I want a higher-order function, g, that will apply another function, f, to a list of integers such that
g = [f x1, f(f x2), f(f(f x3)), … , f^n(xn)]
I know I can map a function like
g :: (Int -> Int) -> [Int] -> [Int]
g f xs = map f xs
and I could also apply a function n-times like
g f xs = [iterate f x !! n | x <- xs]
where n the number of times to apply the function. I know I need to use recursion, so I don't think either of these options will be useful.
Expected output:
g (+1) [1,2,3,4,5] = [2,4,6,8,10]
You can work with explicit recursion where you pass each time the function to apply and the tail of the list, so:
g :: (Int -> Int) -> [Int] -> [Int]
g f = go f
where go _ [] = []
go fi (x:xs) = … : go (f . fi) xs
I here leave implementing the … part as an exercise.
Another option is to work with two lists, a list of functions and a list of values. In that case the list of functions is iterate (f .) f: an infinite list of functions that can be applied. Then we can implement g as:
g :: (Int -> Int) -> [Int] -> [Int]
g f = zipWith ($) (iterate (f .) f)
Sounds like another use for foldr:
applyAsDeep :: (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
applyAsDeep f = foldr (\x xs -> f x : map f xs) []
λ> applyAsDeep (+10) [1,2,3,4,5]
[11,22,33,44,55]
If you want to go a bit overkill ...
import GHC.Exts (build)
g :: (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
g f xs0 =
build $ \c n ->
let go x r fi = fi x `c` r (f . fi)
in foldr go (const n) xs0 f
Related
What I need to do is to apply alternately 2 functions in a list. For example:
(*2) (-3) [4,5,6,7,8]
would result in
[8,2,12,4,16], because 4*2, 5-3, 6*2, 7-3, 8*2...
What I was thinking was
funct :: (a -> b) -> (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
and then something like
[f x | x <- xs] however I won't have just "f", but will have the other function as well.
So I was thinking about checking the position of x. If it is an even position, then f x. Otherwise g x.
Could someone help me?
Tks.
You do not really need the index, what you need is a list that alternates between (*2) and (-3). We can make use of cycle :: [a] -> [a] and zipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]. We can thus use:
zipWith ($) (cycle [(2*), subtract 3]) [4,5,6,7,8]
Here ($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b is used to perform a function application. So ($) f x is equivalent to f x.
This gives the expected:
Prelude> zipWith ($) (cycle [(2*), subtract 3]) [4,5,6,7,8]
[8,2,12,4,16]
You could always write this out with explicit recursion, to be completely clear about how it works:
alternateFunctions _ _ [] = []
alternateFunctions f g (x:xs) = f x:alternateFunctions g f xs
For an empty list, there's nothing to do. Otherwise, apply the first function to the first element, and recurse for the rest of the list with the first and second functions switched. With that, you have alternateFunctions (*2) (subtract 3) [4,5,6,7,8] = [8,2,12,4,16], as desired.
If you care about performance, then you should rewrite this as a foldr, so that it can fuse:
alternateFunctions f g xs = foldr go mempty xs f g
where go x acc f g = f x:acc g f
I would like to define a greaters function, which selects from a list items that are larger than the one before it.
For instance:
greaters [1,3,2,4,3,4,5] == [3,4,4,5]
greaters [5,10,6,11,7,12] == [10,11,12]
The definition I came up with is this :
greaters :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
Things I tried so far:
greaters (x:xs) = group [ d | d <- xs, x < xs ]
Any tips?
We can derive a foldr-based solution by a series of re-writes starting from the hand-rolled recursive solution in the accepted answer:
greaters :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
greaters [] = []
greaters (x:xs) = go x xs -- let's re-write this clause
where
go _ [] = []
go last (act:xs)
| last < act = act : go act xs
| otherwise = go act xs
greaters (x:xs) = go xs x -- swap the arguments
where
go [] _ = []
go (act:xs) last
| last < act = act : go xs act
| otherwise = go xs act
greaters (x:xs) = foldr g z xs x -- go ==> foldr g z
where
foldr g z [] _ = []
foldr g z (act:xs) last
| last < act = act : foldr g z xs act
| otherwise = foldr g z xs act
greaters (x:xs) = foldr g z xs x
where -- simplify according to
z _ = [] -- foldr's definition
g act (foldr g z xs) last
| last < act = act : foldr g z xs act
| otherwise = foldr g z xs act
Thus, with one last re-write of foldr g z xs ==> r,
greaters (x:xs) = foldr g z xs x
where
z = const []
g act r last
| last < act = act : r act
| otherwise = r act
The extra parameter serves as a state being passed forward as we go along the input list, the state being the previous element; thus avoiding the construction by zip of the shifted-pairs list serving the same purpose.
I would start from here:
greaters :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
greaters [] = []
greaters (x:xs) = greatersImpl x xs
where
greatersImpl last [] = <fill this out>
greatersImpl last (x:xs) = <fill this out>
The following functions are everything you’d need for one possible solution :)
zip :: [a] -> [b] -> [(a, b)]
drop 1 :: [a] -> [a]
filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
(<) :: Ord a => a -> a -> Bool
uncurry :: (a -> b -> c) -> (a, b) -> c
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
snd :: (a, b) -> b
Note: drop 1 can be used when you’d prefer a “safe” version of tail.
If you like over-generalization like me, you can use the witherable package.
{-# language ScopedTypeVariables #-}
import Control.Monad.State.Lazy
import Data.Witherable
{-
class (Traversable t, Filterable t) => Witherable t where
-- `wither` is an effectful version of mapMaybe.
wither :: Applicative f => (a -> f (Maybe b)) -> t a -> f (t b)
-}
greaters
:: forall t a. (Ord a, Witherable t)
=> t a -> t a
greaters xs = evalState (wither go xs) Nothing
where
go :: a -> State (Maybe a) (Maybe a)
go curr = do
st <- get
put (Just curr)
pure $ case st of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just prev ->
if curr > prev
then Just curr
else Nothing
The state is the previous element, if there is one. Everything is about as lazy as it can be. In particular:
If the container is a Haskell list, then it can be an infinite one and everything will still work. The beginning of the list can be produced without withering the rest.
If the container extends infinitely to the left (e.g., an infinite snoc list), then everything will still work. How can that be? We only need to know what was in the previous element to work out the state for the current element.
"Roll your own recursive function" is certainly an option here, but it can also be accomplished with a fold. filter can't do it because we need some sort of state being passed, but fold can nicely accumulate the result while keeping that state at the same time.
Of course the key idea is that we keep track of last element add the next one to the result set if it's greater than the last one.
greaters :: [Int] -> [Int]
greaters [] = []
greaters (h:t) = reverse . snd $ foldl (\(a, r) x -> (x, if x > a then x:r else r)) (h, []) t
I'd really love to eta-reduce it but since we're dropping the first element and seeding the accumulator with it it kinda becomes awkward with the empty list; still, this is effectively an one-liner.
So i have come up with a foldr solution. It should be similar to what #Will Ness has demonstrated but not quite i suppose as we don't need a separate empty list check in this one.
The thing is, while folding we need to encapsulate the previous element and also the state (the result) in a function type. So in the go helper function f is the state (the result) c is the current element of interest and p is the previous one (next since we are folding right). While folding from right to left we are nesting up these functions only to run it by applyying the head of the input list to it.
go :: Ord a => a -> (a -> [a]) -> (a -> [a])
go c f = \p -> let r = f c
in if c > p then c:r else r
greaters :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
greaters = foldr go (const []) <*> head
*Main> greaters [1,3,2,4,3,4,5]
[3,4,4,5]
*Main> greaters [5,10,6,11,7,12]
[10,11,12]
*Main> greaters [651,151,1651,21,651,1231,4,1,16,135,87]
[1651,651,1231,16,135]
*Main> greaters [1]
[]
*Main> greaters []
[]
As per rightful comments of #Will Ness here is a modified slightly more general code which hopefully doesn't break suddenly when the comparison changes. Note that const [] :: b -> [a] is the initial function and [] is the terminator applied to the result of foldr. We don't need Maybe since [] can easily do the job of Nothing here.
gs :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
gs xs = foldr go (const []) xs $ []
where
go :: Ord a => a -> ([a] -> [a]) -> ([a] -> [a])
go c f = \ps -> let r = f [c]
in case ps of
[] -> r
[p] -> if c > p then c:r else r
I am writing a function my_map which takes a unary function and a list and returns the list resulting from mapping the function over all elements of the input list.
Main> my_map (^3) [1..5]
[1,8,27,64,125]
I tried it like this:
my_map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
my_map f [] = []
my_map f (x:xs) = foldr (\x xs -> (f x):xs) [] xs
But after running above, I get only [8,27,64,125]. the first number 1 is not displaying in output.
Can anybody help me?
You are using the (x:xs) pattern in your arguments, but when you apply the fold, you only apply it to the xs part, which means your first element i.e. the one that x represents never gets processed. You need to change it to this:
my_map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
my_map f xs = foldr (\y ys -> (f y):ys) [] xs
Since you are using foldr, you do not need to explicitly handle the empty list case. Moreoever, you do not need to specify the list in (x:xs) format.
Finally, my own preference is to avoid using the same name for function inputs and any helper functions or expressions in the function definition.That is why, I have used xs for the input list and y and ys for the parameters passed to the lambda.
"shree.pat18" is perfectly right, and also the comments are valuable. I learned a lot from that. Just make it better visible, and to explain the alternatives...
Answer
-- The problem is here ....................... vv
my_map f (x:xs) = foldr (\x xs -> (f x):xs) [] xs
-- --
The remaining part xs is aplied to foldr.
To fix just this, apply the whole list. This can be done by placing xx# before (x:xs). By that, the whole list is bound to xx.
-- vvv ........... see here ............... vv
my_map f xx#(x:xs) = foldr (\x xs -> (f x):xs) [] xx
-- --- --
Recommended impovement
Note: foldr can already deal with [] as input. Hence, my_map f [] = [] is not needed. But foldr would not be called when you apply [] to my_map. To get rid of my_map f [] = [], you need to remove the pattern matching, because (x:xs) matches only to lists with at least one element.
main :: IO ()
main = print $ my_map (^(3 :: Int)) ([1..5] :: [Integer])
my_map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
my_map f xx = foldr (\x xs -> (f x):xs) [] xx
The answer is complete here. The rest below is for pleasure.
Further reductions
Simple expression instead of lambda expression
If you want to reduce the lambda expression (\x xs -> (f x):xs), as suggested by "Aadit M Shah"...
(:) is equal to (\x xs -> x:xs), because : is an operator and its function is (:)
. can be used to combine the function f with (:), hence (\x xs -> (f x):xs) is equal to ((:) . f)
main :: IO ()
main = print $ my_map (^(3 :: Int)) ([] :: [Integer])
my_map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
my_map f xx = foldr ((:) . f) [] xx
Currying
A function of the form
-- v v
f a b c = .... c
can be reduced to
-- v v
f a b = ....
and a function of the form
-- v v v v
f a b c = .... b c
can be reduced to
-- v v v v
f a = ....
and so on, by currying.
Hence, my_map f xx = foldr ((:) . f) [] xx equals my_map f = foldr ((:) . f) [].
Combination and flip
flip flips the first two parameters.
Example, the following functions are equal:
f' a b c = (\c' b' a' -> ((a' - b') / c')) b a c
f'' a b c = flip (\c' b' a' -> ((a' - b') / c')) a b c
f''' = flip (\c' b' a' -> ((a' - b') / c'))
Hence, the following code works as well.
main :: IO ()
main = print $ my_map (^(3 :: Int)) ([1..5] :: [Integer])
my_map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
my_map f = flip foldr [] ((:) . f)
But we can not get rid of f as above, because of the form in the expression flip foldr [] ((:) . f).
If we remove f ...
`((:) . f)` has type `a -> [a] -> [a]
-- v
`((:) . )` has type `(a -> a) -> a -> [a] -> [a]`
and
`flip foldr []` has type `Foldable t => (a1 -> [a2] -> [a2]) -> t a1 -> [a2]`
hence
f :: a -> a
is passed to
((:) . )
becomming
a -> [a] -> [a]
is passed to
flip foldr []
becomming
t a1 -> [a2]
Hence,
main :: IO ()
main = print $ my_map (^(3 :: Int)) ([1..5] :: [Integer])
my_map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
my_map = flip foldr [] . ((:) . )
works nicely.
For a function that maps a function to every nth element in a list:
mapEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEvery n f = zipWith ($) (drop 1 . cycle . take n $ f : repeat id)
Is it possible to implement this with foldr like ordinary map?
EDIT: In the title, changed 'folder' to 'foldr'. Autocorrect...
Here's one solution
mapEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEvery n f as = foldr go (const []) as 1 where
go a as m
| m == n = f a : as 1
| otherwise = a : as (m+1)
This uses the "foldl as foldr" trick to pass state from the left to the right along the list as you fold. Essentially, if we read the type of foldr as (a -> r -> r) -> r -> [a] -> r then we instantiate r as Int -> [a] where the passed integer is the current number of elements we've passed without calling the function.
Yes, it can:
mapEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEvery n f xs
= foldr (\y ys -> g y : ys) []
$ zip [1..] xs
where
g (i, y) = if i `mod` n == 0 then f y else y
And since it's possible to implement zip in terms of foldr, you could get even more fold-y if you really wanted. This even works on infinite lists:
> take 20 $ mapEvery 5 (+1) $ repeat 1
[1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2]
This is what it looks like with even more foldr and inlining g:
mapEvery :: Int -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEvery _ _ [] = []
mapEvery n f xs
= foldr (\(i, y) ys -> (if i `mod` n == 0 then f y else y) : ys) []
$ foldr step (const []) [1..] xs
where
step _ _ [] = []
step x zipsfn (y:ys) = (x, y) : zipsfn ys
Now, would I recommend writing it this way? Absolutely not. This is about as obfuscated as you can get while still writing "readable" code. But it does demonstrate that this is possible to use the very powerful foldr to implement relatively complex functions.
21 --Primitive recursion constructor
22 pr :: ([Int] -> Int) -> ([Int] -> Int) -> ([Int] -> Int)
23 pr f g = \xs 0 -> f xs
24 pr f g = \xs (y+1) -> g xs y ((pr f g) xs y)
I want the function this function creates to act differently on different inputs, so that it can create a recursive function. As expected, the above code doesn't work. How do I do something like pattern matching, but for the function it creates?
pr f g = \xs y' -> case y' of 0 -> f xs
(y+1) -> g xs y ((pr f g) xs y)
or simply
pr f g xs 0 = f xs
pr f g xs (y+1) = g xs y ((pr f g) xs y)
(Remember that f a b = ... is basically a shortcut for f a = \b -> ... which is a shortcut for f = \a -> \b -> ....)
Note that n+1 patterns are deprecated and that the type you specified for pr does not match your (and mine) definition.
Specifically according to your type the function takes an [Int] -> Int (f), then a function that takes another [Int] -> Int (g), then a function that takes an [Int] (xs) and then returning an Int. However you call g with three arguments and the last function that you return takes two arguments, so presumably you want something like ([Int] -> Int) -> ([Int] -> Int -> Int -> Int) -> [Int] -> Int -> Int.
Another solution is to use the lenguaje extension LambdaCase:
{-# LANGUAGE LambdaCase #-}
pr f g = \xs -> \case
0 -> f xs
(y+1) -> g xs y ((pr f g) xs y)
In these case you have two use two \ because in a \case you can have only one argument.