I want to write a function which prints out a list of numbers from 1 to n: [1,2,...n], I know it can be done by [1..n] but I want to make my own function:
addtimes n = addtimes_ [] n
addtimes_ [lst] a =
if a < 1
then [lst]
else addtimes_ [a:lst] (a-1)
main =
print $ addtimes 10
Though above code compiles and runs, it gives following runtime error:
testing: testing.hs:(3,1)-(6,37): Non-exhaustive patterns in function addtimes_
Where is the problem and how can it be solved?
See the following, with corrected syntax (and type signatures added, seriously these are essential for both code documentation and for better error messages):
addtimes :: (Num a, Ord a) => a -> [a]
addtimes n = addtimes_ [] n
addtimes_ :: (Num a, Ord a) => [a] -> a -> [a]
addtimes_ lst a =
if a < 1
then lst
else addtimes_ (a:lst) (a-1)
main :: IO ()
main =
print $ addtimes 10
As well as referring to [lst] (a singleton list containing the one element lst) instead of lst (which can refer to anything, which in the context of your function must be a list, but can be of any length), you had put [a:lst] (again a singleton list, this time containing a list) instead of (a:lst), a list made up of first element a appended to the front of lst. (The parentheses are not needed for any syntactic reason, but are usually needed in practice, as in the above code, because of operator precedence: addtimes_ a:list (a-1) would be parsed as (addtimes_ a):(list (a-1)), which definitely isn't what you mean.
Edit:
To achieve what you want, now I understand your goal reading your
addtimes :: Int -> [Int]
addtimes 0 = []
addtimes n = if n > 0
then addtimes_ 1 n
else error "Doesn't work with negatives"
addtimes_ :: Int -> Int -> [Int]
addtimes_ m n = if n > m
then m : (addtimes_ (m+1) n)
else [n]
main =
print $ addtimes (10)
That will create a list with the numbers adding 1 consecutively
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
Related
I wrote my first program in Haskell today. It compiles and runs successfully. And since it is not a typical "Hello World" program, it in fact does much more than that, so please congrats me :D
Anyway, I've few doubts regarding my code, and the syntax in Haskell.
Problem:
My program reads an integer N from the standard input and then, for each integer i in the range [1,N], it prints whether i is a prime number or not. Currently it doesn't check for input error. :-)
Solution: (also doubts/questions)
To solve the problem, I wrote this function to test primality of an integer:
is_prime :: Integer -> Bool
is_prime n = helper n 2
where
helper :: Integer -> Integer -> Bool
helper n i
| n < 2 * i = True
| mod n i > 0 = helper n (i+1)
| otherwise = False
It works great. But my doubt is that the first line is a result of many hit-and-trials, as what I read in this tutorial didn't work, and gave this error (I suppose this is an error, though it doesn't say so):
prime.hs:9:13:
Type constructor `Integer' used as a class
In the type signature for `is_prime':
is_prime :: Integer a => a -> Bool
According to the tutorial (which is a nicely-written tutorial, by the way), the first line should be: (the tutorial says (Integral a) => a -> String, so I thought (Integer a) => a -> Bool should work as well.)
is_prime :: (Integer a) => a -> Bool
which doesn't work, and gives the above posted error (?).
And why does it not work? What is the difference between this line (which doesn't work) and the line (which works)?
Also, what is the idiomatic way to loop through 1 to N? I'm not completely satisfied with the loop in my code. Please suggest improvements. Here is my code:
--read_int function
read_int :: IO Integer
read_int = do
line <- getLine
readIO line
--is_prime function
is_prime :: Integer -> Bool
is_prime n = helper n 2
where
helper :: Integer -> Integer -> Bool
helper n i
| n < 2 * i = True
| mod n i > 0 = helper n (i+1)
| otherwise = False
main = do
n <- read_int
dump 1 n
where
dump i x = do
putStrLn ( show (i) ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (is_prime i) )
if i >= x
then putStrLn ("")
else do
dump (i+1) x
You are misreading the tutorial. It would say the type signature should be
is_prime :: (Integral a) => a -> Bool
-- NOT Integer a
These are different types:
Integer -> Bool
This is a function that takes a value of type Integer and gives back a value of type Bool.
Integral a => a -> Bool
This is a function that takes a value of type a and gives back a value of type Bool.
What is a? It can be any type of the caller's choice that implements the Integral type class, such as Integer or Int.
(And the difference between Int and Integer? The latter can represent an integer of any magnitude, the former wraps around eventually, similar to ints in C/Java/etc.)
The idiomatic way to loop depends on what your loop does: it will either be a map, a fold, or a filter.
Your loop in main is a map, and because you're doing i/o in your loop, you need to use mapM_.
let dump i = putStrLn ( show (i) ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (is_prime i) )
in mapM_ dump [1..n]
Meanwhile, your loop in is_prime is a fold (specifically all in this case):
is_prime :: Integer -> Bool
is_prime n = all nondivisor [2 .. n `div` 2]
where
nondivisor :: Integer -> Bool
nondivisor i = mod n i > 0
(And on a minor point of style, it's conventional in Haskell to use names like isPrime instead of names like is_prime.)
Part 1: If you look at the tutorial again, you'll notice that it actually gives type signatures in the following forms:
isPrime :: Integer -> Bool
-- or
isPrime :: Integral a => a -> Bool
isPrime :: (Integral a) => a -> Bool -- equivalent
Here, Integer is the name of a concrete type (has an actual representation) and Integral is the name of a class of types. The Integer type is a member of the Integral class.
The constraint Integral a means that whatever type a happens to be, a has to be a member of the Integral class.
Part 2: There are plenty of ways to write such a function. Your recursive definition looks fine (although you might want to use n < i * i instead of n < 2 * i, since it's faster).
If you're learning Haskell, you'll probably want to try writing it using higher-order functions or list comprehensions. Something like:
module Main (main) where
import Control.Monad (forM_)
isPrime :: Integer -> Bool
isPrime n = all (\i -> (n `rem` i) /= 0) $ takeWhile (\i -> i^2 <= n) [2..]
main :: IO ()
main = do n <- readLn
forM_ [1..n] $ \i ->
putStrLn (show (i) ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (isPrime i))
It is Integral a, not Integer a. See http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Converting_numbers.
map and friends is how you loop in Haskell. This is how I would re-write the loop:
main :: IO ()
main = do
n <- read_int
mapM_ tell_prime [1..n]
where tell_prime i = putStrLn (show i ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (is_prime i))
I have random number generator
rand :: Int -> Int -> IO Int
rand low high = getStdRandom (randomR (low,high))
and a helper function to remove an element from a list
removeItem _ [] = []
removeItem x (y:ys) | x == y = removeItem x ys
| otherwise = y : removeItem x ys
I want to shuffle a given list by randomly picking an item from the list, removing it and adding it to the front of the list. I tried
shuffleList :: [a] -> IO [a]
shuffleList [] = []
shuffleList l = do
y <- rand 0 (length l)
return( y:(shuffleList (removeItem y l) ) )
But can't get it to work. I get
hw05.hs:25:33: error:
* Couldn't match expected type `[Int]' with actual type `IO [Int]'
* In the second argument of `(:)', namely
....
Any idea ?
Thanks!
Since shuffleList :: [a] -> IO [a], we have shuffleList (xs :: [a]) :: IO [a].
Obviously, we can't cons (:) :: a -> [a] -> [a] an a element onto an IO [a] value, but instead we want to cons it onto the list [a], the computation of which that IO [a] value describes:
do
y <- rand 0 (length l)
-- return ( y : (shuffleList (removeItem y l) ) )
shuffled <- shuffleList (removeItem y l)
return y : shuffled
In do notation, values to the right of <- have types M a, M b, etc., for some monad M (here, IO), and values to the left of <- have the corresponding types a, b, etc..
The x :: a in x <- mx gets bound to the pure value of type a produced / computed by the M-type computation which the value mx :: M a denotes, when that computation is actually performed, as a part of the combined computation represented by the whole do block, when that combined computation is performed as a whole.
And if e.g. the next line in that do block is y <- foo x, it means that a pure function foo :: a -> M b is applied to x and the result is calculated which is a value of type M b, denoting an M-type computation which then runs and produces / computes a pure value of type b to which the name y is then bound.
The essence of Monad is thus this slicing of the pure inside / between the (potentially) impure, it is these two timelines going on of the pure calculations and the potentially impure computations, with the pure world safely separated and isolated from the impurities of the real world. Or seen from the other side, the pure code being run by the real impure code interacting with the real world (in case M is IO). Which is what computer programs must do, after all.
Your removeItem is wrong. You should pick and remove items positionally, i.e. by index, not by value; and in any case not remove more than one item after having picked one item from the list.
The y in y <- rand 0 (length l) is indeed an index. Treat it as such. Rename it to i, too, as a simple mnemonic.
Generally, with Haskell it works better to maximize the amount of functional code at the expense of non-functional (IO or randomness-related) code.
In your situation, your “maximum” functional component is not removeItem but rather a version of shuffleList that takes the input list and (as mentioned by Will Ness) a deterministic integer position. List function splitAt :: Int -> [a] -> ([a], [a]) can come handy here. Like this:
funcShuffleList :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
funcShuffleList _ [] = []
funcShuffleList pos ls =
if (pos <=0) || (length(take (pos+1) ls) < (pos+1))
then ls -- pos is zero or out of bounds, so leave list unchanged
else let (left,right) = splitAt pos ls
in (head right) : (left ++ (tail right))
Testing:
λ>
λ> funcShuffleList 4 [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
[4,0,1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9]
λ>
λ> funcShuffleList 5 "#ABCDEFGH"
"E#ABCDFGH"
λ>
Once you've got this, you can introduce randomness concerns in simpler fashion. And you do not need to involve IO explicitely, as any randomness-friendly monad will do:
shuffleList :: MonadRandom mr => [a] -> mr [a]
shuffleList [] = return []
shuffleList ls =
do
let maxPos = (length ls) - 1
pos <- getRandomR (0, maxPos)
return (funcShuffleList pos ls)
... IO being just one instance of MonadRandom.
You can run the code using the default IO-hosted random number generator:
main = do
let inpList = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]::[Integer]
putStrLn $ "inpList = " ++ (show inpList)
-- mr automatically instantiated to IO:
outList1 <- shuffleList inpList
putStrLn $ "outList1 = " ++ (show outList1)
outList2 <- shuffleList outList1
putStrLn $ "outList2 = " ++ (show outList2)
Program output:
$ pickShuffle
inpList = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
outList1 = [6,0,1,2,3,4,5,7,8]
outList2 = [8,6,0,1,2,3,4,5,7]
$
$ pickShuffle
inpList = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
outList1 = [4,0,1,2,3,5,6,7,8]
outList2 = [2,4,0,1,3,5,6,7,8]
$
The output is not reproducible here, because the default generator is seeded by its launch time in nanoseconds.
If what you need is a full random permutation, you could have a look here and there - Knuth a.k.a. Fisher-Yates algorithm.
So I'm trying to make a little program that can take in data captured during an experiment, and for the most part I think I've figured out how to recursively take in data until the user signals there is no more, however upon termination of data taking haskell throws Exception: <<loop>> and I can't really figure out why. Here's the code:
readData :: (Num a, Read a) => [Point a] -> IO [Point a]
readData l = do putStr "Enter Point (x,y,<e>) or (d)one: "
entered <- getLine
if (entered == "d" || entered == "done")
then return l
else do let l = addPoint l entered
nl <- readData l
return nl
addPoint :: (Num a, Read a) => [Point a] -> String -> [Point a]
addPoint l s = l ++ [Point (dataList !! 0) (dataList !! 1) (dataList !! 2)]
where dataList = (map read $ checkInputData . splitOn "," $ s) :: (Read a) => [a]
checkInputData :: [String] -> [String]
checkInputData xs
| length xs < 2 = ["0","0","0"]
| length xs < 3 = (xs ++ ["0"])
| length xs == 3 = xs
| length xs > 3 = ["0","0","0"]
As far as I can tell, the exception is indication that there is an infinite loop somewhere, but I can't figure out why this is occurring. As far as I can tell when "done" is entered the current level should simply return l, the list it's given, which should then cascade up the previous iterations of the function.
Thanks for any help. (And yes, checkInputData will have proper error handling once I figure out how to do that.)
<<loop>> basically means GHC has detected an infinite loop caused by a value which depends immediately on itself (cf. this question, or this one for further technical details if you are curious). In this case, that is triggered by:
else do let l = addPoint l entered
This definition, which shadows the l you passed as an argument, defines l in terms of itself. You meant to write something like...
else do let l' = addPoint l entered
... which defines a new value, l', in terms of the original l.
As Carl points out, turning on -Wall (e.g. by passing it to GHC at the command line, or with :set -Wall in GHCi) would make GHC warn you about the shadowing:
<interactive>:171:33: warning: [-Wname-shadowing]
This binding for ‘l’ shadows the existing binding
bound at <interactive>:167:10
Also, as hightlighted by dfeuer, the whole do-block in the else branch can be replaced by:
readData (addPoint l entered)
As an unrelated suggestion, in this case it is a good idea to replace your uses of length and (!!) with pattern matching. For instance, checkInputData can be written as:
checkInputData :: [String] -> [String]
checkInputData xs = case xs of
[_,_] -> xs ++ ["0"]
[_,_,_] -> xs
_ -> ["0","0","0"]
addPoint, in its turn, might become:
addPoint :: (Num a, Read a) => [Point a] -> String -> [Point a]
addPoint l s = l ++ [Point x y z]
where [x,y,z] = (map read $ checkInputData . splitOn "," $ s) :: (Read a) => [a]
That becomes even neater if you change checkInputData so that it returns a (String, String, String) triple, which would better express the invariant that you are reading exactly three values.
Write the recursive function adjuster. Given a list of type
x, an int and an element of type x, either remove from the front of the
list until it is the same length as int, or append to the end of the list
until it is the same length as the value specified by the int.
expected:
adjuster [1..10] (-2) 2 -> *** Exception: Invalid Size
adjuster [1..10] 0 2 -> []
adjuster "apple" 10 ’b’ -> "applebbbbb"
adjuster "apple" 5 ’b’ -> "apple"
adjuster "apple" 2 ’b’ -> "le"
adjuster [] 3 (7,4) -> [(7,4),(7,4),(7,4)]
What i did:
adjuster (x:xs) count b
| count < 0 = error "Invalid Size"
| count == 0 = []
| count < length xs = adjuster xs (count-1) b
| otherwise = (adjuster xs (count-1) b):b
the error that I'm getting:
* Occurs check: cannot construct the infinite type: t ~ [t]
Expected type: [t]
Actual type: [[t]]
* In the expression: (adjuster xs (count - 1) b) : b
In an equation for `adjuster':
adjuster (x : xs) count b
| count < 0 = error "Invalid Size"
| count == 0 = []
| count < length xs = adjuster xs (count - 1) b
| otherwise = (adjuster xs (count - 1) b) : b
* Relevant bindings include
b :: [[t]] (bound at code01.hs:21:23)
adjuster :: [a] -> Int -> [[t]] -> [t] (bound at code01.hs:21:1)
I'm new in haskell.I'll really appreciate some help.
You are trying to construct a list within lists within lists and so on and so forth …
Why is this?
(:) :: a -> [a] -> [a]
The colon operator takes an element and a list of such elements as an argument and constructs a list from that (by prepending that element).
In your case if (adjuster ...) had type [a] then b must be of type [[a]], by line 4 which is the same as the end result, but line 3 says the type is [a] - which is different. This is what GHC tries to tell you.
How to fix it?
First of all, it is always a good advice to add a type signature to every top level function:
adjuster :: [a] -> Int -> a -> [a]
which should clean up your error-message and keep you honest, when implementing your function.
So how to fix this: - you could use b:adjuster xs (count-1) b but this would yield a result in the wrong order - so
choose a different operator: (++) and wrap the b inside a list.
| otherwise = (adjuster xs (count-1) b)++[b]
Now a few more hints:
turn on -Wall when you compile your file - this will show you that you missed the case of adjuster [] ...
using length is a relatively expensive operation - as it needs to traverse the full list to be calculated.
As an exercise - try to modify your function to not use length but only work with the base cases [] for list and 0 for count (here the function replicate might be helpful).
Here is another approach, without error handling
adjuster xs n v = tnr n $ (++) (replicate n v) $ tnr n xs
where tnr n r = take n $ reverse r
if you play with the signature, perhaps cleaner this way
adjuster n v = tnr . (++) (replicate n v) . tnr
where tnr = take n . reverse
There's a series of examples I'm trying to do to practice Haskell. I'm currently learning about continuation passing, but I'm a bit confused as to how to implement a function like find index of element in list that works like this:
index 3 [1,2,3] id = 2
Examples like factorial made sense since there wasn't really any processing of the data other than multiplication, but in the case of the index function, I need to compare the element I'm looking at with the element I'm looking for, and I just can't seem to figure out how to do that with the function parameter.
Any help would be great.
first let me show you a possible implementation:
index :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> (Int -> Int) -> Int
index _ [] _ = error "not found"
index x (x':xs) cont
| x == x' = cont 0
| otherwise = index x xs (\ind -> cont $ ind + 1)
if you prefer point-free style:
index :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> (Int -> Int) -> Int
index _ [] _ = error "not found"
index x (x':xs) cont
| x == x' = cont 0
| otherwise = index x xs (cont . (+1))
how it works
The trick is to use the continuations to count up the indices - those continuations will get the index to the right and just increment it.
As you see this will cause an error if it cannot find the element.
examples:
λ> index 1 [1,2,3] id
0
λ> index 2 [1,2,3] id
1
λ> index 3 [1,2,3] id
2
λ> index 4 [1,2,3] id
*** Exception: not found
how I figured it out
A good way to figure out stuff like this is by first writing down the recursive call with the continuation:
useCont a (x:xs) cont = useCont a xs (\valFromXs -> cont $ ??)
And now you have to think about what you want valFromXs to be (as a type and as a value) - but remember your typical start (as here) will be to make the first continuation id, so the type can only be Int -> Int. So it should be clear that we are talking about of index-transformation here. As useCont will only know about the tail xs in the next call it seems natural to see this index as relative to xs and from here the rest should follow rather quickly.
IMO this is just another instance of
Let the types guide you Luke
;)
remarks
I don't think that this is a typical use of continuations in Haskell.
For once you can use an accumulator argument for this as well (which is conceptional simpler):
index :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Int -> Int
index _ [] _ = error "not found"
index x (x':xs) ind
| x == x' = ind
| otherwise = index x xs (ind+1)
or (see List.elemIndex) you can use Haskells laziness/list-comprehensions to make it look even nicer:
index :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Int
index x xs = head [ i | (x',i) <- zip xs [0..], x'== x ]
If you have a value a then to convert it to CPS style you replace it with something like (a -> r) -> r for some unspecified r. In your case, the base function is index :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Maybe Int and so the CPS form is
index :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> (Maybe Int -> r) -> r
or even
index :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> (Int -> r) -> r -> r
Let's implement the latter.
index x as success failure =
Notably, there are two continuations, one for the successful result and one for a failing one. We'll apply them as necessary and induct on the structure of the list just like usual. First, clearly, if the as list is empty then this is a failure
case as of
[] -> failure
(a:as') -> ...
In the success case, we're, as normal, interested in whether x == a. When it is true we pass the success continuation the index 0, since, after all, we found a match at the 0th index of our input list.
case as of
...
(a:as') | x == a -> success 0
| otherwise -> ...
So what happens when we don't yet have a match? If we were to pass the success continuation in unchanged then it would, assuming a match is found, eventually be called with 0 as an argument. This loses information about the fact that we've attempted to call it once already, though. We can rectify that by modifying the continuation
case as of
...
(a:as') ...
| otherwise -> index x as' (fun idx -> success (idx + 1)) failure
Another way to think about it is that we have the collect "post" actions in the continuation since ultimately the result of the computation will pass through that code
-- looking for the value 5, we begin by recursing
1 :
2 :
3 :
4 :
5 : _ -- match at index 0; push it through the continuation
0 -- lines from here down live in the continuation
+1
+1
+1
+1
This might be even more clear if we write the recursive branch in pointfree style
| otherwise -> index x as' (success . (+1)) failure
which shows how we're modifying the continuation to include one more increment for each recursive call. All together the code is
index :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> (Int -> r) -> r -> r
index x as success failure
case as of
[] -> failure
(a:as') | x == a -> success 0
| otherwise -> index x as' (success . (+1)) failure