I'm learning Haskell by writing an OSC musical sequencer to use it with SuperCollider. But because I'd like to make fairly complex stuff with it, it will work like a programming language where you can declare variables and define functions so you can write music in an algorithmic way. The grammar is unusual in that we're coding sequences and sometimes a bar will reference the last bar (something like "play that last chord again but a fifth above").
I don't feel satisfied with my own explanation, but that's the best I can without getting too technical.
Anyway, what I'm coding now is the parser for that language, stateless so far, but now I need some way to implement a growing list of the declared variables and alikes using a dictionary in the [("key","value")] fashion, so I can add new values as I go parsing bar by bar.
I know this involves monads, which I don't really understand yet, but I need something meaningful enough to start toying with them or else I find the raw theory a bit too raw.
So what would be a clean and simple way to start?
Thanks and sorry if the question was too long.
Edit on how the thing works:
we input a string to the main parsing function, say
"afunction(3) ; anotherone(1) + [3,2,1]"
we identify closures first, then kinds of chars (letters, nums, etc) and group them together, so we get a list like:
[("word","afunction"),("parenth","(3)"),("space"," "),("semicolon",";"),("space"," "),("word","anotherone"),("parenth","(1)"),("space"," "),("opadd","+"),("space"," "),("bracket","[3,2,1]")]
then we use a function that tags all those tuples with the indices of the original string they occupy, like:
[("word","afunction",(0,8)),("parenth","(3)",(9,11)),("space"," ",(12,13)) ...]
then cut it in a list of bars, which in my language are separated using a semicolon, and then in notes, using commas.
And now I'm at the stage where those functions should be executed sequentially, but because some of them are reading or modifying previously declared values, I need to keep track of that change. For example, let's say the function f(x) moves the pitch of the last note by x semitones, so
f(9), -- from an original base value of 0 (say that's an A440) we go to 9
f(-2), -- 9-2 = 7, so a fifth from A
f(-3); -- 9-2-3, a minor third down from the last value.
etc
But sometimes it can get a bit more complicated than that, don't make me explain how cause I could bore you to death.
Adding an item to a list
You can make a new list that contains one more item than an existing list with the : constructor.
("key", "value") : existing
Where existing is a list you've already made
Keeping track of changing state
You can keep track of changing state between functions by passing the state from each function to the next. This is all the State monad is doing. State s a is a value of type a that depends on (and changes) a state s.
{- ┌---- type of the state
v v-- type of the value -}
data State s a = State { runState :: s -> (a, s) }
{- ^ ^ ^ ^
a function ---|--┘ | |
that takes a state ---┘ | |
and returns | |
a value that depends on the state ---┘ |
and a new state ------┘ -}
The bind operation >>= for State takes a value that depends on (and changes) the state and a function to compute another value that depends on (and changes) the state and combines them to make a new value that depends on (and changes) the state.
m >>= k = State $ \s ->
let ~(a, s') = runState m s
in runState (k a) s'
Related
As the title states, I see pieces of code online where the variables/functions have ' next to it, what does this do/mean?
ex:
function :: [a] -> [a]
function ...
function' :: ....
The notation comes from mathematics. It is read x prime. In pretty much any math manual you can find something like let x be a number and x' be the projection of ... (math stuff).
Why not using another convention? well, in mathematics It makes a lot of sense because It can be very pedagogical... In programming we aren't used to this convention so I don't see the point of using it, but I am not against it neither.
Just to give you an example of its use in mathematics so you can understand why It is used in Haskell. Below, the same triangle concept but one using prime convention and other not using it. It is pretty clear in the first picture that pairs (A, A'), (B, B'), ... are related by one being the vertex and the prime version being the midpoint of the oposite edge. Whereas in the second example, you just have to remember that A is the midpoint of the oposite edge of vertex P. First is easier and more pedagogical:
As the other answers said, function' is just another variable name. So,
don'tUse :: Int -> IO ()
don'tUse won'tBe''used'' = return ()
is just like
dontUse :: Int -> IO ()
dontUse wontBeUsed = return ()
with slightly different names. The only requirement is that the name starts with a lowercase-letter or underscore, after that you can have as many single-quote characters as you want.
Prelude> let _' = 1
Prelude> let _'' = 2
Prelude> let _''''''''' = 9
Prelude> _' + _'' * _'''''''''
19
...Of course it's not necessarily a good idea to name variables like that; normally such prime-names are used when making a slightly different version of an already named thing. For example, foldl and foldl' are functions with the same signature that do essentially the same thing, only with different strictness (which often affects performance memory usage and whether infinite inputs are allowed, but not the actual results).
That said, to the question
Haskell what does the ' symbol do?
– the ' symbol does in fact do various other things as well, but only when it appears not as a non-leading character in a name.
'a' is a character literal.
'Foo is a constructor used on the type level. See DataKinds.
'bar and ''Baz are quoted names. See TemplateHaskell.
I'm currently working on an assignment. I have a function called gamaTipo that converts the values of a tuple into a data type previously defined by my professor.
The problem is: in order for gamaTipo to work, it needs to receive some preceding element. gamaTipo is defined like this: gamaTipo :: Peca -> (Int,Int) -> Peca where Peca is the data type defined by my professor.
What I need to do is to create a funcion that takes a list of tuples and converts it into Peca data type. The part that im strugling with is taking the preceding element of the list. i.e : let's say we have a list [(1,2),(3,4)] where the first element of the list (1,2) always corresponds to Dirt Ramp (data type defined by professor). I have to create a function convert :: [(Int,Int)] -> [Peca] where in order to calculate the element (3,4) i need to first translate (1,2) into Peca, and use it as the previous element to translate (3,4)
Here's what I've tried so far:
updateTuple :: [(Int,Int)] -> [Peca]
updateTuple [] = []
updateTuple ((x,y):xs) = let previous = Dirt Ramp
in (gamaTipo previous (x,y)): updateTuple xs
Although I get no error messages with this code, the expected output isn't correct. I'm also sorry if it's not easy to understand what I'm asking, English isn't my native tongue and it's hard to express my self. Thank you in advance! :)
If I understand correctly, your program needs to have a basic structure something like this:
updateTuple :: [(Int, Int)] -> [Peca]
updateTuple = go initialValue
where
go prev (xy:xys) =
let next = getNextValue prev xy
in prev : (go next xys)
go prev [] = prev
Basically, what’s happening here is:
updateTuple is defined in terms of a helper function go. (Note that ‘helper function’ isn’t standard terminology, it’s just what I’ve decided to call it).
go has an extra argument, which is used to store the previous value.
The implementation of go can then make use of the previous value.
When go recurses, the recursive call can then pass the newly-calculated value as the new ‘previous value’.
This is a reasonably common pattern in Haskell: if a recursive function requires an extra argument, then a new function (often named go) can be defined which has that extra argument. Then the original function can be defined in terms of go.
I don't know how to re-assign a variable in a function.
For example,
elephant = 0
function x = elephant = x
Why doesn't this work?
Haskell is a great imperative language, and writing programs that can re-assign state is a really fun advanced topic! This is definitely not the approach you want right now, but come back to it some day 🙂
It takes a bit of effort to define an environment that models global mutable variables. Once you get the hang of it, though, the precision of the types ends up being pretty handy.
We're going to be using the lens and mtl libraries.
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Control.Lens
import Control.Monad.State
I'll stick with using integers as your question does, but we'll throw in a type alias to remind ourselves that they are being used as the type of the elephant variable.
type Elephant = Integer
You wanted a program whose global mutable state has an elephant. So first let's define what it means to have an elephant. Lens captures this notion nicely.
class HasElephant a
where
elephant :: Lens' a Elephant
Now we can define function, which assigns a new value to elephant.
function :: (MonadState s m, HasElephant s) => Elephant -> m ()
function x =
elephant .= x
The constraints MonadState s m and HasElephant s are saying our program must be able to hold mutable state of some type s, and the type s must have an elephant.
Let's also define a program that prints the elephant.
printElephant :: (MonadState s m, HasElephant s, MonadIO m) => m ()
printElephant =
use elephant >>= (liftIO . print)
This program does I/O (printing), so we have an additional constraint MonadIO m that says our program type m must be able to do I/O.
The elephant variable is probably only one part of some larger program state. Let's define a data type here to represent the entire state (which we'll name Congo just to be cute because the Congo Basin is one place where elephants live).
data Congo = Congo
{ _congoElephant :: Elephant
}
makeLenses ''Congo
(See Control.Lens.TH for a little bit about makeLenses does here using Template Haskell.)
We must define the way in which the Congo has an elephant.
instance HasElephant Congo
where
elephant = congoElephant
Now we can write an example program. Our program will print the value of elephant, then change the value of elephant, then print it again.
main' :: StateT Congo IO ()
main' =
do
printElephant
function 2
printElephant
Then we can run this program.
main :: IO ()
main = Congo 0 & runStateT main' & void
The output is:
0
2
im trying to re-assign an existing variable
You can't do that in Haskell. You can do something close by using IORefs, but this is very rarely the proper solution to a problem - certainly not in situations a beginner might encounter.
Instead you should re-design your program logic, so that it does not require mutable variables to function.
Haskell is a leader in the functional programming world and functional programming is often called "programming without assignment." It's almost the entire point of functional programming to not use assignment. As soon as you've used it, you're not really doing it in a "functional" way any more. Of course there are times for it, but FP tries to minimize those times.
So, to answer your question, "Why doesn't this work?" First of all the syntax is not correct. = does not mean assignment in Haskell. It binds a name to an expression. You cannot do that twice (in the same scope). In other words, "variables" are immutable (like in math). Second, mutation is a side-effecting action and Haskell treats those as impure actions which must be done in the IO world.
I could show you how to actually mutate a reference in Haskell, but I don't think that's what you need at this point.
The most primitive way to bind a variable x to a value v is to write a function taking x as argument, and pass v to that function.
This can sometimes be used to "simulate" the effect of a mutable variable.
E.g., the imperative code
// sum 0..100
i = s = 0;
while (i <= 100) {
s = s+i;
i++;
}
return s;
becomes
final_s = f 0 0 -- the initial values
where
f i s | i <=100 = f (i+1) (s+i) // increment i, augment s
| otherwise = s // return s at the end
The above code is not pretty FP code, but at least it is close enough to imperative code to make it possible to spot the connections.
A final digression:
When one first notices this, it is usually lured to fall into the Blub paradox. One could easily think: "What!? Haskell needs all that stuff to simulate a simple assignment? If in language Blub assignment is trivial, and simulating that in Haskell requires so much effort, then clearly Blub is much better than Haskell!". And this would be a perfect case of the Blub paradox: when a Blub programmer moves to another language, they immediately perceive what can not be directly translated from Blub, and do not notice all the other features of the new language which were not present in Blub.
Their mind now thinks in "Blub", and it requires a great effort to adapt to new models.
Almost as paradoxically, learning both FP and imperative programming is useful precisely because it's non trivial to learn the other paradigm when used to only one of those. If the step between them were narrow, it would not be worth the effort to learn two close approaches to the same problem.
In general this doesn't work because you usually make immutable declarations, rather than specifying a sequence of operations. You can do:
elephant = 3
main = print elephant
But you can also do:
main = print elephant
elephant = 3
Because the code doesn't specify an order of execution, there is no way to interpret multiple assignments as anything other than an error.
If you want to specify a sequence of operations, use do notation:
main = do
let elephant = 0
print elephant
let elephant = 1
print elephant
let elephant = 2
print elephant
The code in a do block is executed in order, so you can effectively reassign variables the way you can in most programming languages.
Note that this code really just creates a new binding for elephant. The old value still exists:
main = do
let elephant = 1
print elephant
let printElephant = print elephant
let elephant = 2
print elephant
printElephant
Because the printElephant function I define is still using the old value of elephant, this prints:
1
2
1
Consider the following problem: given a list of length three of tuples (String,Int), is there a pair of elements having the same "Int" part? (For example, [("bob",5),("gertrude",3),("al",5)] contains such a pair, but [("bob",5),("gertrude",3),("al",1)] does not.)
This is how I would implement such a function:
import Data.List (sortBy)
import Data.Function (on)
hasPair::[(String,Int)]->Bool
hasPair = napkin . sortBy (compare `on` snd)
where napkin [(_, a),(_, b),(_, c)] | a == b = True
| b == c = True
| otherwise = False
I've used pattern matching to bind names to the "Int" part of the tuples, but I want to sort first (in order to group like members), so I've put the pattern-matching function inside a where clause. But this brings me to my question: what's a good strategy for picking names for functions that live inside where clauses? I want to be able to think of such names quickly. For this example, "hasPair" seems like a good choice, but it's already taken! I find that pattern comes up a lot - the natural-seeming name for a helper function is already taken by the outer function that calls it. So I have, at times, called such helper functions things like "op", "foo", and even "helper" - here I have chosen "napkin" to emphasize its use-it-once, throw-it-away nature.
So, dear Stackoverflow readers, what would you have called "napkin"? And more importantly, how do you approach this issue in general?
General rules for locally-scoped variable naming.
f , k, g, h for super simple local, semi-anonymous things
go for (tail) recursive helpers (precedent)
n , m, i, j for length and size and other numeric values
v for results of map lookups and other dictionary types
s and t for strings.
a:as and x:xs and y:ys for lists.
(a,b,c,_) for tuple fields.
These generally only apply for arguments to HOFs. For your case, I'd go with something like k or eq3.
Use apostrophes sparingly, for derived values.
I tend to call boolean valued functions p for predicate. pred, unfortunately, is already taken.
In cases like this, where the inner function is basically the same as the outer function, but with different preconditions (requiring that the list is sorted), I sometimes use the same name with a prime, e.g. hasPairs'.
However, in this case, I would rather try to break down the problem into parts that are useful by themselves at the top level. That usually also makes naming them easier.
hasPair :: [(String, Int)] -> Bool
hasPair = hasDuplicate . map snd
hasDuplicate :: Ord a => [a] -> Bool
hasDuplicate = not . isStrictlySorted . sort
isStrictlySorted :: Ord a => [a] -> Bool
isStrictlySorted xs = and $ zipWith (<) xs (tail xs)
My strategy follows Don's suggestions fairly closely:
If there is an obvious name for it, use that.
Use go if it is the "worker" or otherwise very similar in purpose to the original function.
Follow personal conventions based on context, e.g. step and start for args to a fold.
If all else fails, just go with a generic name, like f
There are two techniques that I personally avoid. One is using the apostrophe version of the original function, e.g. hasPair' in the where clause of hasPair. It's too easy to accidentally write one when you meant the other; I prefer to use go in such cases. But this isn't a huge deal as long as the functions have different types. The other is using names that might connote something, but not anything that has to do with what the function actually does. napkin would fall into this category. When you revisit this code, this naming choice will probably baffle you, as you will have forgotten the original reason that you named it napkin. (Because napkins have 4 corners? Because they are easily folded? Because they clean up messes? They're found at restaurants?) Other offenders are things like bob and myCoolFunc.
If you have given a function a name that is more descriptive than go or h, then you should be able to look at either the context in which it is used, or the body of the function, and in both situations get a pretty good idea of why that name was chosen. This is where my point #3 comes in: personal conventions. Much of Don's advice applies. If you are using Haskell in a collaborative situation, then coordinate with your team and decide on certain conventions for common situations.
I'm sorry this problem description is so abstract: its for my job, and for commercial confidentiality reasons I can't give the real-world problem, just an abstraction.
I've got an application that receives messages containing key-value pairs. The keys are from a defined set of keywords, and each keyword has a fixed data type. So if "Foo" is an Integer and "Bar" is a date you might get a message like:
Foo: 234
Bar: 24 September 2011
A message may have any subset of keys in it. The number of keys is fairly large (several dozen). But lets stick with Foo and Bar for now.
Obviously there is a record like this corresponding to the messages:
data MyRecord {
foo :: Maybe Integer
bar :: Maybe UTCTime
-- ... and so on for several dozen fields.
}
The record uses "Maybe" types because that field may not have been received yet.
I also have many derived values that I need to compute from the current values (if they exist). For instance I want to have
baz :: MyRecord -> Maybe String
baz r = do -- Maybe monad
f <- foo r
b <- bar r
return $ show f ++ " " ++ show b
Some of these functions are slow, so I don't want to repeat them unnecessarily. I could recompute baz for each new message and memo it in the original structure, but if a message leaves the foo and bar fields unchanged then that is wasted CPU time. Conversely I could recompute baz every time I want it, but again that would waste CPU time if the underlying arguments have not changed since last time.
What I want is some kind of smart memoisation or push-based recomputation that only recomputes baz when the arguments change. I could detect this manually by noting that baz depends only on foo and bar, and so only recomputing it on messages that change those values, but for complicated functions that is error-prone.
An added wrinkle is that some of these functions may have multiple strategies. For instance you might have a value that can be computed from either Foo or Bar using 'mplus'.
Does anyone know of an existing solution to this? If not, how should I go about it?
I'll assume that you have one "state" record and these message all involve updating it as well as setting it. So if Foo is 12, it may later be 23, and therefore the output of baz would change. If any of this is not the case, then the answer becomes pretty trivial.
Let's start with the "core" of baz -- a function not on a record, but the values you want.
baz :: Int -> Int -> String
Now let's transform it:
data Cached a b = Cached (Maybe (a,b)) (a -> b)
getCached :: Eq a => Cached a b -> a -> (b,Cached a b)
getCached c#(Cached (Just (arg,res)) f) x | x == arg = (res,c)
getCached (Cached _ f) x = let ans = f x in (ans,Cached (Just (x,ans) f)
bazC :: Cached (Int,Int) String
bazC = Cached Nothing (uncurry baz)
Now whenever you would use a normal function, you use a cache-transformed function instead, substituting the resulting cache-transformed function back into your record. This is essentially a manual memotable of size one.
For the basic case you describe, this should be fine.
A fancier and more generalized solution involving a dynamic graph of dependencies goes under the name "incremental computation" but I've seen research papers for it more than serious production implementations. You can take a look at these for starters, and follow the reference trail forward:
http://www.carlssonia.org/ogi/Adaptive/
http://www.andres-loeh.de/Incrementalization/paper_final.pdf
Incremental computation is actually also very related to functional reactive programming, so you can take a look at conal's papers on that, or play with Heinrich Apfelmus' reactive-banana library: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Reactive-banana
In imperative languages, take a look at trellis in python: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Trellis or Cells in lisp: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
You can build a stateful graph that corresponds to computations you need to do. When new values appear you push these into the graph and recompute, updating the graph until you reach the outputs. (Or you can store the value at the input and recompute on demand.) This is a very stateful solution but it works.
Are you perhaps creating market data, like yield curves, from live inputs of rates etc.?
What I want is some kind of smart memoisation or push-based recomputation that only recomputes baz when the arguments change.
It sounds to me like you want a variable that is sort of immutable, but allows a one-time mutation from "nothing computed yet" to "computed". Well, you're in luck: this is exactly what lazy evaluation gives you! So my proposed solution is quite simple: just extend your record with fields for each of the things you want to compute. Here's an example of such a thing, where the CPU-intensive task we're doing is breaking some encryption scheme:
data Foo = Foo
{ ciphertext :: String
, plaintext :: String
}
-- a smart constructor for Foo's
foo c = Foo { ciphertext = c, plaintext = crack c }
The point here is that calls to foo have expenses like this:
If you never ask for the plaintext of the result, it's cheap.
On the first call to plaintext, the CPU churns a long time.
On subsequent calls to plaintext, the previously computed answer is returned immediately.