Suppose I have two lists A and B of the same length. I want to keep elements in A which are greater than corresponding elements in B. Let A=[1,5,8], B=[2,4,9], the result should be [5] because 1<2, 5>4, 8<9.
I come up with a solution. Let C=zip A B, then filter C, finally get result by taking fst of each element in C. It's not so elegant. Is there a simpler way?
Code:
map fst (filter (\ x-> (fst x) > (snd x)) (zip a b))
Your described solution looks fine to me.
An alternative which is not necessarily better:
import Data.Maybe
import Control.Monad
catMaybes $ zipWith (\a b -> guard (a>b) >> return a) list1 list2
According to the desugaring of monad comprehensions this should also work
{-# LANGUAGE MonadComprehensions #-}
[ a | ( a <- list1 | b <- list2 ), a > b ]
... but in practice it does not. It is a pity because I find it quite elegant.
I wonder whether I got it wrong or it is a GHC bug.
I was working on something similar and as a newbie this is the best I came up with:
filterGreaterThan xs ys = do (x,y) <- zip xs ys
guard (x > y)
return x
This solution is easier to reason about than the others. The do notation really shines here.
I'm not sure how your code looks but the following function look quite elegant to me:
greater :: Ord a => [a] -> [a] -> [a]
greater xs = map fst . filter ((>) <$> fst <*> snd) . zip xs
example :: [Int]
example = greater [1,5,8] [2,4,9] -- result is [5]
This pattern is well known in the Lisp community as the decorate-process-undecorate pattern.
A recursive approach, not so elegant as (any) of the other approaches, this relies on no explicit zipping and we get the result in one pass,
greater :: Ord a => [a] -> [a] -> [a]
greater [] [] = []
greater (x:xs) (y:ys)
| x > y = x : greater xs ys
| otherwise = greater xs ys
If you want to generalize this idea nicely, I would recommend looking to mapMaybe:
mapMaybe
:: (a -> Maybe b)
-> [a] -> [b]
Applying that idea to zipWith yields
zipWithMaybe
:: (a -> b -> Maybe c)
-> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
zipWithMaybe f xs ys =
[c | Just c <- zipWith f xs ys]
Now you can write your function
keepGreater :: Ord a => [a] -> [a] -> [a]
keepGreater = zipWithMaybe $
\x y -> x <$ guard (x > y)
Is it really worth the trouble? For lists, probably not. But something like this turns out to be useful in the context of merges for Data.Map.
Pretty similar to #chi's solution with Lists concant:
concat $ zipWith (\a b -> last $ []:[[a] | a > b]) as bs
Related
Given a condition, I want to search through a list of elements and return the first element that reaches the condition, and the previous one.
In C/C++ this is easy :
int i = 0;
for(;;i++) if (arr[i] == 0) break;
After we get the index where the condition is met, getting the previous element is easy, through "arr[i-1]"
In Haskell:
dropWhile (/=0) list gives us the last element I want
takeWhile (/=0) list gives us the first element I want
But I don't see a way of getting both in a simple manner. I could enumerate the list and use indexing, but that seems messy. Is there a proper way of doing this, or a way of working around this?
I would zip the list with its tail so that you have pairs of elements
available. Then you can just use find on the list of pairs:
f :: [Int] -> Maybe (Int, Int)
f xs = find ((>3) . snd) (zip xs (tail xs))
> f [1..10]
Just (3,4)
If the first element matches the predicate this will return
Nothing (or the second match if there is one) so you might need to special-case that if you want something
different.
As Robin Zigmond says break can also work:
g :: [Int] -> (Int, Int)
g xs = case break (>3) xs of (_, []) -> error "not found"
([], _) -> error "first element"
(ys, z:_) -> (last ys, z)
(Or have this return a Maybe as well, depending on what you need.)
But this will, I think, keep the whole prefix ys in memory until it
finds the match, whereas f can start garbage-collecting the elements
it has moved past. For small lists it doesn't matter.
I would use a zipper-like search:
type ZipperList a = ([a], [a])
toZipperList :: [a] -> ZipperList a
toZipperList = (,) []
moveUntil' :: (a -> Bool) -> ZipperList a -> ZipperList a
moveUntil' _ (xs, []) = (xs, [])
moveUntil' f (xs, (y:ys))
| f y = (xs, (y:ys))
| otherwise = moveUntil' f (y:xs, ys)
moveUntil :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ZipperList a
moveUntil f = moveUntil' f . toZipperList
example :: [Int]
example = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19]
result :: ZipperList Int
result = moveUntil (>10) example -- ([7,5,3,2], [11,13,17,19])
The good thing about zippers is that they are efficient, you can access as many elements near the index you want, and you can move the focus of the zipper forwards and backwards. Learn more about zippers here:
http://learnyouahaskell.com/zippers
Note that my moveUntil function is like break from the Prelude but the initial part of the list is reversed. Hence you can simply get the head of both lists.
A non-awkward way of implementing this as a fold is making it a paramorphism. For general explanatory notes, see this answer by dfeuer (I took foldrWithTails from it):
-- The extra [a] argument f takes with respect to foldr
-- is the tail of the list at each step of the fold.
foldrWithTails :: (a -> [a] -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
foldrWithTails f n = go
where
go (a : as) = f a as (go as)
go [] = n
boundary :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Maybe (a, a)
boundary p = foldrWithTails findBoundary Nothing
where
findBoundary x (y : _) bnd
| p y = Just (x, y)
| otherwise = bnd
findBoundary _ [] _ = Nothing
Notes:
If p y is true we don't have to look at bnd to get the result. That makes the solution adequately lazy. You can check that by trying out boundary (> 1000000) [0..] in GHCi.
This solution gives no special treatment to the edge case of the first element of the list matching the condition. For instance:
GHCi> boundary (<1) [0..9]
Nothing
GHCi> boundary even [0..9]
Just (1,2)
There's several alternatives; either way, you'll have to implement this yourself. You could use explicit recursion:
getLastAndFirst :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Maybe (a, a)
getLastAndFirst p (x : xs#(y:ys))
| p y = Just (x, y)
| otherwise = getLastAndFirst p xs
getLastAndFirst _ [] = Nothing
Alternately, you could use a fold, but that would look fairly similar to the above, except less readable.
A third option is to use break, as suggested in the comments:
getLastAndFirst' :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Maybe (a,a)
getLastAndFirst' p l =
case break p l of
(xs#(_:_), (y:_)) -> Just (last xs, y)
_ -> Nothing
(\(xs, ys) -> [last xs, head ys]) $ break (==0) list
Using break as Robin Zigmond suggested ended up short and simple, not using Maybe to catch edge-cases, but I could replace the lambda with a simple function that used Maybe.
I toyed a bit more with the solution and came up with
breakAround :: Int -> Int -> (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
breakAround m n cond list = (\(xs, ys) -> (reverse (reverse take m (reverse xs))) ++ take n ys) $ break (cond) list
which takes two integers, a predicate, and a list of a, and returns a single list of m elements before the predicate and n elements after.
Example: breakAround 3 2 (==0) [3,2,1,0,10,20,30] would return [3,2,1,0,10]
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
I just wanted to multiply two lists element by element, so I'd pass (*) as the first argument to that function:
apply :: Num a => (a -> a -> a) -> [a] -> [a] -> [a]
apply f xs ys = [f (xs !! i) (ys !! i) | i <- [0..(length xs - 1)]]
I may be asking a silly question, but I actually googled a lot for it and just couldn't find. Thank you, guys!
> :t zipWith
zipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
> zipWith (*) [1,2,3] [4,5,6]
[4,10,18]
It's the eighth result provided by Hoogle when queried with your type
(a -> a -> a) -> [a] -> [a] -> [a]
Moreover, when you need to implement your own function, use list !! index only as a last resort, since it usually leads to a bad performance, having a cost of O(index). Similarly, length should be used only when necessary, since it needs to scan the whole list.
In the zipWith case, you can avoid both and proceed recursively in a natural way: it is roughly implemented as
zipWith _ [] _ = []
zipWith _ _ [] = []
zipWith f (x:xs) (y:ys) = f x y : zipWith f xs ys
Note that this will only recurse as much as needed to reach the end of the shortest list. The remaining part of the longer list will be discarded.
I'm trying to write function and i dont know why i cannot make it in that way
ssm' = foldr (\x acc -> if acc == [] then [x]++acc else if (x > (maximum acc)) then [x]++acc else acc) []
give me a clue please.
By the way, your code looks way too complicated. You overuse if, and [x]++acc is just x:acc. Scanning acc in every step using maximum is wasteful, as its biggest element must be its head. Alltogether I'd write:
ssm' :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
ssm' = foldr go [] where
go x [] = [x]
go x ms#(m:_)
| x > m = x:ms
| otherwise = ms
If you really like one-liners, try
import Data.List
ssm' xs = reverse $ map head $ groupBy (>) (reverse xs)
You've run into the monomorphism restriction. You can fix it by adding a type signature.
ssm' :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
ssm' = ...
I'm new to Haskell and am just trying to write a list comprehension to calculate the frequency of each distinct value in a list, but I'm having trouble with the last part..
So far i have this:
frequency :: Eq a => [a] -> [(Int,a)]
frequency list = [(count y list,y) | y <- rmdups ]
Something is wrong with the last part involving rmdups.
The count function takes a character and then a list of characters and tells you how often that character occurs, the code is as follows..
count :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Int
count x [] = 0
count x (y:ys) | x==y = 1+(count x ys)
| otherwise = count x ys
Thank-you in advance.
You could also use a associative array / finite map to store the associations from list elements to their count while you compute the frequencies:
import Data.Map (fromListWith, toList)
frequency :: (Ord a) => [a] -> [(a, Int)]
frequency xs = toList (fromListWith (+) [(x, 1) | x <- xs])
Example usage:
> frequency "hello world"
[(' ',1),('d',1),('e',1),('h',1),('l',3),('o',2),('r',1),('w',1)]
See documentation of fromListWith and toList.
I had to use Ord in instead of Eq because of the use of sort
frequency :: Ord a => [a] -> [(Int,a)]
frequency list = map (\l -> (length l, head l)) (group (sort list))
As requested, here's a solution using Control.Arrow:
frequency :: Ord a => [a] -> [(Int,a)]
frequency = map (length &&& head) . group . sort
This is the same function as ThePestest's answer, except
λ f g l -> (f l, g l)
is replaced with
-- simplified type signature
(&&&) :: (a -> b) -> (a -> c) -> a -> (b, c)
from Control.Arrow. If you want to avoid the import,
liftA2 (,) :: Applicative f => f a -> f b -> f (a, b)
works as well (using the Applicative instance of (->) r)
Assuming rmdups has the type
rmdups :: Eq a => [a] -> [a]
Then you're missing a parameter for it.
frequency :: Eq a => [a] -> [(Int,a)]
frequency list = [(count y list,y) | y <- rmdups list]
But the error you're getting would be helpful with diagnosis.
Your rmdups function is just nub from Data.List.
Replacing rmdups with nub list worked for me like a charm.
Hahahaha there is an rmdups on pg. 86 of Programming in Haskell by Graham Hutton. It is perfect and recursive. It is also handy in a great many situations.
Here is my one line rmdups and it produces the same results as nubor Hutton's.
rmdups ls = [d|(z,d)<- zip [0..] ls,notElem d $ take z ls]
It can well be used to count distinct elements of a list.
dl = "minimum-maximum"
[ (d,sum [1|x<-dl,d == x]) | d<-rmdups dl]
[('m',6),('i',3),('n',1),('u',2),('-',1),('a',1),('x',1)]