okay, this is probably going to be in the prelude, but: is there a standard library function for finding the unique elements in a list? my (re)implementation, for clarification, is:
has :: (Eq a) => [a] -> a -> Bool
has [] _ = False
has (x:xs) a
| x == a = True
| otherwise = has xs a
unique :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a]
unique [] = []
unique (x:xs)
| has xs x = unique xs
| otherwise = x : unique xs
I searched for (Eq a) => [a] -> [a] on Hoogle.
First result was nub (remove duplicate elements from a list).
Hoogle is awesome.
The nub function from Data.List (no, it's actually not in the Prelude) definitely does something like what you want, but it is not quite the same as your unique function. They both preserve the original order of the elements, but unique retains the last
occurrence of each element, while nub retains the first occurrence.
You can do this to make nub act exactly like unique, if that's important (though I have a feeling it's not):
unique = reverse . nub . reverse
Also, nub is only good for small lists.
Its complexity is quadratic, so it starts to get slow if your list can contain hundreds of elements.
If you limit your types to types having an Ord instance, you can make it scale better.
This variation on nub still preserves the order of the list elements, but its complexity is O(n * log n):
import qualified Data.Set as Set
nubOrd :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
nubOrd xs = go Set.empty xs where
go s (x:xs)
| x `Set.member` s = go s xs
| otherwise = x : go (Set.insert x s) xs
go _ _ = []
In fact, it has been proposed to add nubOrd to Data.Set.
import Data.Set (toList, fromList)
uniquify lst = toList $ fromList lst
I think that unique should return a list of elements that only appear once in the original list; that is, any elements of the orginal list that appear more than once should not be included in the result.
May I suggest an alternative definition, unique_alt:
unique_alt :: [Int] -> [Int]
unique_alt [] = []
unique_alt (x:xs)
| elem x ( unique_alt xs ) = [ y | y <- ( unique_alt xs ), y /= x ]
| otherwise = x : ( unique_alt xs )
Here are some examples that highlight the differences between unique_alt and unqiue:
unique [1,2,1] = [2,1]
unique_alt [1,2,1] = [2]
unique [1,2,1,2] = [1,2]
unique_alt [1,2,1,2] = []
unique [4,2,1,3,2,3] = [4,1,2,3]
unique_alt [4,2,1,3,2,3] = [4,1]
I think this would do it.
unique [] = []
unique (x:xs) = x:unique (filter ((/=) x) xs)
Another way to remove duplicates:
unique :: [Int] -> [Int]
unique xs = [x | (x,y) <- zip xs [0..], x `notElem` (take y xs)]
Algorithm in Haskell to create a unique list:
data Foo = Foo { id_ :: Int
, name_ :: String
} deriving (Show)
alldata = [ Foo 1 "Name"
, Foo 2 "Name"
, Foo 3 "Karl"
, Foo 4 "Karl"
, Foo 5 "Karl"
, Foo 7 "Tim"
, Foo 8 "Tim"
, Foo 9 "Gaby"
, Foo 9 "Name"
]
isolate :: [Foo] -> [Foo]
isolate [] = []
isolate (x:xs) = (fst f) : isolate (snd f)
where
f = foldl helper (x,[]) xs
helper (a,b) y = if name_ x == name_ y
then if id_ x >= id_ y
then (x,b)
else (y,b)
else (a,y:b)
main :: IO ()
main = mapM_ (putStrLn . show) (isolate alldata)
Output:
Foo {id_ = 9, name_ = "Name"}
Foo {id_ = 9, name_ = "Gaby"}
Foo {id_ = 5, name_ = "Karl"}
Foo {id_ = 8, name_ = "Tim"}
A library-based solution:
We can use that style of Haskell programming where all looping and recursion activities are pushed out of user code and into suitable library functions. Said library functions are often optimized in ways that are way beyond the skills of a Haskell beginner.
A way to decompose the problem into two passes goes like this:
produce a second list that is parallel to the input list, but with duplicate elements suitably marked
eliminate elements marked as duplicates from that second list
For the first step, duplicate elements don't need a value at all, so we can use [Maybe a] as the type of the second list. So we need a function of type:
pass1 :: Eq a => [a] -> [Maybe a]
Function pass1 is an example of stateful list traversal where the state is the list (or set) of distinct elements seen so far. For this sort of problem, the library provides the mapAccumL :: (s -> a -> (s, b)) -> s -> [a] -> (s, [b]) function.
Here the mapAccumL function requires, besides the initial state and the input list, a step function argument, of type s -> a -> (s, Maybe a).
If the current element x is not a duplicate, the output of the step function is Just x and x gets added to the current state. If x is a duplicate, the output of the step function is Nothing, and the state is passed unchanged.
Testing under the ghci interpreter:
$ ghci
GHCi, version 8.8.4: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
λ>
λ> stepFn s x = if (elem x s) then (s, Nothing) else (x:s, Just x)
λ>
λ> import Data.List(mapAccumL)
λ>
λ> pass1 xs = mapAccumL stepFn [] xs
λ>
λ> xs2 = snd $ pass1 "abacrba"
λ> xs2
[Just 'a', Just 'b', Nothing, Just 'c', Just 'r', Nothing, Nothing]
λ>
Writing a pass2 function is even easier. To filter out Nothing non-values, we could use:
import Data.Maybe( fromJust, isJust)
pass2 = (map fromJust) . (filter isJust)
but why bother at all ? - as this is precisely what the catMaybes library function does.
λ>
λ> import Data.Maybe(catMaybes)
λ>
λ> catMaybes xs2
"abcr"
λ>
Putting it all together:
Overall, the source code can be written as:
import Data.Maybe(catMaybes)
import Data.List(mapAccumL)
uniques :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a]
uniques = let stepFn s x = if (elem x s) then (s, Nothing) else (x:s, Just x)
in catMaybes . snd . mapAccumL stepFn []
This code is reasonably compatible with infinite lists, something occasionally referred to as being “laziness-friendly”:
λ>
λ> take 5 $ uniques $ "abacrba" ++ (cycle "abcrf")
"abcrf"
λ>
Efficiency note:
If we anticipate that it is possible to find many distinct elements in the input list and we can have an Ord a instance, the state can be implemented as a Set object rather than a plain list, this without having to alter the overall structure of the solution.
Here's a solution that uses only Prelude functions:
uniqueList theList =
if not (null theList)
then head theList : filter (/= head theList) (uniqueList (tail theList))
else []
I'm assuming this is equivalent to running two or three nested "for" loops (running through each element, then running through each element again to check for other elements with the same value, then removing those other elements) so I'd estimate this is O(n^2) or O(n^3)
Might even be better than reversing a list, nubbing it, then reversing it again, depending on your circumstances.
Related
I'm playing around with Haskell, mostly trying to learn some new techniques to solve problems. Without any real application in mind I came to think about an interesting thing I can't find a satisfying solution to. Maybe someone has any better ideas?
The problem:
Let's say we want to generate a list of Ints using a starting value and a list of Ints, representing the pattern of numbers to be added in the specified order. So the first value is given, then second value should be the starting value plus the first value in the list, the third that value plus the second value of the pattern, and so on. When the pattern ends, it should start over.
For example: Say we have a starting value v and a pattern [x,y], we'd like the list [v,v+x,v+x+y,v+2x+y,v+2x+2y, ...]. In other words, with a two-valued pattern, next value is created by alternatingly adding x and y to the number last calculated.
If the pattern is short enough (2-3 values?), one could generate separate lists:
[v,v,v,...]
[0,x,x,2x,2x,3x, ...]
[0,0,y,y,2y,2y,...]
and then zip them together with addition. However, as soon as the pattern is longer this gets pretty tedious. My best attempt at a solution would be something like this:
generateLstByPattern :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
generateLstByPattern v pattern = v : (recGen v pattern)
where
recGen :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
recGen lastN (x:[]) = (lastN + x) : (recGen (lastN + x) pattern)
recGen lastN (x:xs) = (lastN + x) : (recGen (lastN + x) xs)
It works as intended - but I have a feeling there is a bit more elegant Haskell solution somewhere (there almost always is!). What do you think? Maybe a cool list-comprehension? A higher-order function I've forgotten about?
Separate the concerns. First look a just a list to process once. Get that working, test it. Hint: “going through the list elements with some accumulator” is in general a good fit for a fold.
Then all that's left to is to repeat the list of inputs and feed it into the pass-once function. Conveniently, there's a standard function for that purpose. Just make sure your once-processor is lazy enough to handle the infinite list input.
What you describe is
foo :: Num a => a -> [a] -> [a]
foo v pattern = scanl (+) v (cycle pattern)
which would normally be written even as just
foo :: Num a => a -> [a] -> [a]
foo v = scanl (+) v . cycle
scanl (+) v xs is the standard way to calculate the partial sums of (v:xs), and cycle is the standard way to repeat a given list cyclically. This is what you describe.
This works for a pattern list of any positive length, as you wanted.
Your way of generating it is inventive, but it's almost too clever for its own good (i.e. it seems overly complicated). It can be expressed with some list comprehensions, as
foo v pat =
let -- the lists, as you describe them:
lists = repeat v :
[ replicate i 0 ++
[ y | x <- [p, p+p ..]
, y <- map (const x) pat ]
| (p,i) <- zip pat [1..] ]
in
-- OK, so what do we do with that? How do we zipWith
-- over an arbitrary amount of lists?
-- with a fold!
foldr (zipWith (+)) (repeat 0) lists
map (const x) pat is a "clever" way of writing replicate (length pat) x. It can be further shortened to x <$ pat since (<$) x xs == map (const x) xs by definition. It might seem obfuscated, until you've become accustomed to it, and then it seems clear and obvious. :)
Surprised noone's mentioned the silly way yet.
mylist x xs = x : zipWith (+) (mylist x xs) (cycle xs)
(If you squint a bit you can see the connection to scanl answer).
When it is about generating series my first approach would be iterate or unfoldr. iterate is for simple series and unfoldr is for those who carry kind of state but without using any State monad.
In this particular case I think unfoldr is ideal.
series :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
series s [x,y] = unfoldr (\(f,s) -> Just (f*x + s*y, (s+1,f))) (s,0)
λ> take 10 $ series 1 [1,1]
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
λ> take 10 $ series 3 [1,1]
[3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]
λ> take 10 $ series 0 [1,2]
[0,1,3,4,6,7,9,10,12,13]
It is probably better to implement the lists separately, for example the list with x can be implement with:
xseq :: (Enum a, Num a) => a -> [a]
xseq x = 0 : ([x, x+x ..] >>= replicate 2)
Whereas the sequence for y can be implemented as:
yseq :: (Enum a, Num a) => a -> [a]
yseq y = [0,y ..] >>= replicate 2
Then you can use zipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c] to add the two lists together and add v to it:
mylist :: (Enum a, Num a) => a -> a -> a -> [a]
mylist v x y = zipWith ((+) . (v +)) (xseq x) (yseq y)
So for v = 1, x = 2, and y = 3, we obtain:
Prelude> take 10 (mylist 1 2 3)
[1,3,6,8,11,13,16,18,21,23]
An alternative is to see as pattern that we each time first add x and then y. We thus can make an infinite list [(x+), (y+)], and use scanl :: (b -> a -> b) -> b -> [a] -> [b] to each time apply one of the functions and yield the intermediate result:
mylist :: Num a => a -> a -> a -> [a]
mylist v x y = scanl (flip ($)) v (cycle [(x+), (y+)])
this yields the same result:
Prelude> take 10 $ mylist 1 2 3
[1,3,6,8,11,13,16,18,21,23]
Now the only thing left to do is to generalize this to a list. So for example if the list of additions is given, then you can impelement this as:
mylist :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
mylist v xs = scanl (flip ($)) v (cycle (map (+) xs))
or for a list of functions:
mylist :: Num a => [a -> a] -> [a]
mylist v xs = scanl (flip ($)) v (cycle (xs))
I'm trying to get from the before to after state. Is there a convenient Haskell function for removing duplicate tuples from a list? Or perhaps it is something a bit more complicated such as iterating through the entire list?
Before: the list of tuples, sorted by word, as in
[(2,"a"), (1,"a"), (1,"b"), (1,"b"), (1,"c"), (2,"dd")]
After: the list of sorted tuples with exact duplicates removed, as in
[(2,"a"), (1,"a"), (1,"b"), (1,"c"), (2,"dd")]
Searching for Eq a => [a] -> [a] on hoogle, returns nub function:
The nub function removes duplicate elements from a list. In particular, it keeps only the first occurrence of each element. (The name nub means `essence'.)
As in the documentation the more general case is nubBy.
That said, this is an O(n^2) algorithm and may not be very efficient. An alternative would be to use Data.Set.fromList if the values are an instance of Ord type-class, as in:
import qualified Data.Set as Set
nub' :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
nub' = Set.toList . Set.fromList
though this will not maintain the order of the original list.
A simple set style solution which maintains the order of the original list can be:
import Data.Set (Set, member, insert, empty)
nub' :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
nub' = reverse . fst . foldl loop ([], empty)
where
loop :: Ord a => ([a], Set a) -> a -> ([a], Set a)
loop acc#(xs, obs) x
| x `member` obs = acc
| otherwise = (x:xs, x `insert` obs)
If you want to define a version of nub for Ord, I recommend using
nub' :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
nub' xs = foldr go (`seq` []) xs empty
where
go x r obs
| x `member` obs = r obs
| otherwise = obs' `seq` x : r obs'
where obs' = x `insert` obs
To see what this is doing, you can get rid of the foldr:
nub' :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
nub' xs = nub'' xs empty
where
nub'' [] obs = obs `seq` []
nub'' (y : ys) obs
| y `member` obs = nub'' ys obs
| otherwise = obs' `seq` y : nub'' ys obs'
where obs' = y `insert` obs
One key point about this implementation, as opposed to
behzad.nouri's, is that it produces elements lazily, as they are consumed. This is generally much better for cache utilization and garbage collection, as well as using a constant factor less memory than the reversing algorithm.
Is there a Haskell function that takes a list and returns a list of duplicates/redundant elements in that list?
I'm aware of the the nub and nubBy functions, but they remove the duplicates; I would like to keep the dupes and collects them in a list.
The simplest way to do this, which is extremely inefficient, is to use nub and \\:
import Data.List (nub, (\\))
getDups :: Eq a => [a] -> [a]
getDups xs = xs \\ nub xs
If you can live with an Ord constraint, everything gets much nicer:
import Data.Set (member, empty, insert)
getDups :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
getDups xs = foldr go (const []) xs empty
where
go x cont seen
| member x seen = x : r seen
| otherwise = r (insert x seen)
I wrote these functions which seems to work well.
The first one return the list of duplicates element in a list with a basic equlity test (==)
duplicate :: Eq a => [a] -> [a]
duplicate [] = []
duplicate (x:xs)
| null pres = duplicate abs
| otherwise = x:pres++duplicate abs
where (pres,abs) = partition (x ==) xs
The second one make the same job by providing a equality test function (like nubBy)
duplicateBy :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
duplicateBy eq [] = []
duplicateBy eq (x:xs)
| null pres = duplicateBy eq abs
| otherwise = x:pres++duplicateBy eq abs
where (pres,abs) = partition (eq x) xs
Is there a Haskell function that takes a list and returns a list of duplicates/redundant elements in that list?
You can write such a function yourself easily enough. Use a helper function that takes two list arguments, the first one of which being the list whose dupes are sought; walk along that list and accumulate the dupes in the second argument; finally, return the latter when the first argument is the empty list.
dupes l = dupes' l []
where
dupes' [] ls = ls
dupes' (x:xs) ls
| not (x `elem` ls) && x `elem` xs = dupes' xs (x:ls)
| otherwise = dupes' xs ls
Test:
λ> dupes [1,2,3,3,2,2,3,4]
[3,2]
Be aware that the asymptotic time complexity is as bad as that of nub, though: O(n^2). If you want better asymptotics, you'll need an Ord class constraint.
If you are happy with an Ord constraint you can use group from Data.List:
getDups :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
getDups = concatMap (drop 1) . group . sort
I'm trying to write a function that given a list of numbers, returns a list where every 2nd number is doubled in value, starting from the last element. So if the list elements are 1..n, n-th is going to be left as-is, (n-1)-th is going to be doubled in value, (n-2)-th is going to be left as-is, etc.
So here's how I solved it:
MyFunc :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
MyFunc xs = reverse (MyFuncHelper (reverse xs))
MyFuncHelper :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
MyFuncHelper [] = []
MyFuncHelper (x:[]) = [x]
MyFuncHelper (x:y:zs) = [x,y*2] ++ MyFuncHelper zs
And it works:
MyFunc [1,1,1,1] = [2,1,2,1]
MyFunc [1,1,1] = [1,2,1]
However, I can't help but think there has to be a simpler solution than reversing the list, processing it and then reversing it again. Could I simply iterate the list backwards? If yes, how?
The under reversed f xs idiom from the lens library will apply f to xs in reverse order:
under reversed (take 5) [1..100] => [96,97,98,99,100]
When you need to process the list from the end, usually foldr works pretty well. Here is a solution for you without reversing the whole list twice:
doubleOdd :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
doubleOdd = fst . foldr multiplyCond ([], False)
where multiplyCond x (rest, flag) = ((if flag then (x * 2) else x) : rest, not flag)
The multiplyCond function takes a tuple with a flag and the accumulator list. The flag constantly toggles on and off to track whether we should multiply the element or not. The accumulator list simply gathers the resulting numbers. This solution may be not so concise, but avoids extra work and doesn't use anything but prelude functions.
myFunc = reverse
. map (\(b,x) -> if b then x*2 else x)
. zip (cycle [False,True])
. reverse
But this isn't much better. Your implementation is sufficiently elegant.
The simplest way to iterate the list backwards is to reverse the list. I don't think you can really do much better than that; I suspect that if you have to traverse the whole list to find the end, and remember how to get back up, you might as well just reverse it. If this is a big deal, maybe you should be using some other data structure instead of lists—Vector or Seq might be good choices.
Another way to write your helper function is to use Traversable:
import Control.Monad.State
import Data.Traversable (Traversable, traverse)
toggle :: (Bool -> a -> b) -> a -> State Bool b
toggle f a =
do active <- get
put (not active)
return (f active a)
doubleEvens :: (Num a, Traversable t) => t a -> t a
doubleEvens xs = evalState (traverse (toggle step) xs) False
where step True x = 2*x
step False x = x
yourFunc :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
yourFunc = reverse . doubleEvens
Or if we go a bit crazy with Foldable and Traversable, we can try this:
Use Foldable's foldl to extract a reverse-order list from any of its instances. For some types this will be more efficient than reversing a list.
Then we can use traverse and State to map each element of the original structure to its counterpart in the reversed order.
Here's how to do it:
import Control.Monad.State
import Data.Foldable (Foldable)
import qualified Data.Foldable as F
import Data.Traversable (Traversable, traverse)
import Data.Map (Map)
import qualified Data.Map as Map
toReversedList :: Foldable t => t a -> [a]
toReversedList = F.foldl (flip (:)) []
reverse' :: Traversable t => t a -> t a
reverse' ta = evalState (traverse step ta) (toReversedList ta)
where step _ = do (h:t) <- get
put t
return h
yourFunc' :: (Traversable t, Num a) => t a -> t a
yourFunc' = reverse' . doubleEvens
-- >>> yourFunc' $ Map.fromList [(1, 1), (2, 1), (3, 1), (4, 1)]
-- fromList [(1,2),(2,1),(3,2),(4,1)]
-- >>> yourFunc' $ Map.fromList [(1, 1), (2, 1), (3, 1)]
-- fromList [(1,1),(2,2),(3,1)]
There's probably a better way to do this, though...
func xs = zipWith (*) xs $ reverse . (take $ length xs) $ cycle [1,2]
Is there a better and more concise way to write the following code in Haskell? I've tried using if..else but that is getting less readable than the following. I want to avoid traversing the xs list (which is huge!) 8 times to just separate the elements into 8 groups. groupBy from Data.List takes only one test condition function: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [[a]].
x1 = filter (check condition1) xs
x2 = filter (check condition2) xs
x3 = filter (check condition3) xs
x4 = filter (check condition4) xs
x5 = filter (check condition5) xs
x6 = filter (check condition6) xs
x7 = filter (check condition7) xs
x8 = filter (check condition8) xs
results = [x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7,x8]
This only traverses the list once:
import Data.Functor
import Control.Monad
filterN :: [a -> Bool] -> [a] -> [[a]]
filterN ps =
map catMaybes . transpose .
map (\x -> map (\p -> x <$ guard (p x)) ps)
For each element of the list, the map produces a list of Maybes, each Maybe corresponding to one of the predicates; it is Nothing if the element does not satisfy the predicate, or Just x if it does satisfy the predicate. Then, the transpose shuffles all these lists so that the list is organised by predicate, rather than by element, and the map catMaybes discards the entries for elements that did not satisfy a predicate.
Some explanation: x <$ m is fmap (const x) m, and for Maybe, guard b is if b then Just () else Nothing, so x <$ guard b is if b then Just x else Nothing.
The map could also be written as map (\x -> [x <$ guard (p x) | p <- ps]).
If you insist on one traversing the list only once, you can write
filterMulti :: [a -> Bool] -> [a] -> [[a]]
filterMulti fs xs = go (reverse xs) (repeat []) where
go [] acc = acc
go (y:ys) acc = go ys $ zipWith (\f a -> if f y then y:a else a) fs acc
map (\ cond -> filter (check cond) xs) [condition1, condition2, ..., condition8]
I think you could use groupWith from GHC.Exts.
If you write the a -> b function to assign every element in xs its 'class', I belive groupWith would split xs just the way you want it to, traversing the list just once.
groupBy doesn't really do what you're wanting; even if it did accept multiple predicate functions, it doesn't do any filtering on the list. It just groups together contiguous runs of list elements that satisfy some condition. Even if your filter conditions, when combined, cover all of the elements in the supplied list, this is still a different operation. For instance, groupBy won't modify the order of the list elements, nor will it have the possibility of including a given element more than once in the result, while your operation can do both of those things.
This function will do what you're looking for:
import Control.Applicative
filterMulti :: [a -> Bool] -> [a] -> [[a]]
filterMulti ps as = filter <$> ps <*> pure as
As an example:
> filterMulti [(<2), (>=5)] [2, 5, 1, -2, 5, 1, 7, 3, -20, 76, 8]
[[1, -2, 1, -20], [5, 5, 7, 76, 8]]
As an addendum to nietaki's answer (this should be a comment but it's too long, so if his answer is correct, accept his!), the function a -> b could be written as a series of nested if ... then .. else, but that is not very idiomatic Haskell and not very extensible. This might be slightly better:
import Data.List (elemIndex)
import GHC.Exts (groupWith)
f xs = groupWith test xs
where test x = elemIndex . map ($ x) $ [condition1, ..., condition8]
It categorises each element by the first condition_ it satisfies (and puts those that don't satisfy any into their own category).
(The documentation for elemIndex is here.)
The first function will return a list of "uppdated" lists and the second function will go through the whole list and for each value uppdate the list
myfilter :: a -> [a -> Bool] -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
myfilter _ [] [] = []
myfilter x f:fs l:ls | f x = (x:l): Myfilter x fs ls
| otherwise = l:Myfilter x fs ls
filterall :: [a] -> [a -> Bool] -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
filterall [] _ l = l
filterall x:xs fl l:ls = filterall xs fl (myfilter x fl l)
This should be called with filterall xs [condition1,condition2...] [[],[]...]