I'm relatively new to Haskell, and have been trying to learn it for the past few weeks, but have been stuck on Filters and Predicates, which I was hoping to get help with understanding.
I have come across a problem whereby I have a list of tuples. Each tuple consists of a (songName, songArtist, saleQty) and am required to remove a tuple from that list based on the user inputting the songName and SongArtist.
When returning the results, I understand I can remove a tuple by using the Filter function when returning the results. I have been doing some reading on it using LYAH. Its taught me that I have to use a Predicate (which is another function) to filter through my results. This has caught me off guard as I learnt a Filter function has type (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a], which means my input for the Filter needs to to be a Boolean and my output for my Predicate needs to be Boolean so it can be fed to the Filter.
This is a problem, as to filter my results from the list I need to input the songName and songArtist (both of which are String types) to the predicate when recursively going through the results, and output the songName and songArtist to the Filter to let it know which exact tuple needs to be removed from the list.
Am I going about this the wrong way or is there a better way I could go about this?
I learnt a Filter function has type (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
The filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a] takes two parameters, a predicate with signature a -> Bool, and a list of items, and it returns a list of items that satisfy the predicate. So the predicate is the first parameter.
which means my input for the Filter needs to to be a Boolean.
No the first parameter has type a -> Bool, so it is a function that maps an item a to a Bool, so a predicate.
You can for example create a function that checks if both the songName and songTitle match with:
filterSales :: String -> String -> [(String, String, Int)] -> [(String, String, Int)]
filterSales artist title items = filter p items
where p (artist', title', _) = artist == artist' && title == title'
Here p is thus the predicate, a function that maps a 3-tuple to a boolean. The predicate p will return True for a 3-tuple if the first two items are equal to the artist and title respectively.
This is a second answer and the existing one is great, so I'll show my alternate take; after all, two explanations can't be worse than one, right?
What filter expects of you is a function that will tell it one thing - should I keep the given element in the resulting collection?
The type of that function is (a -> Bool), and that's what we call a predicate.
In your specific case, assuming
type SongEntry = (SongName, SongArtist, SaleQty)
It's gonna be a function of type SongEntry -> Bool. Now, there could be a lot of such functions... maybe you want more than 100 sales?
hasMoreThan100Sales :: SongEntry -> Bool
hasMoreThan100Sales (_, _, sales) = sales > 100
To use it:
filter hasMoreThan100Sales songs
That should be easy enough. What if we wanted more than n sales? This is where Haskell's curry-by-default really shines. We can add one additional parameter:
hasMoreThanNSales :: Int -> SongEntry -> Bool
Which we can also read and understand as Int -> (SongEntry -> Bool). The implementation is straighforward at this point:
hasMoreThanNSales n (_, _, sales) = sales > n
And crucially, to get our previous "100" function, we just need to apply it:
hasMoreThanNSales 100 :: SongEntry -> Bool
This has the type we need to use it with the filter:
filter (hasMoreThanNSales 100) songs
At this point, you should understand it well enough to write your own predicate that can be parametrized in any way you want.
Oh, and one more thing that might be confusing. hasMoreThan100Sales is a predicate. hasMoreThanNSales is not, until you apply it with a value (e.g. 100) - (hasMoreThanNSales 100) is a predicate.
Related
I am trying to learn haskell and saw a exercise which says
Write two different Haskell functions having the same type:
[a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
So from my understanding the expressions should take in two lists, an int and return a tuple of the type of the lists.
What i tried so far was
together :: [a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
together [] [] 0 = (0,0)
together [b] [a] x = if x == a | b then (b,a) else (0,0)
I know I am way off but any help is appreciated!
First you need to make your mind up what the function should return. That is partly determined by the signature. But still you can come up with a lot of functions that return different things, but have the same signature.
Here one of the most straightforward functions is probably to return the elements that are placed on the index determined by the third parameter.
It makes no sense to return (0,0), since a and b are not per se numerical types. Furthermore if x == a | b is not semantically valid. You can write this as x == a || x == b, but this will not work, since a and b are not per se Ints.
We can implement a function that returns the heads of the two lists in case the index is 0. In case the index is negative, or at least one of the two lists is exhausted, then we can raise an error. I leave it as an exercise what to do in case the index is greater than 0:
together :: [a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
together [] _ = error "List exhausted"
together _ [] = error "List exhausted"
together (a:_) (b:_) 0 = (a, b)
together (a:_) (b:_) n | n < 0 = error "Negative index!"
| …
you thus still need to fill in the ….
I generally dislike those "write any function with this signature"-type excercises precisely because of how arbitrary they are. You're supposed to figure out a definition that would make sense for that particular signature and implement it. In a lot of cases, you can wing it by ignoring as many arguments as possible:
fa :: [a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
fa (a:_) (b:_) _ = (a,b)
fa _ _ _ = error "Unfortunately, this function can't be made total because lists can be empty"
The error here is the important bit to note. You attempted to go around that problem by returning 0s, but this will only work when 0 is a valid value for types of a and b. Your next idea could be some sort of a "Default" value, but not every type has such a concept. The key observation is that without any knowledge about a type, in order to produce a value from a function, you need to get this value from somewhere else first*.
If you actually wanted a more sensible definition, you'd need to think up a use for that Int parameter; maybe it's the nth element from each
list? With the help of take :: Int -> [a] -> [a] and head :: [a] -> a this should be doable as an excercise.
Again, your idea of comparing x with a won't work for all types; not every type is comparable with an Int. You might think that this would make generic functions awfully limited; that's the point where you typically learn about how to express certain expectations about the types you get, which will allow you to operate only on certain subsets of all possible types.
* That's also the reason why id :: a -> a has only one possible implementation.
Write two different Haskell functions having the same type:
[a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
As Willem and Bartek have pointed out, there's a lot of gibberish functions that have this type.
Bartek took the approach of picking two based on what the simplest functions with that type could look like. One was a function that did nothing but throw an error. And one was picking the first element of each list, hoping they were not empty and failing otherwise. This is a somewhat theoretical approach, since you probably don't ever want to use those functions in practice.
Willem took the approach of suggesting an actually useful function with that type and proceeded to explore how to exhaust the possible patterns of such a function: For lists, match the empty list [] and the non-empty list a:_, and for integers, match some stopping point, 0 and some categories n < 0 and ….
A question that arises to me is if there is any other equally useful function with this type signature, or if a second function would necessarily have to be hypothetically constructed. It would seem natural that the Int argument has some relation to the positions of elements in [a] and [b], since they are also integers, especially because a pair of single (a,b) is returned.
But the only remotely useful functions (in the sense of not being completely silly) that I can think of are small variations of this: For example, the Int could be the position from the end rather than from the beginning, or if there's not enough elements in one of the lists, it could default to the last element of a list rather than an error. Neither of these are very pleasing to make ("from the end" conflicts with the list being potentially infinite, and having a fall-back to the last element of a list conflicts with the fact that lists don't necessarily have a last element), so it is tempting to go with Bartek's approach of writing the simplest useless function as the second one.
I'm fairly new to Haskell, and try to accomplish the following:
filter (((!!) subList (fromJust (elemIndex String [String]))) == String) [[string]]
I replaced the names with their types to make it easier to read. The problem is that i can't do subList, but the (!!) takes a list as argument. So how would i go about writing this?
edit:
I wrote the filtering condition seperately, which works, but the problem is still the same:
findGood :: [String] -> String -> [String] -> String -> Bool
but i still need to fill in all the values, though the first [String] is the sublist. All the other values can be entered..
Edit:
I solved it, what i needed to do was put the [String] last, and then i could leave it out in the filter
So
findGood :: String -> [String] -> String -> [String] -> Bool
filter (findGood a b c) [[String]]
Thats what works, and thats what I wanted. (not needing the D)
Given that you're wanting to compare money and check money > 500 it makes much more sense to store it as an Int not a String. Furthermore I would say storing each entry as a tuple and having a list of tuples makes more sense than using a list of lists (this is also required for the Int implementation of money as you can't have a list of different types of lists).
So the table would have type [(String, Int)].
filter goes through the list and checks each element against a condition. In this case the condition is so simple I wouldn't bother making it it's own function (unless you need to reuse it in lots of places).
When given a pair of type (String, Int) we just want to check if that second value is > 500. So the condition is simply snd row > 500 where row is the tuple we were given representing a row in the table.
This leaves us with:
filter (\row -> snd row > 500) table
Testing on [("Geoff", 600), ("Bill", 700), ("Bill Jr.", 10)] this gives [("Geoff", 600), ("Bill", 700)] as expected.
How can I search a tuple based on the first element or second or third?
I know how to search tuple of two but how do i do it for more than two?
type Stuff = (String, String, Int)
testStuff :: [Stuff]
testStuff = [
("beans","black",5),
("cod","fish",4),
("coke","diet",3)
]
How can I write a function that will search "Stuff" and return the "int" value?
e.g searchStuff "beans" should return 5.
Since you haven't provided your function for searching in a list of pairs, I'm going to assume that you used lookup. Lets focus on find for your new function. find can be found in Data.List (and a more general version in Data.Foldable) and has the following type:
find :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Maybe a
Now, if you need to find something in a list of triples based on the first element, you could use
find (\(a,_,_) -> a == "beans") testStuff
However, this will leave you with a Maybe Stuff. But since Maybe is an instance of Functor, it is easy to change the result to Maybe Int (and is left as an exercise).
The Prelude defines lookup to handle searching a list of pairs. Here's the definition:
-- | 'lookup' #key assocs# looks up a key in an association list.
lookup :: (Eq a) => a -> [(a,b)] -> Maybe b
lookup _key [] = Nothing
lookup key ((x,y):xys)
| key == x = Just y
| otherwise = lookup key xys
Can you see how one would define a similar function to search a list of triples?
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 ...
I want to write a function that splits lists into sublists according to what items satisfy a given property p. My question is what to call the function. I'll give examples in Haskell, but the same problem would come up in F# or ML.
split :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [[a]] --- split lists into list of sublists
The sublists, concatenated, are the original list:
concat (split p xss) == xs
Every sublist satisfies the initial_p_only p property, which is to say (A) the sublist begins with an element satisfying p—and is therefore not empty, and (B) no other elements satisfy p:
initial_p_only :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Bool
initial_p_only p [] = False
initial_p_only p (x:xs) = p x && all (not . p) xs
So to be precise about it,
all (initial_p_only p) (split p xss)
If the very first element in the original list does not satisfy p, split fails.
This function needs to be called something other than split. What should I call it??
I believe the function you're describing is breakBefore from the list-grouping package.
Data.List.Grouping: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/list-grouping/0.1.1/doc/html/Data-List-Grouping.html
ghci> breakBefore even [3,1,4,1,5,9,2,6,5,3,5,8,9,7,9,3,2,3,8,4,6,2,6]
[[3,1],[4,1,5,9],[2],[6,5,3,5],[8,9,7,9,3],[2,3],[8],[4],[6],[2],[6]]
I quite like some name based on the term "break" as adamse suggests. There are quite a few possible variants of the function. Here is what I'd expect (based on the naming used in F# libraries).
A function named just breakBefore would take an element before which it should break:
breakBefore :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> [[a]]
A function with the With suffix would take some kind of function that directly specifies when to break. In case of brekaing this is the function a -> Bool that you wanted:
breakBeforeWith :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [[a]]
You could also imagine a function with By suffix would take a key selector and break when the key changes (which is a bit like group by, but you can have multiple groups with the same key):
breakBeforeBy :: Eq k => (a -> k) -> [a] -> [[a]]
I admit that the names are getting a bit long - and maybe the only function that is really useful is the one you wanted. However, F# libraries seem to be using this pattern quite consistently (e.g. there is sort, sortBy taking key selector and sortWith taking comparer function).
Perhaps it is possible to have these three variants for more of the list processing functions (and it's quite good idea to have some consistent naming pattern for these three types).