i'm trying to learn ocaml right now and wanted to start with a little program, generating all bit-combinations:
["0","0","0"]
["0","0","1"]
["0","1","0"]
... and so on
My idea is the following code:
let rec bitstr length list =
if length = 0 then
list
else begin
bitstr (length-1)("0"::list);
bitstr (length-1)("1"::list);
end;;
But i get the following error:
Warning S: this expression should have type unit.
val bitstr : int -> string list -> string list = <fun>
# bitstr 3 [];;
- : string list = ["1"; "1"; "1"]
I did not understand what to change, can you help me?
Best regards
Philipp
begin foo; bar end executes foo and throws the result away, then it executes bar. Since this makes only sense if foo has side-effects and no meaningful return value ocaml emits a warning if foo has a return value other than unit, since everything else is likely to be a programmer error (i.e. the programmer does not actually intend for the result to be discarded) - as is the case here.
In this case it really does make no sense to calculate the list with "0" and then throw it away. Presumably you want to concatenate the two lists instead. You can do this using the # operator:
let rec bitstr length list =
if length = 0 then
[list]
else
bitstr (length-1)("0"::list) # bitstr (length-1)("1"::list);;
Note that I also made the length = 0 case return [list] instead of just list so the result is a list of lists instead of a flat list.
Although sepp2k's answer is spot on, I would like to add the following alternative (which doesn't match the signature you proposed, but actually does what you want) :
let rec bitstr = function
0 -> [[]]
| n -> let f e = List.map (fun x -> e :: x) and l = bitstr (n-1) in
(f "0" l)#(f "1" l);;
The first difference is that you do not need to pass an empty list to call the function bitsr 2 returns [["0"; "0"]; ["0"; "1"]; ["1"; "0"]; ["1"; "1"]]. Second, it returns a list of ordered binary values. But more importantly, in my opinion, it is closer to the spirit of ocaml.
I like to get other ideas!
So here it is...
let rec gen_x acc e1 e2 n = match n with
| 0 -> acc
| n -> (
let l = List.map (fun x -> e1 :: x) acc in
let r = List.map (fun x -> e2 :: x) acc in
gen_x (l # r) e1 e2 (n - 1)
);;
let rec gen_string = gen_x [[]] "0" "1"
let rec gen_int = gen_x [[]] 0 1
gen_string 2
gen_int 2
Result:
[["0"; "0"]; ["0"; "1"]; ["1"; "0"]; ["1"; "1"]]
[[0; 0]; [0; 1]; [1; 0]; [1; 1]]
Related
I'm used to JaneStreet's Core library. Its List module has a neat init function:
List.init;;
- : int -> f:(int -> 'a) -> 'a list = <fun>
It allows you to create a list with using a custom function to initialize elements:
List.init 5 ~f:(Fn.id);;
- : int list = [0; 1; 2; 3; 4]
List.init 5 ~f:(Int.to_string);;
- : string list = ["0"; "1"; "2"; "3"; "4"]
However, this function doesn't seem to exist in Pervasives, which is sad. Am I missing something, or do I have to implement it myself? And if I do need to write it, how do I achieve this?
EDIT:
I have written an imperative version of init, but it doesn't feel right to have to resort to OCaml's imperative features in such a case. :(
let init n ~f =
let i = ref 0 in
let l = ref [] in
while !i < n do
l := (f !i) :: !l;
incr i;
done;
List.rev !l
;;
EDIT 2:
I've opened a pull request on OCaml's GitHub to have this feature included.
EDIT 3:
The feature was released in OCaml 4.06.
A recursive implementation is fairly straightforward. However, it is not tail-recursive, which means that you'll risk a stack overflow for large lists:
let init_list n ~f =
let rec init_list' i n f =
if i >= n then []
else (f i) :: (init_list' (i+1) n f)
in init_list' 0 n f
We can transform it into a tail-recursive version using the usual techniques:
let init_list n ~f =
let rec init_list' acc i n f =
if i >= n then acc
else init_list' ((f i) :: acc) (i+1) n f
in List.rev (init_list' [] 0 n f)
This uses an accumulator and also needs to reverse the intermediate result, as the list is constructed in reverse. Note that we could also use f (n-i-1) instead of f i to avoid reversing the list, but this may lead to unexpected behavior if f has side-effects.
An alternative and shorter solution is to simply use Array.init as a starting point:
let init_list n ~f = Array.(init n f |> to_list)
You can copy the code from JaneStreet and use it.
The code look's like (but not exactly the same) :
let init n ~f =
if n < 0 then raise (Invalid_argument "init");
let rec loop i accum =
if i = 0 then accum
else loop (i-1) (f (i-1) :: accum)
in
loop n []
;;
You can find the original code inside core_list0.ml from the package core_kernel.
I'm having a problem with understanding how F# works. I come from C# and I think that I'm trying to make F# work like C#. My biggest problem is returning values in the correct format.
Example:
Let's say I have function that takes a list of integers and an integer.
Function should print a list of indexes where values from list match passed integer.
My code:
let indeks myList n = myList |> List.mapi (fun i x -> if x=n then i else 0);;
indeks [0..4] 3;;
However it returns:
val it : int list = [0; 0; 0; 3; 0]
instead of just [3] as I cannot ommit else in that statement.
Also I have targeted signature of -> int list -> int -> int list and I get something else.
Same goes for problem no. 2 where I want to provide an integer and print every number from 0 to this integer n times (where n is the iterated value):
example:
MultiplyValues 3;;
output: [1;2;2;3;3;3]
Best I could do was to create list of lists.
What am I missing when returning elements?
How do I add nothing to the return
example: if x=n then n else AddNothingToTheReturn
Use List.choose:
let indeks lst n =
lst
|> List.mapi (fun i s -> if s = n then Some i else None)
|> List.choose id
Sorry, I didn't notice that you had a second problem too. For that you can use List.collect:
let f (n : int) : list<int> =
[1 .. n]
|> List.collect (fun s -> List.init s (fun t -> s))
printfn "%A" (f 3) // [1; 2; 2; 3; 3; 3]
Please read the documentation for List.collect for more information.
EDIT
Following s952163's lead, here is another version of the first solution without the Option type:
let indeks (lst : list<int>) (n : int) : list<int> =
lst
|> List.fold (fun (s, t) u -> s + 1, (if u = n then (s :: t) else t)) (0, [])
|> (snd >> List.rev)
This one traverses the original list once, and the (potentially much shorter) newly formed list once.
The previous answer is quite idiomatic. Here's one solution that avoids the use of Option types and id:
let indeks2 lst n =
lst
|> List.mapi (fun i x -> (i,x))
|> List.filter (fun x -> (fst x) % n = 0 )
|> List.map snd
You can modify the filter function to match your needs.
If you plan to generate lots of sequences it might be a good idea to explore Sequence (list) comprehensions:
[for i in 1..10 do
yield! List.replicate i i]
If statements are an expression in F# and they return a value. In this case both the IF and ELSE branch must return the same type of value. Using Some/None (Option type) gets around this. There are some cases where you can get away with just using If.
I'm working on a program that appends either a '+' or '-' to an element of a list, depending on whether the index of that element is odd or even (i.e an alternating sums list).
However, I'm having trouble identifying what the index of each element is. I have code that I believe should append the correct symbol, using if statements and mod
fun alternating([]) = 0
| alternating(l) =
if List.nth(l,hd(l)) mod 2 == 0 then '+'#hd(l)#alternating(tl(l))
else '-'#hd(l)#alternating(tl(l))
However, List.nth(l,hd(l)) always returns the element at the second index, not the first.
On the off chance that you really just want to negate integers them so you can pass them into some kind of summation, I would just negate the argument if it's odd. Using mutual recursion one can do it without any explicit index bookkeeping:
fun alternate l =
let
fun alternate1 [] = []
| alternate1 (x::xs) = (~x) :: alternate2 xs
and alternate2 [] = []
| alternate2 (x::xs) = x :: alternate1 xs
in
alternate1 l
end
It works like so:
- alternate [1,2,3,4];
val it = [~1,2,~3,4] : int list
I would strongly encourage you to use pattern matching instead of hd.
Edit discussing hd
As a rule of thumb, if you need hd you probably need tl as well. hd is a partial function--it's going to throw Empty if your list is empty. If you pattern match, you conveniently get variables for the head and tail of the list right there, and you get a visual reminder that you need to handle the empty list. It's more aesthetically pleasing, IMO, to see:
fun foo [] = ...
| foo (x::xs) = ...
than the equivalent
fun foo l =
if null l
then ...
else (hd l) ... (tl l)
In other words, you get shorter, cleaner code with an automatic reminder to make it correct. Win/win. To my knowledge there's no significant advantage to doing it the other way. Of course, you may find yourself in a situation where you know the list will have at least one element and you don't need to do anything else. You still have to consider the cases you're given, but it's a good rule of thumb.
If you want to decorate your list with an index you could try something like the following
fun add_index l =
let
fun add_index_helper (nil, _) = nil
| add_index_helper (h::tl,i) = (h,i) :: add_index_helper (tl,1+i)
in
add_index_helper (l,0)
end
val x = add_index [0,1,4,9,16,25]
but you can also just directly compute parity with the same method
fun add_sign l =
let
fun add_sign_helper (nil, _) = nil
| add_sign_helper (h::tl,i) = (h,i) :: add_sign_helper (tl,1-i)
in
add_sign_helper (l,0)
end
val y = add_sign [0,1,4,9,16,25]
then you can map the parity to a string
fun sign_to_char (x,0) = (x,"+")
| sign_to_char (x,_) = (x,"-")
val z = List.map sign_to_char y
or you can just add the sign directly
fun add_char l =
let
fun add_char_helper (nil, _) = nil
| add_char_helper (h::tl,0) = (h,"+") :: add_char_helper (tl,1)
| add_char_helper (h::tl,_) = (h,"-") :: add_char_helper (tl,0)
in
add_char_helper (l,0)
end
val zz = add_char [0,1,4,9,16,25]
Alternatively if you had a string list and you wanted to add chars you could try something like this
fun signs L =
let
datatype parity = even | odd
fun signs_helper ( nil ,_) = nil
| signs_helper (x::xs,even) = ("+" ^ x) :: signs_helper(xs,odd)
| signs_helper (x::xs,odd) = ("-" ^ x) :: signs_helper(xs,even)
in
signs_helper (L,even)
end
val z = signs ["x","2y","3z","4"]
(* this gives you val z = ["+x","-2y","+3z","-4"] : string list *)
I'm looking for the best way to partition a list (or seq) so that groups have a given size.
for ex. let's say I want to group with size 2 (this could be any other number though):
let xs = [(a,b,c); (a,b,d); (y,z,y); (w,y,z); (n,y,z)]
let grouped = partitionBySize 2 input
// => [[(a,b,c);(a,b,d)]; [(y,z,y);(w,y,z)]; [(n,y,z)]]
The obvious way to implement partitionBySize would be by adding the position to every tuple in the input list so that it becomes
[(0,a,b,c), (1,a,b,d), (2,y,z,y), (3,w,y,z), (4,n,y,z)]
and then use GroupBy with
xs |> Seq.ofList |> Seq.GroupBy (function | (i,_,_,_) -> i - (i % n))
However this solution doesn't look very elegant to me.
Is there a better way to implement this function (maybe with a built-in function)?
This seems to be a repeating pattern that's not captured by any function in the F# core library. When solving similar problems earlier, I defined a function Seq.groupWhen (see F# snippets) that turns a sequence into groups. A new group is started when the predicate holds.
You could solve the problem using Seq.groupWhen similarly to Seq.group (by starting a new group at even index). Unlike with Seq.group, this is efficient, because Seq.groupWhen iterates over the input sequence just once:
[3;3;2;4;1;2;8]
|> Seq.mapi (fun i v -> i, v) // Add indices to the values (as first tuple element)
|> Seq.groupWhen (fun (i, v) -> i%2 = 0) // Start new group after every 2nd element
|> Seq.map (Seq.map snd) // Remove indices from the values
Implementing the function directly using recursion is probably easier - the solution from John does exactly what you need - but if you wanted to see a more general approach then Seq.groupWhen may be interesting.
List.chunkBySize (hat tip: Scott Wlaschin) is now available and does exactly what you're talking about. It appears to be new with F# 4.0.
let grouped = [1..10] |> List.chunkBySize 3
// val grouped : int list list =
// [[1; 2; 3]; [4; 5; 6]; [7; 8; 9]; [10]]
Seq.chunkBySize and Array.chunkBySize are also now available.
Here's a tail-recursive function that traverses the list once.
let chunksOf n items =
let rec loop i acc items =
seq {
match i, items, acc with
//exit if chunk size is zero or input list is empty
| _, [], [] | 0, _, [] -> ()
//counter=0 so yield group and continue looping
| 0, _, _::_ -> yield List.rev acc; yield! loop n [] items
//decrement counter, add head to group, and loop through tail
| _, h::t, _ -> yield! loop (i-1) (h::acc) t
//reached the end of input list, yield accumulated elements
//handles items.Length % n <> 0
| _, [], _ -> yield List.rev acc
}
loop n [] items
Usage
[1; 2; 3; 4; 5]
|> chunksOf 2
|> Seq.toList //[[1; 2]; [3; 4]; [5]]
I like the elegance of Tomas' approach, but I benchmarked both our functions using an input list of 10 million elements. This one clocked in at 9 secs vs 22 for his. Of course, as he admitted, the most efficient method would probably involve arrays/loops.
What about a recursive approach? - only requires a single pass
let rec partitionBySize length inp dummy =
match inp with
|h::t ->
if dummy |> List.length < length then
partitionBySize length t (h::dummy)
else dummy::(partitionBySize length t (h::[]))
|[] -> dummy::[]
Then invoke it with partitionBySize 2 xs []
let partitionBySize size xs =
let sq = ref (seq xs)
seq {
while (Seq.length !sq >= size) do
yield Seq.take size !sq
sq := Seq.skip size !sq
if not (Seq.isEmpty !sq) then yield !sq
}
// result to list, if you want
|> Seq.map (Seq.toList)
|> Seq.toList
UPDATE
let partitionBySize size (sq:seq<_>) =
seq {
let e = sq.GetEnumerator()
let empty = ref true;
while !empty do
yield seq { for i = 1 to size do
empty := e.MoveNext()
if !empty then yield e.Current
}
}
array slice version:
let partitionBySize size xs =
let xa = Array.ofList xs
let len = xa.Length
[
for i in 0..size..(len-1) do
yield ( if i + size >= len then xa.[i..] else xa.[i..(i+size-1)] ) |> Array.toList
]
Well, I was late for the party. The code below is a tail-recursive version using high-order functions on List:
let partitionBySize size xs =
let i = size - (List.length xs - 1) % size
let xss, _, _ =
List.foldBack( fun x (acc, ls, j) ->
if j = size then ((x::ls)::acc, [], 1)
else (acc, x::ls, j+1)
) xs ([], [], i)
xss
I did the same benchmark as Daniel did. This function is efficient while it is 2x faster than his approach on my machine. I also compared it with an array/loop version, they are comparable in terms of performance.
Moreover, unlike John's answer, this version preserves order of elements in inner lists.
I'm trying to write a simple recursive function that look over list and return a pair of integer. This is easy to write in c/c++/java but i'm new to ocaml so somehow hard to find out the solution due to type conflict
it should goes like ..
let rec test p l = ... ;;
val separate : (’a -> bool) -> ’a list -> int * int = <fun>
test (fun x -> x mod 2 = 0) [-3; 5; 2; -6];;
- : int * int = (2, 2)
so the problem is how can i recursively return value on tuple ..
One problem here is that you are returning two different types: an int for an empty list, or a tuple otherwise. It needs to be one or the other.
Another problem is that you are trying to add 1 to test, but test is a function, not a value. You need to call test on something else for it to return a value, but even then it is supposed to return a tuple, which you can't add to an integer.
I can't figure out what you want the code to do, but if you update your question with that info I can help more.
One guess that I have is that you want to count the positive numbers in the list, in which case you could write it like this:
let rec test l =
match l with [] -> 0
| x::xs -> if x > 0 then 1 + (test xs)
else test xs;;
Update: since you've edited to clarify the problem, modify the above code as follows:
let test l =
let rec test_helper l pos nonpos =
match l with [] -> (pos, nonpos)
| x::xs -> if x > 0 then test_helper xs 1+pos, nonpos
else test_helper xs pos 1+nonpos
in test_helper l 0 0;;
Using the accumulators help a lot in this case. It also makes the function tail-recursive which is always good practice.
Been away from OCaml for a bit, but I think this will do the trick in regards to REALFREE's description in the comment
let rec test l =
match l with
[] -> (0,0)
| x::xs ->
if x > 0 then match (test xs) with (x,y) -> (x+1, y)
else match (test xs) with (x,y) -> (x, y+1);;
You can used the nested match statements to pull out pieces of the tuple to modify
EDIT:
I didn't know about the syntax Pascal Cuoq mentioned in his comment below, here's the code like that, it's neater and a little shorter:
let rec test l =
match l with
[] -> (0,0)
| x::xs ->
if x > 0 then let (x,y) = test xs in (x+1, y)
else let (x,y) = test xs in (x, y+1);;
But the accepted answer is still much better, especially with the tail recursion ;).