' xs = head $ until single loop xs where
single [_] = True
single _ = False
loop (x1 : x2 : xs) = (x1 + x2) : xs
It adds the first two elements of the list together until it ends up with a one-element list, and returns that value (using head).
I realize this question has been answered, but I wanted to add this thought...
listLen2 :: [a] -> Int
listLen2 = sum . map (const 1)
I believe it returns the constant 1 for each item in the list, and returns the sum!
Might not be the best coding practice, but it was an example my professor gave to us students that seems to relate to this question well.
map can never be the primary tool for summing the elements of a container, in much the same way that a screwdriver can never be the primary tool for watching a movie. But you can use a screwdriver to fix a movie projector. If you really want, you can write
import Data.Monoid
import Data.Foldable
mySum :: (Foldable f, Functor f, Num a)
=> f a -> a
mySum = getSum . fold . fmap Sum
Of course, this is silly. You can get a more general, and possibly more efficient, version:
mySum' :: (Foldable f, Num a) => f a -> a
mySum' = getSum . foldMap Sum
Or better, just use sum, because its actually made for the job.
Related
When given a list [x0, x1, x2, . . . , xn−1], the function
should return the list [y0, y1, y2, . . . , yn−1] where y0 = x0, y1 = x0 + x1, ...
So if you had [1,2,3] as input, you would get [1,3,6] as output
I don't completely understand foldr, so maybe if I could get some help in trying to figure out how to change that last line to get the right answer.
scan :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
scan [] = []
scan [x] = [x]
scan (x:xs) = x : foldr (/y -> y (+) x) 0 (scan xs)
My initial solution (that works) uses the map function.
scan :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
scan [] = []
scan [x] = [x]
scan (x:xs) = x : map (+x) (scan xs)
EDIT, I added this first section to better address your two implementations.
First, addressing your issue with your implementation using foldr, here are a few remarks:
Lambdas start with a backslash in Haskell, not a slash. That's because backslashes kind of look like the lambda greek letter (λ).
Functions named using only special characters, like +, are infix by default. If you use parens around them, it turns them into prefix functions:
$> (+) 1 5
$> 6
The function passed to foldr takes two argument, whereas you're only supplying one in your lambda. If you really want to ignore the second one, you can use a _ instead of binding it to a variable (\x _ -> x).
I think this you're going down a rabbit hole with this implementation. See the discussion below for my take on the right way to tackle this issue.
Note: It is possible to implement map using foldr (source), that's one way you could use foldr in your working (second) implementation.
Implementing this with foldr is not optimal, since it folds, as the name implies, from the right:
foldr1 (+) [1..5]
--is equivalent to:
(1+(2+(3+(4+5))))
As you can see, the summing operation is done starting from the tail of the list, which is not what you're looking for. To make this work, you would have to "cheat", and reverse your list twice, once before folding it and once after:
scan = tail . reverse . foldr step [0] . reverse where
step e acc#(a:_) = (e + a) : acc
You can make this better using a left fold, which folds from the left:
foldl1 (+) [1..5]
--is equivalent to:
((((1+2)+3)+4)+5)
This, however, still isn't ideal, because to keep the order of elements in your accumulator the same, you would have to use the ++ function, which amounts to quadratic time complexity in such a function. A compromise is to use the : function, but then you still have to reverse your accumulator list after the fold, which is only linear complexity:
scan' :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
scan' = tail . reverse . foldl step [0] where
step acc#(a:_) e = (e + a) : acc
This still isn't very good, since the reverse adds an extra computation. The ideal solution would therefore be to use scanl1, which, as a bonus, doesn't require you to give a starting value ([0] in the examples above):
scan'' :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
scan'' = scanl1 (+)
scanl1 is implemented in terms of scanl, which is defined roughly like this:
scanl f init list = init : (case list of
[] -> []
x:xs -> scanl f (f init x) xs)
You can therefore simply do:
$> scanl1 (+) [1..3]
$> [1,3,6]
As a final note, your scan function is unnecessarily specialized to Integer, as it only requires a Num constraint:
scan :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
This might even lead to an increase in performance, but that's where my abilities end, so I won't go any further :)
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).
So i'm new to sml and am trying to understand the ins/out out of it. Recently i tried creating a filter which takes two parameters: a function (that returns a boolean), and a list of values to run against the function. What the filter does is it returns the list of values which return true against the function.
Code:
fun filter f [] = [] |
filter f (x::xs) =
if (f x)
then x::(filter f xs)
else (filter f xs);
So that works. But what i'm trying to do now is just a return a tuple that contains the list of true values, and false. I'm stuck on my conditional and I can't really see another way. Any thoughts on how to solve this?
Code:
fun filter2 f [] = ([],[]) |
filter2 f (x::xs) =
if (f x)
then (x::(filter2 f xs), []) (* error *)
else ([], x::(filter2 f xs)); (* error *)
I think there are several ways to do this.
Reusing Filter
For instance, we could use a inductive approach based on the fact that your tuple would be formed by two elements, the first is the list of elements that satisfy the predicate and the second the list of elements that don't. So, you could reuse your filter function as:
fun partition f xs = (filter f xs, filter (not o f) xs)
This is not the best approach, though, because it evaluates the lists twice, but if the lists are small, this is quite evident and very readable.
Folding
Another way to think about this is in terms of fold. You could think that you are reducing your list to a tuple list, and as you go, you split your items depending on a predicate. Somwewhat like this:
fun parition f xs =
let
fun split x (xs,ys) =
if f x
then (x::xs,ys)
else (xs, x::ys)
val (trueList, falseList) = List.foldl (fn (x,y) => split x y)
([],[]) xs
in
(List.rev trueList, List.rev falseList)
end
Parition
You could also implement your own folding algorithm in the same way as the List.parition method of SML does:
fun partition f xs =
let
fun iter(xs, (trueList,falseList)) =
case xs of
[] => (List.rev trueList, List.rev falseList)
| (x::xs') => if f x
then iter(xs', (x::trueList,falseList))
else iter(xs', (trueList,x::falseList))
in
iter(xs,([],[]))
end
Use SML Basis Method
And ultimately, you can avoid all this and use SML method List.partition whose documentation says:
partition f l
applies f to each element x of l, from left to right, and returns a
pair (pos, neg) where pos is the list of those x for which f x
evaluated to true, and neg is the list of those for which f x
evaluated to false. The elements of pos and neg retain the same
relative order they possessed in l.
This method is implemented as the previous example.
So I will show a good way to do it, and a better way to do it (IMO). But the 'better way' is just for future reference when you learn:
fun filter2 f [] = ([], [])
| filter2 f (x::xs) = let
fun ftuple f (x::xs) trueList falseList =
if (f x)
then ftuple f xs (x::trueList) falseList
else ftuple f xs trueList (x::falseList)
| ftuple _ [] trueList falseList = (trueList, falseList)
in
ftuple f (x::xs) [] []
end;
The reason why yours does not work is because when you call x::(filter2 f xs), the compiler is naively assuming that you are building a single list, it doesn't assume that it is a tuple, it is stepping into the scope of your function call. So while you think to yourself result type is tuple of lists, the compiler gets tunnel vision and thinks result type is list. Here is the better version in my opinion, you should look up the function foldr if you are curious, it is much better to employ this technique since it is more readable, less verbose, and much more importantly ... more predictable and robust:
fun filter2 f l = foldr (fn(x,xs) => if (f x) then (x::(#1(xs)), #2(xs)) else (#1(xs), x::(#2(xs)))) ([],[]) l;
The reason why the first example works is because you are storing default empty lists that accumulate copies of the variables that either fit the condition, or do not fit the condition. However, you have to explicitly tell SML compiler to make sure that the type rules agree. You have to make absolutely sure that SML knows that your return type is a tuple of lists. Any mistake in this chain of command, and this will result in failure to execute. Hence, when working with SML, always study your type inferences. As for the second one, you can see that it is a one-liner, but I will leave you to research that one on your own, just google foldr and foldl.
Say I have any list like this:
[4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2]
I need a Haskell function that will transform this list into a list of lists which are composed of the segments of the original list which form a series in ascending order. So the result should look like this:
[[4,5,6,7],[1,2,3,4,5,6],[1,2]]
Any suggestions?
You can do this by resorting to manual recursion, but I like to believe Haskell is a more evolved language. Let's see if we can develop a solution that uses existing recursion strategies. First some preliminaries.
{-# LANGUAGE NoMonomorphismRestriction #-}
-- because who wants to write type signatures, amirite?
import Data.List.Split -- from package split on Hackage
Step one is to observe that we want to split the list based on a criteria that looks at two elements of the list at once. So we'll need a new list with elements representing a "previous" and "next" value. There's a very standard trick for this:
previousAndNext xs = zip xs (drop 1 xs)
However, for our purposes, this won't quite work: this function always outputs a list that's shorter than the input, and we will always want a list of the same length as the input (and in particular we want some output even when the input is a list of length one). So we'll modify the standard trick just a bit with a "null terminator".
pan xs = zip xs (map Just (drop 1 xs) ++ [Nothing])
Now we're going to look through this list for places where the previous element is bigger than the next element (or the next element doesn't exist). Let's write a predicate that does that check.
bigger (x, y) = maybe False (x >) y
Now let's write the function that actually does the split. Our "delimiters" will be values that satisfy bigger; and we never want to throw them away, so let's keep them.
ascendingTuples = split . keepDelimsR $ whenElt bigger
The final step is just to throw together the bit that constructs the tuples, the bit that splits the tuples, and a last bit of munging to throw away the bits of the tuples we don't care about:
ascending = map (map fst) . ascendingTuples . pan
Let's try it out in ghci:
*Main> ascending [4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2]
[[4,5,6,7],[1,2,3,4,5,6],[1,2]]
*Main> ascending [7,6..1]
[[7],[6],[5],[4],[3],[2],[1]]
*Main> ascending []
[[]]
*Main> ascending [1]
[[1]]
P.S. In the current release of split, keepDelimsR is slightly stricter than it needs to be, and as a result ascending currently doesn't work with infinite lists. I've submitted a patch that makes it lazier, though.
ascend :: Ord a => [a] -> [[a]]
ascend xs = foldr f [] xs
where
f a [] = [[a]]
f a xs'#(y:ys) | a < head y = (a:y):ys
| otherwise = [a]:xs'
In ghci
*Main> ascend [4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2]
[[4,5,6,7],[1,2,3,4,5,6],[1,2]]
This problem is a natural fit for a paramorphism-based solution. Having (as defined in that post)
para :: (a -> [a] -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
foldr :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
para c n (x : xs) = c x xs (para c n xs)
foldr c n (x : xs) = c x (foldr c n xs)
para c n [] = n
foldr c n [] = n
we can write
partition_asc xs = para c [] xs where
c x (y:_) ~(a:b) | x<y = (x:a):b
c x _ r = [x]:r
Trivial, since the abstraction fits.
BTW they have two kinds of map in Common Lisp - mapcar
(processing elements of an input list one by one)
and maplist (processing "tails" of a list). With this idea we get
import Data.List (tails)
partition_asc2 xs = foldr c [] . init . tails $ xs where
c (x:y:_) ~(a:b) | x<y = (x:a):b
c (x:_) r = [x]:r
Lazy patterns in both versions make it work with infinite input lists
in a productive manner (as first shown in Daniel Fischer's answer).
update 2020-05-08: not so trivial after all. Both head . head . partition_asc $ [4] ++ undefined and the same for partition_asc2 fail with *** Exception: Prelude.undefined. The combining function g forces the next element y prematurely. It needs to be more carefully written to be productive right away before ever looking at the next element, as e.g. for the second version,
partition_asc2' xs = foldr c [] . init . tails $ xs where
c (x:ys) r#(~(a:b)) = (x:g):gs
where
(g,gs) | not (null ys)
&& x < head ys = (a,b)
| otherwise = ([],r)
(again, as first shown in Daniel's answer).
You can use a right fold to break up the list at down-steps:
foldr foo [] xs
where
foo x yss = (x:zs) : ws
where
(zs, ws) = case yss of
(ys#(y:_)) : rest
| x < y -> (ys,rest)
| otherwise -> ([],yss)
_ -> ([],[])
(It's a bit complicated in order to have the combining function lazy in the second argument, so that it works well for infinite lists too.)
One other way of approaching this task (which, in fact lays the fundamentals of a very efficient sorting algorithm) is using the Continuation Passing Style a.k.a CPS which, in this particular case applied to folding from right; foldr.
As is, this answer would only chunk up the ascending chunks however, it would be nice to chunk up the descending ones at the same time... preferably in reverse order all in O(n) which would leave us with only binary merging of the obtained chunks for a perfectly sorted output. Yet that's another answer for another question.
chunks :: Ord a => [a] -> [[a]]
chunks xs = foldr go return xs $ []
where
go :: Ord a => a -> ([a] -> [[a]]) -> ([a] -> [[a]])
go c f = \ps -> let (r:rs) = f [c]
in case ps of
[] -> r:rs
[p] -> if c > p then (p:r):rs else [p]:(r:rs)
*Main> chunks [4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2]
[[4,5,6,7],[1,2,3,4,5,6],[1,2]]
*Main> chunks [4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,4,3,2,6,1,2]
[[4,5,6,7],[1,2,3,4,5],[4],[3],[2,6],[1,2]]
In the above code c stands for current and p is for previous and again, remember we are folding from right so previous, is actually the next item to process.
Creating the permutations of a list or set is simple enough. I need to apply a function to each element of all subsets of all elements in a list, in the order in which they occur. For instance:
apply f [x,y] = { [x,y], [f x, y], [x, f y], [f x, f y] }
The code I have is a monstrous pipeline or expensive computations, and I'm not sure how to proceed, or if it's correct. I'm sure there must be a better way to accomplish this task - perhaps in the list monad - but I'm not sure. This is my code:
apply :: Ord a => (a -> Maybe a) -> [a] -> Set [a]
apply p xs = let box = take (length xs + 1) . map (take $ length xs) in
(Set.fromList . map (catMaybes . zipWith (flip ($)) xs) . concatMap permutations
. box . map (flip (++) (repeat Just)) . flip iterate []) ((:) p)
The general idea was:
(1) make the list
[[], [f], [f,f], [f,f,f], ... ]
(2) map (++ repeat Just) over the list to obtain
[[Just, Just, Just, Just, ... ],
[f , Just, Just, Just, ... ],
[f , f , Just, Just, ... ],
... ]
(3) find all permutations of each list in (2) shaved to the length of the input list
(4) apply the permuted lists to the original list, garnering all possible applications
of the function f to each (possibly empty) subset of the original list, preserving
the original order.
I'm sure there's a better way to do it, though. I just don't know it. This way is expensive, messy, and rather prone to error. The Justs are there because of the intended application.
To do this, you can leverage the fact that lists represent non-deterministic values when using applicatives and monads. It then becomes as simple as:
apply f = mapM (\x -> [x, f x])
It basically reads as follows: "Map each item in a list to itself and the result of applying f to it. Finally, return a list of all the possible combinations of these two values across the whole list."
If I understand your problem correctly, it's best not to describe it in terms of permutations. Rather, it's closer to generating powersets.
powerset (x:xs) = let pxs = powerset xs in pxs ++ map (x :) pxs
powerset [] = [[]]
Each time you add another member to the head of the list, the powerset doubles in size. The second half of the powerset is exactly like the first, but with x included.
For your problem, the choice is not whether to include or exclude x, but whether to apply or not apply f.
powersetapp f (x:xs) = let pxs = powersetapp f xs in map (x:) pxs ++ map (f x:) pxs
powersetapp f [] = [[]]
This does what your "apply" function does, modulo making a Set out of the result.
Paul's and Heatsink's answers are good, but error out when you try to run them on infinite lists.
Here's a different method that works on both infinite and finite lists:
apply _ [] = [ [] ]
apply f (x:xs) = (x:ys):(x':ys):(double yss)
where x' = f x
(ys:yss) = apply f xs
double [] = []
double (ys:yss) = (x:ys):(x':ys):(double yss)
This works as expected - though you'll note it produces a different order to the permutations than Paul's and Heatsink's
ghci> -- on an infinite list
ghci> map (take 4) $ take 16 $ apply (+1) [0,0..]
[[0,0,0,0],[1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[1,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],...,[1,1,1,1]]
ghci> -- on a finite list
ghci> apply (+1) [0,0,0,0]
[[0,0,0,0],[1,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0],[1,1,0,0],[0,0,1,0],...,[1,1,1,1]]
Here is an alternative phrasing of rampion's infinite-input-handling solution:
-- sequence a list of nonempty lists
sequenceList :: [[a]] -> [[a]]
sequenceList [] = [[]]
sequenceList (m:ms) = do
xs <- nonempty (sequenceList ms)
x <- nonempty m
return (x:xs)
where
nonempty ~(x:xs) = x:xs
Then we can define apply in Paul's idiomatic style:
apply f = sequenceList . map (\x -> [x, f x])
Contrast sequenceList with the usual definition of sequence:
sequence :: (Monad m) => [m a] -> m [a]
sequence [] = [[]]
sequence (m:ms) = do
x <- m
xs <- sequence ms
return (x:xs)
The order of binding is reversed in sequenceList so that the variations of the first element are the "inner loop", i.e. we vary the head faster than the tail. Varying the end of an infinite list is a waste of time.
The other key change is nonempty, the promise that we won't bind an empty list. If any of the inputs were empty, or if the result of the recursive call to sequenceList were ever empty, then we would be forced to return an empty list. We can't tell in advance whether any of inputs is empty (because there are infinitely many of them to check), so the only way for this function to output anything at all is to promise that they won't be.
Anyway, this is fun subtle stuff. Don't stress about it on your first day :-)