List of pairs into pair of Lists Haskell - haskell

Basically I have this exercise:
Using list comprehensions, write a polymorphic function:
split :: [(a, b)] -> ([a], [b])
which transforms a list of pairs (of any types) into a pair of lists. For example,
split [(1, 'a'), (2, 'b'), (3, 'c')] = ([1, 2, 3], "abc")
This was the way I wrote the function but it is not working:
split :: [(a, b)] -> ([a], [b])
split listOfPairs = (([a | a <- listOfPairs]), ([b | b <- listOfPairs]))
Can someone please explain why my solution doesn't work? Thank you!

A list comprehension like:
[a | a <- listOfPairs]
is actually nothing more than an identity operation for lists. It will yield the same list as the one you provide, since you basically iterate over listOfPairs, and for each iteration, you yield the element a.
Haskell does not perform implicit conversions, so it does not derive from the types that a in your a <- listOfPairs then only can be the first element. Even if that was possible, it was probably not a good idea anyway, since it would make the language more "unstable" in the sense that a small change in the types, could have significant impact in the semantics.
In order to obtain the first element of a tuple, you need to use pattern matching, like:
[a | (a, _) <- listOfPairs]
here we thus pattern match the first element of the tuple with a, and for the second one, we thus use:
[b | (_, b) <- listOfPairs]
We can thus impelement this as:
split:: [(a,b)] -> ([a],[b])
split listOfPairs = ([a | (a, _) <- listOfPairs], [b | (_, b) <- listOfPairs])
Or we can use map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b], fst :: (a, b) -> a and snd :: (a, b) -> b:
split:: [(a,b)] -> ([a],[b])
split listOfPairs = (map fst listOfPairs, map snd listOfPairs)
But the above still has a problem: here we iterate twice independently over the same list. We can omit that by using recursion, like:
split:: [(a,b)] -> ([a],[b])
split [] = []
split ((a, b):xs) = (a:as, b:bs)
where (as, bs) = split xs
or we can use a foldr function:
split :: Foldable f => f (a,b) -> ([a],[b])
split = foldr (\(a,b) (as,bs) -> (a:as,b:bs)) ([],[])
There is already a Haskell function that does exactly what you want: unzip :: [(a, b)] -> ([a], [b]), with the source code.

Related

convert list of Tupel into list of lists

Hey guys I want to be able to change a list of tuple in a list of lists . Here is what I am thinking:
pairToList :: (a, a) -> [a]
pairToList (x,y) = [x,y]
listoflists :: [(a, a)] -> [[a]]
listoflists xs = [pairToList (a, a) | a <- xs]
The first function works perfectly which is change Tupels into list but the second one doesn't not work, I tried to write it like that.
listoflists :: [(a, a)] -> [[a]]
listoflists xs = [pairToList (a, a) | (a,a) <- xs]
I am new with using comprehension of lists that contain Tuples.
In the second attempt,
listoflists xs = [pairToList (a, a) | (a,a) <- xs]
the part (a,a) <- xs is illegal, since it tries to define variable a mutliple times. For instance, if xs = [(1,2)] then the generator (a,a) <- [(1,2)] would define a as 1 and 2 at the same time which makes no sense.
You need to use different variables, e.g. (a1,a2) <- xs.
In the first attempt,
listoflists xs = [pairToList (a, a) | a <- xs]
a represents a generic pair taken from xs. Because of that (a,a) will be a pair-of-pairs. Hence, pairToList (a,a) will produce a list-of-pairs, which is not what you wanted. You could fix this by directly calling pairToList a instead.

Haskell: Create a list of tuples from a tuple with a static element and a list

Need to create a list of tuples from a tuple with a static element and a list. Such as:
(Int, [String]) -> [(Int, String)]
Feel like this should be a simple map call but am having trouble actually getting it to output a tuple as zip would need a list input, not a constant.
I think this is the most direct and easy to understand solution (you already seem to be acquainted with map anyway):
f :: (Int, [String]) -> [(Int, String)]
f (i, xs) = map (\x -> (i, x)) xs
(which also happens to be the desugared version of [(i, x) | x < xs], which Landei proposed)
then
Prelude> f (3, ["a", "b", "c"])
[(3,"a"),(3,"b"),(3,"c")]
This solution uses pattern matching to "unpack" the tuple argument, so that the first tuple element is i and the second element is xs. It then does a simple map over the elements of xs to convert each element x to the tuple (i, x), which I think is what you're after. Without pattern matching it would be slightly more verbose:
f pair = let i = fst pair -- get the FIRST element
xs = snd pair -- get the SECOND element
in map (\x -> (i, x)) xs
Furthermore:
The algorithm is no way specific to (Int, [String]), so you can safely generalize the function by replacing Int and String with type parameters a and b:
f :: (a, [b]) -> [(a, b)]
f (i, xs) = map (\x -> (i, x)) xs
this way you can do
Prelude> f (True, [1.2, 2.3, 3.4])
[(True,1.2),(True,2.3),(True,3.4)]
and of course if you simply get rid of the type annotation altogether, the type (a, [b]) -> [(a, b)] is exactly the type that Haskell infers (only with different names):
Prelude> let f (i, xs) = map (\x -> (i, x)) xs
Prelude> :t f
f :: (t, [t1]) -> [(t, t1)]
Bonus: you can also shorten \x -> (i, x) to just (i,) using the TupleSections language extension:
{-# LANGUAGE TupleSections #-}
f :: (a, [b]) -> [(a, b)]
f (i, xs) = map (i,) xs
Also, as Ørjan Johansen has pointed out, the function sequence does indeed generalize this even further, but the mechanisms thereof are a bit beyond the scope.
For completeness, consider also cycle,
f i = zip (cycle [i])
Using foldl,
f i = foldl (\a v -> (i,v) : a ) []
Using a recursive function that illustrates how to divide the problem,
f :: Int -> [a] -> [(Int,a)]
f _ [] = []
f i (x:xs) = (i,x) : f i xs
A list comprehension would be quite intuitive and readable:
f (i,xs) = [(i,x) | x <- xs]
Do you want the Int to always be the same, just feed zip with an infinite list. You can use repeat for that.
f i xs = zip (repeat i) xs

Adding predicate to a map function

Completely new to Haskell and learning through Learn Haskell the greater good.
I am looking at the map function
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
map _ [] = []
map f (x:xs) = f x : map f xs
is it possible to add a predicate to this? for example, to only map to every other element in the list?
You can code your own version of map to apply f only to even (or odd) positions as follows. (Below indices start from 0)
mapEven :: (a->a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEven f [] = []
mapEven f (x:xs) = f x : mapOdd f xs
mapOdd :: (a->a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapOdd f [] = []
mapOdd f (x:xs) = x : mapEven f xs
If instead you want to exploit the library functions, you can do something like
mapEven :: (a->a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEven f = map (\(flag,x) -> if flag then f x else x) . zip (cycle [True,False])
or even
mapEven :: (a->a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEven f = map (uncurry (\flag -> if flag then f else id)) . zip (cycle [True,False])
If you want to filter using an arbitrary predicate on the index, then:
mapPred :: (Int -> Bool) -> (a->a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapPred p f = map (\(i,x) -> if p i then f x else x) . zip [0..]
A more direct solution can be reached using zipWith (as #amalloy suggests).
mapEven :: (a->a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEven f = zipWith (\flag x -> if flag then f x else x) (cycle [True,False])
This can be further refined as follows
mapEven :: (a->a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEven f = zipWith ($) (cycle [f,id])
The "canonical" way to perform filtering based on positions is to zip the sequence with the naturals, so as to append an index to each element:
> zip [1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13] [0..]
[(1,0),(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(5,4),(8,5),(13,6)]
This way you can filter the whole thing using the second part of the tuples, and then map a function which discards the indices:
indexedFilterMap p f xs = (map (\(x,_) -> f x)) . (filter (\(_,y) -> p y)) $ (zip xs [0..])
oddFibsPlusOne = indexedFilterMap odd (+1) [1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13]
To be specific to you question, one might simply put
mapEveryOther f = indexedFilterMap odd f
You can map with a function (a lambda is also possible):
plusIfOdd :: Int -> Int
plusIfOdd a
| odd a = a
| otherwise = a + 100
map plusIfOdd [1..5]
As a first step, write the function for what you want to do to the individual element of the list:
applytoOdd :: Integral a => (a -> a) -> a -> a
applytoOdd f x = if odd x
then (f x)
else x
So applytoOdd function will apply the function f to the element if the element is odd or else return the same element if it is even. Now you can apply map to that like this:
λ> let a = [1,2,3,4,5]
λ> map (applytoOdd (+ 100)) a
[101,2,103,4,105]
Or if you want to add 200 to it, then:
λ> map (applytoOdd (+ 200)) a
[201,2,203,4,205]
Looking on the comments, it seems you want to map based on the index position. You can modify your applytoOdd method appropriately for that:
applytoOdd :: Integral a => (b -> b) -> (a, b) -> b
applytoOdd f (x,y) = if odd x
then (f y)
else y
Here, the type variable a corresponds to the index element. If it's odd you are applying the function to the actual element of the list. And then in ghci:
λ> map (applytoOdd (+ 100)) (zip [1..5] [1..])
[101,2,103,4,105]
λ> map (applytoOdd (+ 200)) (zip [1..5] [1..])
[201,2,203,4,205]
Or use a list comprehension:
mapOdd f x = if odd x then f x else x
[ mapOdd (+100) x | x <- [1,2,3,4,5]]
I'm glad that you're taking the time to learn about Haskell. It's an amazing language. However it does require you to develop a certain mindset. So here's what I do when I face a problem in Haskell. Let's start with your problem statement:
Is it possible to add a predicate to the map function? For example, to only map to every other element in the list?
So you have two questions:
Is it possible to add a predicate to the map function?
How to map to every other element in the list?
So the way people think in Haskell is via type signatures. For example, when an engineer is designing a building she visualizes how the building should look for the top (top view), the front (front view) and the side (side view). Similarly when functional programmers write code they visualize their code in terms of type signatures.
Let's start with what we know (i.e. the type signature of the map function):
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
Now you want to add a predicate to the map function. A predicate is a function of the type a -> Bool. Hence a map function with a predicate will be of the type:
mapP :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
However, in your case, you also want to keep the unmapped values. For example mapP odd (+100) [1,2,3,4,5] should result in [101,2,103,4,105] and not [101,103,105]. Hence it follows that the type of the input list should match the type of the output list (i.e. a and b must be of the same type). Hence mapP should be of the type:
mapP :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
It's easy to implement a function like this:
map :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapP p f = map (\x -> if p x then f x else x)
Now to answer your second question (i.e. how to map to every other element in the list). You could use zip and unzip as follows:
snd . unzip . mapP (odd . fst) (fmap (+100)) $ zip [1..] [1,2,3,4,5]
Here's what's happening:
We first zip the index of each element with the element itself. Hence zip [1..] [1,2,3,4,5] results in [(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(4,4),(5,5)] where the fst value of each pair is the index.
For every odd index element we apply the (+100) function to the element. Hence the resulting list is [(1,101),(2,2),(3,103),(4,4),(5,105)].
We unzip the list resulting in two separate lists ([1,2,3,4,5],[101,2,103,4,105]).
We discard the list of indices and keep the list of mapped results using snd.
We can make this function more general. The type signature of the resulting function would be:
mapI :: ((Int, a) -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
The definition of the mapI function is simple enough:
mapI :: ((Int, a) -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapI p f = snd . unzip . mapP p (fmap f) . zip [1..]
You can use it as follows:
mapI (odd . fst) (+100) [1,2,3,4,5]
Hope that helps.
Is it possible to add a predicate to this? for example, to only map to every other element in the list?
Yes, but functions should ideally do one relatively simple thing only. If you need to do something more complicated, ideally you should try doing it by composing two or more functions.
I'm not 100% sure I understand your question, so I'll show a few examples. First: if what you mean is that you only want to map in cases where a supplied predicate returns true of the input element, but otherwise just leave it alone, then you can do that by reusing the map function:
mapIfTrue :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapIfTrue pred f xs = map step xs
where step x | pred x = f x
| otherwise = x
If what you mean is that you want to discard list elements that don't satisfy the predicate, and apply the function to the remaining ones, then you can do that by combining map and filter:
filterMap :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
filterMap pred f xs = map f (filter pred xs)
Mapping the function over every other element of the list is different from these two, because it's not a predicate over the elements of the list; it's either a structural transformation of the list of a stateful traversal of it.
Also, I'm not clear whether you mean to discard or keep the elements you're not applying the function to, which would imply different answers. If you're discarding them, then you can do it by just discarding alternate list elements and then mapping the function over the remaining ones:
keepEven :: [a] -> [a]
keepEven xs = step True xs
where step _ [] = []
step True (x:xs) = x : step False xs
step False (_:xs) = step True xs
mapEven :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
mapEven f xs = map f (keepEven xs)
If you're keeping them, one way you could do it is by tagging each list element with its position, filtering the list to keep only the ones in even positions, discard the tags and then map the function:
-- Note: I'm calling the first element of a list index 0, and thus even.
mapEven :: (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEven f xs = map aux (filter evenIndex (zip [0..] xs))
where evenIndex (i, _) = even i
aux (_, x) = f x
As another answer mentioned, zip :: [a] -> [b] -> [(a, b)] combines two lists pairwise by position.
But this is the general philosophy: to do a complex thing, use a combination of general-purpose generic functions. If you're familiar with Unix, it's similar to that.
Another simple way to write the last one. It's longer, but keep in mind that evens, odds and interleave all are generic and reusable:
evens, odds :: [a] -> [a]
evens = alternate True
odds = alternate False
alternate :: Bool -> [a] -> [a]
alternate _ [] = []
alternate True (x:xs) = x : alternate False xs
alternate False (_:xs) = alternate True xs
interleave :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
interleave [] ys = ys
interleave (x:xs) ys = x : interleave ys xs
mapEven :: (a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
mapEven f xs = interleave (map f (evens xs)) (odds xs)
You can't use a predicate because predicates operate on list values, not their indices.
I quite like this format for what you're trying to do, since it makes the case handling quite clear for the function:
newMap :: (t -> t) -> [t] -> [t]
newMap f [] = [] -- no items in list
newMap f [x] = [f x] -- one item in list
newMap f (x:y:xs) = (f x) : y : newMap f xs -- 2 or more items in list
For example, running:
newMap (\x -> x + 1) [1,2,3,4]
Yields:
[2,2,4,4]

How to return a tuple array recursively in Haskell

I have the following function:
function :: [String] -> [[Int]] -> ([[Int]],[[Int]])
I would like to know if it is possible to do something like this:
function :: [String] -> [[Int]] -> ([[Int]],[[Int]])
function a (b:bs) = if condition then ([[]], [b]) ++ function a bs else
([b], [[]]) ++ function a bs
Of course I could write two functions which returns each [[Int]] but I would like to do it in a more appropriate way for Haskell.
There is a monoid instance for a tuple:
(Monoid a, Monoid b) => Monoid (a, b)
So the result of mappend will be:
([1], [2]) `mappend` ([3], [4])
([1, 3], [2, 4])
So basically you just replace ++ with mappend in your example
How about using map?
import Data.Monoid
f :: t -> [a] -> ([a], [a])
f a = mconcat . map part
where part b = if True then ([], [b]) else ([b], [])
So we let part choose which list our element of b will go in and let `map, and mconcat to flatten it.
It's idiomatic haskell to avoid explicit recursion so while you can fix your code by substituting mappend for ++ since you asked for the more appropriate haskell way I'll suggest this.
Oh also, you could just use break
f s = break $ \b -> condition
The most Haskellic(?) way would probably be to use unzip:
function a bs = unzip $ function' a bs
where function' a (b:bs) = (if condition then ([], b) else (b, [])) : function' a bs
function' _ [] = [] -- You forgot the base case.

haskell grouping problem

group :: Ord a => [(a, [b])] -> [(a, [b])]
I want to look up all pairs that have the same fst, and merge them, by appending all the list of bs together where they have the same a and discarding the unnessecary pair and so on...
I got as far as:
group ((s, ls):(s', ls'):ps) =
if s == s'
then group ((s, ls++ls'):ps)
else (s, ls) : group ((s', ls'):ps)
group p = p
but obviously this ain't going to cut it, because it doesn't group everything.
Edit:
example
[("a", as),("c", cs), ("c", cs3), ("b", bs),("c", cs2), ("b", bs2)]
would output
[("a", as),("c", cs++cs2++cs3),("b", bs++bs2)]
Two alternative solutions to barkmadley's answer:
As Tirpen notes in a comment, the best way to attack this problem depends on the number m of distinct first elements in the tuples of the input list. For small values of m barkmadley's use of Data.List.partition is the way to go. For large values however, the algorithm's complexity of O(n * m) is not so nice. In that case an O(n log n) sort of the input may turn out to be faster. Thus,
import Data.List (groupBy, sortBy)
combine :: (Ord a) => [(a, [b])] -> [(a, [b])]
combine = map mergeGroup . myGroup . mySort
where
mySort = sortBy (\a b -> compare (fst a) (fst b))
myGroup = groupBy (\a b -> fst a == fst b)
mergeGroup ((a, b):xs) = (a, b ++ concatMap snd xs)
This yields [("Dup",["2","3","1","5"]),("Non",["4"])] on barkmadley's input.
Alternatively, we can call in the help of Data.Map:
import Data.Map (assocs, fromListWith)
combine :: (Ord a) => [(a, [b])] -> [(a, [b])]
combine = assocs . fromListWith (++)
This will yield [("Dup",["5","1","2","3"]),("Non",["4"])], which may or may not be an issue. If it is, then there are again two solutions:
Reverse the input first using Data.List.reverse:
import Data.List (reverse)
import Data.Map (assocs, fromListWith)
combine :: (Ord a) => [(a, [b])] -> [(a, [b])]
combine = assocs . fromListWith (++) . reverse
Prepend (flip (++)) instead of append ((++)) (Thanks to barkmadley; I like this solution better):
import Data.Map (assocs, fromListWith)
combine :: (Ord a) => [(a, [b])] -> [(a, [b])]
combine = assocs . fromListWith (flip (++))
Both of these definitions will cause combine to output [("Dup",["2","3","1","5"]),("Non",["4"])].
As a last remark, note that all these definitions of combine require the first element of the tuples in the input list to be instances of class Ord. barkmadley's implementation only requires these elements to be instances of Eq. Thus there exist inputs which can be handled by his code, but not by mine.
import Data.List hiding (group)
group :: (Eq a) => [(a, [b])] -> [(a, [b])]
group ((s,l):rest) = (s, l ++ concatMap snd matches) : group nonmatches
where
(matches, nonmatches) = partition (\x-> fst x == s) rest
group x = x
this function produces the result:
group [("Dup", ["2", "3"]), ("Dup", ["1"]), ("Non", ["4"]), ("Dup", ["5"])]
= [("Dup", ["2", "3", "1", "5"]), ("Non", ["4"])]
it works by filtering the remaining bits into two camps, the bits that match and the bits that dont. it then combines the ones that match and recurses on the ones that don't. This effectly means you will have one tuple in the output list per 'key' in the input list.
Another solution, using a fold to accumulate the groups in a Map. Because of the Map this does require that a is an instance of Ord (BTW your original definition requires that a is an instance of Eq, which barkmadley has incorporated in his solution).
import qualified Data.Map as M
group :: Ord a => [(a, [b])] -> [(a, [b])]
group = M.toList . foldr insert M.empty
where
insert (s, l) m = M.insertWith (++) s l m
If you're a big fan of obscurity, replace the last line with:
insert = uncurry $ M.insertWith (++)
This omits the unnecessary m and uncurry breaks the (s, l) pair out into two arguments s and l.

Resources