I'm trying to write a function that will determine if an element exists in a list, both of which being provided by the user. I think a recursive solution is best. This is what I have:
isElement :: a -> [b] -> Bool
isElement a [] = False
isElement a (x:xs) = if a == x then True
else isElement a xs
But it can't compile. The error is "Couldn't match expected type -a' with actual type -b'". I don't know what this means or how to fix the problem.
You code technically works. It's the type signature that's giving you trouble here.
First, here's the working code:
isElement :: (Eq a) => a -> [a] -> Bool
isElement a [] = False
isElement a (x:xs) = if a == x then True
else isElement a xs
I changed two things:
The first thing to keep in mind when working with Haskell's linked lists (the datatype that uses []) is that they can only contain elements of the same type. However in your type signature, a ➞ [b] you specify that you require your first element to be of type a and the ones in your list of type b, different from a.
The second thing is to "enable" equality checks with generic types a and b, and GHC will give you a warning with the steps to follow in order to fix that:
• No instance for (Eq a) arising from a use of ‘=='
Possible fix:
add (Eq a) to the context of
the type signature for:
isElement :: a -> [a] -> Bool
So what it tells us is to specify that the a type can be compared!
And this is fantastic because we can totally do this by giving that clue to the compiler with the (Eq a) => part in our code, that roughly translates to "given this property (Eq) of datatype a, [insert type signature here]". (feel free to correct me here, people of StackOverflow!)
Your code works, and reimplementing functions with this kind of explicit recursion is how I learned how it worked in the first place, so don't hesitate to learn by rewriting the stuff you use, then check their sources on Hackage to see how real-world haskellers actually do it.
Have fun learning!
This question already has an answer here:
Why does `peek` with a polymorphic Ptr return GHC.Prim.Any when used with a bind?
(1 answer)
Closed 6 years ago.
Something changes about the type of a function when it comes out of a monad.
In GHCI:
> :t map
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
> a <- return map
> :t a
a :: (GHC.Prim.Any -> GHC.Prim.Any)
-> [GHC.Prim.Any] -> [GHC.Prim.Any]
This change makes it hard to store the function in a higher rank type.
What is happening here and can I make it not happen?
(Also doesn't this violate one of the monad laws?)
First of all, there is no point in doing anything like a <- return map - its the same as let a = map, which works just fine. That said, I don't think that is your question...
Checking out the documentation of GHC.Prim.Any which gives us a big hint as to the role of Any.
It's also used to instantiate un-constrained type variables after type
checking. For example, length has type
length :: forall a. [a] -> Int
and the list datacon for the empty list has type
[] :: forall a. [a]
In order to compose these two terms as length [] a
type application is required, but there is no constraint on the
choice. In this situation GHC uses Any
(In terms of type application syntax, that looks like length #Any ([] #Any *))
The problem is that when GHCi sees x <- return map it tries to desugar it to return map >>= \x -> ... but the ... part is whatever you enter next into GHCi. Normally it would figure out what the type variables of map are going to be instantiated to (or whether they even should be instantiated to anything) based the ..., but since it has nothing there.
Another key point that #sepp2k points out is that x can't be given a polymorphic type because (>>=) expects (on its RHS) a rank-1 function, and that means its argument can't be polymorphic. (Loosening this condition pushes you straight into RankNTypes at which point you lose the ability to infer types reliably.)
Therefore, needing x to be monomorphic and having no information to help it instantiate the type variables that prevent x from being monomorphic, it defaults to using Any. That means that instead of (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] you get (Any -> Any) -> [Any] -> [Any].
I have the following function:
encode_single :: (Eq a) => [a] -> (Int, a)
encode_single (x:xs) = (count xs + 1, x)
However, Haskell complained about needing a base case, but I don't know how to do this because of the generic a type.
Thanks!
First of all, what you received is only a warning, not an error. Haskell does not need the base case of the empty list, it just suggests it.
Partial functions are most often an anti-pattern in functional programming so it just points out something that may be wrong. You can avoid the warning in different ways.
The first one is to make your function safe: if it cannot always return a value it's return type shouldn't be (Int, a) but Maybe (Int, a), so you could do:
encode_single :: (Eq a) => [a] -> Maybe (Int, a)
encode_single [] = Nothing
encode_single (x:xs) = Just (count xs + 1, x)
Otherwise you'd have to return a meaningful value for the empty case (just returning undefined isn't better than not defining that case). It might be appropriate to do somethign like:
encode_single [] = (0, undefined)
However this assumes that any code that uses the result of encode_single will not evaluate the second element of the tuple if the first element is zero (note that if the list isn't empty the first element is always positive, so 0 can be used as a sentinel value).
This may or may not be the case. However one thing is sure: this is not compile-time safe so you may receive some run-time errors when calling such a function.
Simply enough: at the type you desire you cannot write a total function of that specification. You need to change the type.
You can either add a default a or indicate partiality using Maybe.
encode_single :: a -> [a] -> (Int, a)
encode_single :: [a] -> Maybe (Int, a)
if you cannot change the type signature, you can piggyback on head i.e.
encode_single :: [a] -> (Int, a)
encode_single a = (length a, head a)
obviously, empty list input is not handled properly.
I need to create a function of two parameters, an Int and a [Int], that returns a new [Int] with all occurrences of the first parameter removed.
I can create the function easily enough, both with list comprehension and list recursion. However, I do it with these parameters:
deleteAll_list_comp :: Integer -> [Integer] -> [Integer]
deleteAll_list_rec :: (Integer -> Bool) -> [Integer] -> [Integer]
For my assignment, however, my required parameters are
deleteAll_list_comp :: (Eq a) => a -> [a] -> [a]
deleteAll_list_rec :: (Eq a) => a -> [a] -> [a]
I don't know how to read this syntax. As Google has told me, (Eq a) merely explains to Haskell that a is a type that is comparable. However, I don't understand the point of this as all Ints are naturally comparable. How do I go about interpreting and implementing the methods using these parameters? What I mean is, what exactly are the parameters to begin with?
#groovy #pelotom
Thanks, this makes it very clear. I understand now that really it is only asking for two parameters as opposed to three. However, I still am running into a problem with this code.
deleteAll_list_rec :: (Eq a) => a -> [a] -> [a]
delete_list_rec toDelete [] = []
delete_list_rec toDelete (a:as) =
if(toDelete == a) then delete_list_rec toDelete as
else a:(delete_list_rec toDelete as)
This gives me a "The type signature for deleteAll_list_rec
lacks an accompanying binding" which makes no sense to me seeing as how I did bind the requirements properly, didn't I? From my small experience, (a:as) counts as a list while extracting the first element from it. Why does this generate an error but
deleteAll_list_comp :: (Eq a) => a -> [a] -> [a]
deleteAll_list_comp toDelete ls = [x | x <- ls, toDelete==x]
does not?
2/7/13 Update: For all those who might stumble upon this post in the future with the same question, I've found some good information about Haskell in general, and my question specifically, at this link : http://learnyouahaskell.com/types-and-typeclasses
"Interesting. We see a new thing here, the => symbol. Everything before the => symbol is >called a class constraint. We can read the previous type declaration like this: the >equality function takes any two values that are of the same type and returns a Bool. The >type of those two values must be a member of the Eq class (this was the class constraint).
The Eq typeclass provides an interface for testing for equality. Any type where it makes >sense to test for equality between two values of that type should be a member of the Eq >class. All standard Haskell types except for IO (the type for dealing with input and >output) and functions are a part of the Eq typeclass."
One way to think of the parameters could be:
(Eq a) => a -> [a] -> [a]
(Eq a) => means any a's in the function parameters should be members of the
class Eq, which can be evaluated as equal or unequal.*
a -> [a] means the function will have two parameters: (1) an element of
type a, and (2) a list of elements of the same type a (we know that
type a in this case should be a member of class Eq, such as Num or
String).
-> [a] means the function will return a list of elements of the same
type a; and the assignment states that this returned list should
exclude any elements that equal the first function parameter,
toDelete.
(* edited based on pelotom's comment)
What you implemented (rather, what you think you implemented) is a function that works only on lists of Integers, what the assignment wants you to do is create one that works on lists of all types provided they are equality-comparable (so that your function will also work on lists of booleans or strings). You probably don't have to change a lot: Try removing the explicit type signatures from your code and ask ghci about the type that it would infer from your code (:l yourfile.hs and then :t deleteAll_list_comp). Unless you use arithmetic operations or similar things, you will most likely find that your functions already work for all Eq a.
As a simpler example that may explain the concept: Let's say we want to write a function isequal that checks for equality (slightly useless, but hey):
isequal :: Integer -> Integer -> Bool
isequal a b = (a == b)
This is a perfectly fine definition of isequal, but the type constraints that I have manually put on it are way stronger than they have to. In fact, in the absence of the manual type signature, ghci infers:
Prelude> :t isequal
isequal :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
which tells us that the function will work for all input types, as long as they are deriving Eq, which means nothing more than having a proper == relation defined on them.
There is still a problem with your _rec function though, since it should do the same thing as your _comp function, the type signatures should match.
For a silly challenge I am trying to implement a list type using as little of the prelude as possible and without using any custom types (the data keyword).
I can construct an modify a list using tuples like so:
import Prelude (Int(..), Num(..), Eq(..))
cons x = (x, ())
prepend x xs = (x, xs)
head (x, _) = x
tail (_, x) = x
at xs n = if n == 0 then xs else at (tail xs) (n-1)
I cannot think of how to write an at (!!) function. Is this even possible in a static language?
If it is possible could you try to nudge me in the right direction without telling me the answer.
There is a standard trick known as Church encoding that makes this easy. Here's a generic example to get you started:
data Foo = A Int Bool | B String
fooValue1 = A 3 False
fooValue2 = B "hello!"
Now, a function that wants to use this piece of data must know what to do with each of the constructors. So, assuming it wants to produce some result of type r, it must at the very least have two functions, one of type Int -> Bool -> r (to handle the A constructor), and the other of type String -> r (to handle the B constructor). In fact, we could write the type that way instead:
type Foo r = (Int -> Bool -> r) -> (String -> r) -> r
You should read the type Foo r here as saying "a function that consumes a Foo and produces an r". The type itself "stores" a Foo inside a closure -- so that it will effectively apply one or the other of its arguments to the value it closed over. Using this idea, we can rewrite fooValue1 and fooValue2:
fooValue1 = \consumeA consumeB -> consumeA 3 False
fooValue2 = \consumeA consumeB -> consumeB "hello!"
Now, let's try applying this trick to real lists (though not using Haskell's fancy syntax sugar).
data List a = Nil | Cons a (List a)
Following the same format as before, consuming a list like this involves either giving a value of type r (in case the constructor was Nil) or telling what to do with an a and another List a, so. At first, this seems problematic, since:
type List a r = (r) -> (a -> List a -> r) -> r
isn't really a good type (it's recursive!). But we can instead demand that we first reduce all the recursive arguments to r first... then we can adjust this type to make something more reasonable.
type List a r = (r) -> (a -> r -> r) -> r
(Again, we should read the type List a r as being "a thing that consumes a list of as and produces an r".)
There's one final trick that's necessary. What we would like to do is to enforce the requirement that the r that our List a r returns is actually constructed from the arguments we pass. That's a little abstract, so let's give an example of a bad value that happens to have type List a r, but which we'd like to rule out.
badList = \consumeNil consumeCons -> False
Now, badList has type List a Bool, but it's not really a function that consumes a list and produces a Bool, since in some sense there's no list being consumed. We can rule this out by demanding that the type work for any r, no matter what the user wants r to be:
type List a = forall r. (r) -> (a -> r -> r) -> r
This enforces the idea that the only way to get an r that gets us off the ground is to use the (user-supplied) consumeNil function. Can you see how to make this same refinement for our original Foo type?
If it is possible could you try and nudge me in the right direction without telling me the answer.
It's possible, in more than one way. But your main problem here is that you've not implemented lists. You've implemented fixed-size vectors whose length is encoded in the type.
Compare the types from adding an element to the head of a list vs. your implementation:
(:) :: a -> [a] -> [a]
prepend :: a -> b -> (a, b)
To construct an equivalent of the built-in list type, you'd need a function like prepend with a type resembling a -> b -> b. And if you want your lists to be parameterized by element type in a straightforward way, you need the type to further resemble a -> f a -> f a.
Is this even possible in a static language?
You're also on to something here, in that the encoding you're using works fine in something like Scheme. Languages with "dynamic" systems can be regarded as having a single static type with implicit conversions and metadata attached, which obviously solves the type mismatch problem in a very extreme way!
I cannot think of how to write an at (!!) function.
Recalling that your "lists" actually encode their length in their type, it should be easy to see why it's difficult to write functions that do anything other than increment/decrement the length. You can actually do this, but it requires elaborate encoding and more advanced type system features. A hint in this direction is that you'll need to use type-level numbers as well. You'd probably enjoy doing this as an exercise as well, but it's much more advanced than encoding lists.
Solution A - nested tuples:
Your lists are really nested tuples - for example, they can hold items of different types, and their type reveals their length.
It is possible to write indexing-like function for nested tuples, but it is ugly, and it won't correspond to Prelude's lists. Something like this:
class List a b where ...
instance List () b where ...
instance List a b => List (b,a) b where ...
Solution B - use data
I recommend using data construct. Tuples are internally something like this:
data (,) a b = Pair a b
so you aren't avoiding data. The division between "custom types" and "primitive types" is rather artificial in Haskell, as opposed to C.
Solution C - use newtype:
If you are fine with newtype but not data:
newtype List a = List (Maybe (a, List a))
Solution D - rank-2-types:
Use rank-2-types:
type List a = forall b. b -> (a -> b -> b) -> b
list :: List Int
list = \n c -> c 1 (c 2 n) -- [1,2]
and write functions for them. I think this is closest to your goal. Google for "Church encoding" if you need more hints.
Let's set aside at, and just think about your first four functions for the moment. You haven't given them type signatures, so let's look at those; they'll make things much clearer. The types are
cons :: a -> (a, ())
prepend :: a -> b -> (a, b)
head :: (a, b) -> a
tail :: (a, b) -> b
Hmmm. Compare these to the types of the corresponding Prelude functions1:
return :: a -> [a]
(:) :: a -> [a] -> [a]
head :: [a] -> a
tail :: [a] -> [a]
The big difference is that, in your code, there's nothing that corresponds to the list type, []. What would such a type be? Well, let's compare, function by function.
cons/return: here, (a,()) corresponds to [a]
prepend/(:): here, both b and (a,b) correspond to [a]
head: here, (a,b) corresponds to [a]
tail: here, (a,b) corresponds to [a]
It's clear, then, that what you're trying to say is that a list is a pair. And prepend indicates that you then expect the tail of the list to be another list. So what would that make the list type? You'd want to write type List a = (a,List a) (although this would leave out (), your empty list, but I'll get to that later), but you can't do this—type synonyms can't be recursive. After all, think about what the type of at/!! would be. In the prelude, you have (!!) :: [a] -> Int -> a. Here, you might try at :: (a,b) -> Int -> a, but this won't work; you have no way to convert a b into an a. So you really ought to have at :: (a,(a,b)) -> Int -> a, but of course this won't work either. You'll never be able to work with the structure of the list (neatly), because you'd need an infinite type. Now, you might argue that your type does stop, because () will finish a list. But then you run into a related problem: now, a length-zero list has type (), a length-one list has type (a,()), a length-two list has type (a,(a,())), etc. This is the problem: there is no single "list type" in your implementation, and so at can't have a well-typed first parameter.
You have hit on something, though; consider the definition of lists:
data List a = []
| a : [a]
Here, [] :: [a], and (:) :: a -> [a] -> [a]. In other words, a list is isomorphic to something which is either a singleton value, or a pair of a value and a list:
newtype List' a = List' (Either () (a,List' a))
You were trying to use the same trick without creating a type, but it's this creation of a new type which allows you to get the recursion. And it's exactly your missing recursion which allows lists to have a single type.
1: On a related note, cons should be called something like singleton, and prepend should be cons, but that's not important right now.
You can implement the datatype List a as a pair (f, n) where f :: Nat -> a and n :: Nat, where n is the length of the list:
type List a = (Int -> a, Int)
Implementing the empty list, the list operations cons, head, tail, and null, and a function convert :: List a -> [a] is left as an easy exercise.
(Disclaimer: stole this from Bird's Introduction to Functional Programming in Haskell.)
Of course, you could represent tuples via functions as well. And then True and False and the natural numbers ...