What doesx :: xs' mean?
I dont have much functional experience but IIRC in F# 1 :: 2 :: 3 :: [];; creates an array of [1,2,3]
so what does the ' do?
let rec sum xs =
match xs with
| [] -> 0
| x :: xs' -> x + sum xs'
I think sepp2k already answered most of the question, but I'd like to add a couple of points that may clarify how F#/OCaml compiler interprets the code and explain some common uses.
Regarding the ' symbol - this is just a part of a name (a valid identifier starts with a letter and then contains one or more letters, numbers or ' symbols). It is usually used if you have a function or value that is very similar to some other, but is in some way new or modified.
In your example, xs is a list that should be summed and the pattern matching decomposes the list and gives you a new list (without the first element) that you need to sum, so it is called xs'
Another frequent use is when declaring a local utility function that implements the functionality and takes an additional parameter (typically, when writing tail-recursive code):
let sum list =
let rec sum' list res =
match list with
| [] -> res
| x::xs -> sum' xs (res + x)
sum' list 0
However, I think there is usually a better name for the function/value, so I try to avoid using ' when writing code (I think it isn't particularly readable and moreover, it doesn't colorize correctly on StackOverflow!)
Regarding the :: symbol - as already mentioned, it is used to create lists from a single element and a list (1::[2;3] creates a list [1;2;3]). It is however worth noting that the symbol can be used in two different ways and it is also interpreted in two different ways by the compiler.
When creating a list, you use it as an operator that constructs a list (just like when you use + to add two numbers). However, when you use it in the match construct, it is used as a pattern, which is a different syntactic category - the pattern is used to decompose the list into an element and the remainder and it succeeds for any non-empty list:
// operator
let x = 0
let xs = [1;2;3]
let list = x::xs
// pattern
match list with
| y::ys -> // ...
The ' is simply part of the variable name. And yes foo :: bar, where foo is an element of type a and bar is a list of type a, means "the list that has foo as its first element, followed by the elements of bar". So the meaning of the match statement is:
If xs is the empty list, the value is 0. If xs is the list containing the item x followed by the items in xs' the value is x + sum xs'. Since x and xs' are fresh variables, this has the effect that for any non empty list, x will be assigned the value of the first element and xs' will be assigned the list containing all other elements.
Like others have said, the ' is a carryover from mathematics where x' would be said as "x prime"
It's idiomatic in ML-family languages to name a variable foo' to indicate that it's somewhat related to another variable foo, especially in recursions like your code sample. Just like in imperative languages you use i, j for loop indices. This naming convention may be a little surprising since ' is typically an illegal symbol for identifiers in C-like languages.
What does x :: xs' mean?
If you have two variables called x and xs' then x :: xs' creates a new list with x prepended onto the front of xs'.
I dont have much functional experience but IIRC in F# 1 :: 2 :: 3 :: [];; creates an array of [1,2,3]
Not quite. It's a list.
so what does the ' do?
It is treated as an alphabetical character, so the following is equivalent:
let rec sum xs =
match xs with
| [] -> 0
| x :: ys -> x + sum ys
Note that :: is technically a type constructor which is why you can use it in both patterns and expressions.
Related
I am to use combinators and no for/while loops, recursion or defined library functions from F#'s List module, except constructors :: and []
Ideally I want to implement map
I am trying to write a function called llength that returns the list of the lengths of the sublists. For example llength [[1;2;3];[1;2];[1;2;3]] should return [3;2,3]. I also have function length that returns the length of a list.
let Tuple f = fun a b -> f (a, b)
let length l : int =
List.fold (Tuple (fst >> (+) 1)) 0 l
currently have
let llength l : int list =
List.map (length inner list) list
Not sure how I should try accessing my sublists with my restraints and should I use my other method on each sublist? any help is greatly appreciated, thanks!
Since this is homework, I don't want to just give you a fully coded solution, but here are some hints:
First, since fold is allowed you could implement map via fold. The folding function would take the list accumulated "so far" and prepend the next element transformed with mapping function. The result will come out reversed though (fold traverses forward, but you prepend at every step), so perhaps that wouldn't work for you if you're not allowed List.rev.
Second - the most obvious, fundamental way: naked recursion. Here's the way to think about it: (1) when the argument is an empty list, result should be an empty list; (2) when the argument is a non-empty list, the result should be length of the argument's head prepended to the list of lengths of the argument's tail, which can be calculated recursively. Try to write that down in F#, and there will be your solution.
Since you can use some functions that basically have a loop (fold, filter ...), there might be some "cheated & dirty" ways to implement map. For example, via filter:
let mymap f xs =
let mutable result = []
xs
|> List.filter (fun x ->
result <- f x :: result
true)
|> ignore
result |> List.rev
Note that List.rev is required as explained in the other answer.
All I'm trying to do is sum a list of lists. Example of what I want to do:
Input: [[1,2,3],[2,5],[6,7]]
Output: [6,7,13]
The amount of lists inside the outer list can vary, and the amount of integers in each inner list can vary. I've tried a multitude of things, and this is the last one I tried but it doesn't work:
sumSubsets [[x]] = map sum [[x]]
Also, I wanted a base case of sumSubsets [] = [[]] but that causes errors as well. Any help would be appreciated.
You could use
sumSubsets x = map sum x
or even
sumSubsets = map sum
Your previous code,
sumSubsets [[x]] = map sum [[x]]
First performs a pattern match using [[x]] which matches a list containing a single element, which is itself a list containing a single element. Therefore it would work correctly on [[3]]
>> sumSubsets [[3]]
[3]
but not on [[1,2,3]] or [[1],[2]].
I think your problem stems primarily from mixing up types and values, which can happen easily to the beginner, in particular on lists. The whole confusion probably comes from the fact that in Haskell, [] is used as a data constructor as well as a type constructor.
For example, [Int] means "a list of Ints" (a type), but [1] means "the list that contains one element, namely the number 1" (a value -- meaning, the whole list is the value). Both things together:
xs :: [Int]
xs = [1]
When you write polymorphic functions, you abstract from something like the Int. For example, if you want to get the first element of a list, you can define a function that does that for any kind of list -- may they be lists of integers or lists of characters or even lists of lists:
firstElement :: [a] -> a
firstElement (x:xs) = x
[a] means "a list with elements of type a" (a type), and the a alone means "something of type a". firstElement is a function from a list with elements of type a to something of type a. a is a type variable. Since you're not saying what a should be, the function works for all kinds of lists:
*Main> firstElement [1,2,3]
1
*Main> firstElement ['a','b']
'a'
*Main> firstElement [[1,2],[3,4]]
[1,2]
When you wrote [[x]] you were perhaps thinking of the type of the first argument of the function, which would be a list of lists of elements of some type x (x is a type variable). You can still use that, but you have to put it into the type signature of your function (the line that contains the double colon):
sumSubsets :: Num a => [[a]] -> [a]
sumSubsets xs = map sum xs
I've used a here instead of x, since it's more commonly done, but you could use x, too. Unfortunately, the whole thing gets a bit complicated with the Num a which describes additional requirements on the type a (that it belongs to the numbers, since for other things, sum is not defined). To simplify matters, you could write:
sumSubsetsInts :: [[Int]] -> [Int]
sumSubsetsInts xs = map sum xs
I am incredibly new to Haskell, and I am having trouble with some homework. I do not understand how to properly take in an array, and use the data with in it.
for example in java I would have something like
int[] arr = {...};
arr[0];
arr[1];
In my Haskell problem I have
dot :: [Float] -> [Float] -> Float
-- enter code here
I can not find a way to use the data inside the float array. My professors example for this problem uses Vectors, but we have to use a [Float]
I'm not asking for anyone to do the problem, just an explanation on how to use the array.
This is technically speaking not an array, but a (linked-)list. That is something different. A list is defined as:
data [a] = [] | (a:[a])
So it is a data-type that has two constructors:
the empty list [] which is used to signal the end of a list; and
the cons that has two elements: an a (the item) and a reference to the tail (a [a]).
Now that we know that you can use pattern matching to extract elements (and do tests). For instance in the following function:
head :: [a] -> a
head (x:_) = x
Here head expects to see a cons construct and it extracts the head (the element of the first node) and returns that. Or for instance:
second :: [a] -> a
second (_:(x:_)) = x
here again you use pattern matching to extract the second element.
Another way to obtain elements is using the (!!) :: [a] -> Int -> a. operator. You can obtain the i-th element (zero-based), by using:
list!!i
which is equivalent to list[i] in Java semantically. Mind however that - as said before - these are linked lists, so obtaining the i-th element requires O(i) computational effort. Although this may look like a detail it can become a bit dramatic when you want to fetch an object with a large index. Furthermore since (!!) is called, you are less certain there is such element: you have not that much guarantees that the list is indeed long enough. It is therefore wise to use pattern matching and look for clever ways to exploit the linked list data structure.
For your example for the dot product, you can for instance first use pattern matching like:
dot (x:xs) (y:ys) = ...
and so you have extracted the heads x and y from the lists. And then you can multiply them and add them to the dot product of the remainder of the list:
dot (x:xs) (y:ys) = x*y + dot xs ys
now you only still need to define base case(s) like for instance:
dot [] [] = 0.0
so putting it all together:
dot :: [Float] -> [Float] -> Float
dot [] [] = 0.0
dot (x:xs) (y:ys) = x*y + dot xs ys
Its possible to create infinite, circular lists using let rec, without needing to resort to mutable references:
let rec xs = 1 :: 0 :: xs ;;
But can I use this same technique to write a function that receives a finite list and returns an infinite, circular version of it? I tried writing
let rec cycle xs =
let rec result = go xs and
go = function
| [] -> result
| (y::ys) -> y :: go ys in
result
;;
But got the following error
Error: This kind of expression is not allowed as right-hand side of `let rec'
Your code has two problems:
result = go xs is in illegal form for let rec
The function tries to create a loop by some computation, which falls into an infinite loop causing stack overflow.
The above code is rejected by the compiler because you cannot write an expression which may cause recursive computation in the right-hand side of let rec (see Limitations of let rec in OCaml).
Even if you fix the issue you still have a problem: cycle does not finish the job:
let rec cycle xs =
let rec go = function
| [] -> go xs
| y::ys -> y :: g ys
in
go xs;;
cycle [1;2];;
cycle [1;2] fails due to stack overflow.
In OCaml, let rec can define a looped structure only when its definition is "static" and does not perform any computation. let rec xs = 1 :: 0 :: xs is such an example: (::) is not a function but a constructor, which purely constructs the data structure. On the other hand, cycle performs some code execution to dynamically create a structure and it is infinite. I am afraid that you cannot write a function like cycle in OCaml.
If you want to introduce some loops in data like cycle in OCaml, what you can do is using lazy structure to prevent immediate infinite loops like Haskell's lazy list, or use mutation to make a loop by a substitution. OCaml's list is not lazy nor mutable, therefore you cannot write a function dynamically constructs looped lists.
If you do not mind using black magic, you could try this code:
let cycle l =
if l = [] then invalid_arg "cycle" else
let l' = List.map (fun x -> x) l in (* copy the list *)
let rec aux = function
| [] -> assert false
| [_] as lst -> (* find the last cons cell *)
(* and set the last pointer to the beginning of the list *)
Obj.set_field (Obj.repr lst) 1 (Obj.repr l')
| _::t -> aux t
in aux l'; l'
Please be aware that using the Obj module is highly discouraged. On the other hand, there are industrial-strength programs and libraries (Coq, Jane Street's Core, Batteries included) that are known to use this sort of forbidden art.
camlspotter's answer is good enough already. I just want to add several more points here.
First of all, for the problem of write a function that receives a finite list and returns an infinite, circular version of it, it can be done in code / implementation level, just if you really use the function, it will have stackoverflow problem and will never return.
A simple version of what you were trying to do is like this:
let rec circle1 xs = List.rev_append (List.rev xs) (circle1 xs)
val circle: 'a list -> 'a list = <fun>
It can be compiled and theoretically it is correct. On [1;2;3], it is supposed to generate [1;2;3;1;2;3;1;2;3;1;2;3;...].
However, of course, it will fail because its run will be endless and eventually stackoverflow.
So why let rec circle2 = 1::2::3::circle2 will work?
Let's see what will happen if you do it.
First, circle2 is a value and it is a list. After OCaml get this info, it can create a static address for circle2 with memory representation of list.
The memory's real value is 1::2::3::circle2, which actually is Node (1, Node (2, Node (3, circle2))), i.e., A Node with int 1 and address of a Node with int 2 and address of a Node with int 3 and address of circle2. But we already know circle2's address, right? So OCaml just put circle2's address there.
Everything will work.
Also, through this example, we can also know a fact that for a infinite circled list defined like this actually doesn't cost limited memory. It is not generating a real infinite list to consume all memory, instead, when a circle finishes, it just jumps "back" to the head of the list.
Let's then go back to example of circle1. Circle1 is a function, yes, it has an address, but we do not need or want it. What we want is the address of the function application circle1 xs. It is not like circle2, it is a function application which means we need to compute something to get the address. So,
OCaml will do List.rev xs, then try to get address circle1 xs, then repeat, repeat.
Ok, then why we sometimes get Error: This kind of expression is not allowed as right-hand side of 'let rec'?
From http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/extn.html#s%3aletrecvalues
the let rec binding construct, in addition to the definition of
recursive functions, also supports a certain class of recursive
definitions of non-functional values, such as
let rec name1 = 1 :: name2 and name2 = 2 :: name1 in expr which
binds name1 to the cyclic list 1::2::1::2::…, and name2 to the cyclic
list 2::1::2::1::…Informally, the class of accepted definitions
consists of those definitions where the defined names occur only
inside function bodies or as argument to a data constructor.
If you use let rec to define a binding, say let rec name. This name can be only in either a function body or a data constructor.
In previous two examples, circle1 is in a function body (let rec circle1 = fun xs -> ...) and circle2 is in a data constructor.
If you do let rec circle = circle, it will give error as circle is not in the two allowed cases. let rec x = let y = x in y won't do either, because again, x not in constructor or function.
Here is also a clear explanation:
https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/imperative-programming-1.html
Section Limitations of let rec
Here's what I've got so far...
fun positive l1 = positive(l1,[],[])
| positive (l1, p, n) =
if hd(l1) < 0
then positive(tl(l1), p, n # [hd(l1])
else if hd(l1) >= 0
then positive(tl(l1), p # [hd(l1)], n)
else if null (h1(l1))
then p
Yes, this is for my educational purposes. I'm taking an ML class in college and we had to write a program that would return the biggest integer in a list and I want to go above and beyond that to see if I can remove the positives from it as well.
Also, if possible, can anyone point me to a decent ML book or primer? Our class text doesn't explain things well at all.
You fail to mention that your code doesn't type.
Your first function clause just has the variable l1, which is used in the recursive. However here it is used as the first element of the triple, which is given as the argument. This doesn't really go hand in hand with the Hindley–Milner type system that SML uses. This is perhaps better seen by the following informal thoughts:
Lets start by assuming that l1 has the type 'a, and thus the function must take arguments of that type and return something unknown 'a -> .... However on the right hand side you create an argument (l1, [], []) which must have the type 'a * 'b list * 'c list. But since it is passed as an argument to the function, that must also mean that 'a is equal to 'a * 'b list * 'c list, which clearly is not the case.
Clearly this was not your original intent. It seems that your intent was to have a function that takes an list as argument, and then at the same time have a recursive helper function, which takes two extra accumulation arguments, namely a list of positive and negative numbers in the original list.
To do this, you at least need to give your helper function another name, such that its definition won't rebind the definition of the original function.
Then you have some options, as to which scope this helper function should be in. In general if it doesn't make any sense to be calling this helper function other than from the "main" function, then it should not be places in a scope outside the "main" function. This can be done using a let binding like this:
fun positive xs =
let
fun positive' ys p n = ...
in
positive' xs [] []
end
This way the helper function positives' can't be called outside of the positive function.
With this take care of there are some more issues with your original code.
Since you are only returning the list of positive integers, there is no need to keep track of the
negative ones.
You should be using pattern matching to decompose the list elements. This way you eliminate the
use of taking the head and tail of the list, and also the need to verify whether there actually is
a head and tail in the list.
fun foo [] = ... (* input list is empty *)
| foo (x::xs) = ... (* x is now the head, and xs is the tail *)
You should not use the append operator (#), whenever you can avoid it (which you always can).
The problem is that it has a terrible running time when you have a huge list on the left hand
side and a small list on the right hand side (which is often the case for the right hand side, as
it is mostly used to append a single element). Thus it should in general be considered bad
practice to use it.
However there exists a very simple solution to this, which is to always concatenate the element
in front of the list (constructing the list in reverse order), and then just reversing the list
when returning it as the last thing (making it in expected order):
fun foo [] acc = rev acc
| foo (x::xs) acc = foo xs (x::acc)
Given these small notes, we end up with a function that looks something like this
fun positive xs =
let
fun positive' [] p = rev p
| positive' (y::ys) p =
if y < 0 then
positive' ys p
else
positive' ys (y :: p)
in
positive' xs []
end
Have you learned about List.filter? It might be appropriate here - it takes a function (which is a predicate) of type 'a -> bool and a list of type 'a list, and returns a list consisting of only the elements for which the predicate evaluates to true. For example:
List.filter (fn x => Real.>= (x, 0.0)) [1.0, 4.5, ~3.4, 42.0, ~9.0]
Your existing code won't work because you're comparing to integers using the intversion of <. The code hd(l1) < 0 will work over a list of int, not a list of real. Numeric literals are not automatically coerced by Standard ML. One must explicitly write 0.0, and use Real.< (hd(l1), 0.0) for your test.
If you don't want to use filter from the standard library, you could consider how one might implement filter yourself. Here's one way:
fun filter f [] = []
| filter f (h::t) =
if f h
then h :: filter f t
else filter f t