Haskell: Print case number - haskell

Question

I have written a Haskell code as:
loop = do
x <- getLine
if x == "0"
then return ()
else do arr <- replicateM (read x :: Int) getLine
let blocks = map (read :: String -> Int) $ words $ unwords arr
putStr "Case X : output = "; -- <- What should X be?
print $ solve $ blockPair blocks;
loop
main = loop
This terminates at 0 input. I also want to print the case number eg. Case 1, 2 ...
Sample run:
1
10 20 30
Case 1: Output = ...
1
6 8 10
Case 2: Output = ...
0
Does anyone know how this can be done? Also, If possible can you suggest me a way to print the output line at the very end?
Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

For the first part of your question, the current case number is an example of some "state" that you want to maintain during the course of your program's execution. In other languages, you'd use a mutable variable, no doubt.
In Haskell, there are several ways to deal with state. One of the simplest (though it is sometimes a little ugly) is to pass the state explicitly as a function parameter, and this will work pretty well given the way you've already structured your code:
main = loop 1
loop n = do
...
putStr ("Case " ++ show n ++ ": Output = ...")
...
loop (n+1) -- update "state" for next loop
The second part of your question is a little more involved. It looks like you wanted a hint instead of a solution. To get you started, let me show you an example of a function that reads lines until the user enters end and then returns the list of all the lines up to but not including end (together with a main function that does something interesting with the lines using mostly pure code):
readToEnd :: IO [String]
readToEnd = do
line <- getLine
if line == "end"
then return []
else do
rest <- readToEnd
return (line:rest)
main = do
lines <- readToEnd
-- now "pure" code makes complex manipulations easy:
putStr $ unlines $
zipWith (\n line -> "Case " ++ show n ++ ": " ++ line)
[1..] lines
Edit: I guess you wanted a more direct answer instead of a hint, so the way you would adapt the above approach to reading a list of blocks would be to write something like:
readBlocks :: IO [[Int]]
readBlocks = do
n <- read <$> getLine
if n == 0 then return [] else do
arr <- replicateM n getLine
let block = map read $ words $ unwords arr
blocks <- readBlocks
return (block:blocks)
and then main would look like this:
main = do
blocks <- readBlocks
putStr $ unlines $
zipWith (\n line -> "Case " ++ show n ++ ": " ++ line)
[1..] (map (show . solve . blockPair) blocks)

Answer 2

This is similar in spirit to K. A. Buhr's answer (the crucial move is still passing state as a parameter), but factored differently to demonstrate a neat trick. Since IO actions are just normal Haskell values, you can use the loop to build the action which will print the output without executing it:
loop :: (Int, IO ()) -> IO ()
loop (nCase, prnAccum) = do
x <- getLine
if x == "0"
then prnAccum
else do inpLines <- replicateM (read x) getLine
let blocks = map read $ words $ unwords inpLines
prnAccumAndNext = do
prnAccum
putStr $ "Case " ++ show nCase ++ " : output = "
print $ solve $ blockPair blocks
loop (nCase + 1, prnAccumAndNext)
main = loop (1, return ())
Some remarks on the solution above:
prnAccum, the action which prints the results, is threaded through the recursive loop calls just like nCase (I packaged them both in a pair as a matter of style, but it would have worked just as fine if they were passed as separate arguments).
Note how the updated action, prnAccumAndNext, is not directly in the main do block; it is defined in a let block instead. That explains why it is not executed on each iteration, but only at the end of the loop, when the final prnAccum is executed.
As luqui suggests, I have removed the type annotations you used with read. The one at the replicateM call is certainly not necessary, and the other one isn't as well as long as blockPair takes a list of Int as an argument, as it seems to be the case.
Nitpicking: I removed the semicolons, as they are not necessary. Also, if arr refers to "array" it isn't a very appropriate name (as it is a list, and not an array), so I took the liberty to change it into something more descriptive. (You can find some other ideas for useful tricks and style adjustments in K. A. Buhr's answer.)