I've just started trying to learn haskell and functional programming. I'm trying to write this function that will convert a binary string into its decimal equivalent. Please could someone point out why I am constantly getting the error:
"BinToDecimal.hs":19 - Syntax error in expression (unexpected `}', possibly due to bad layout)
module BinToDecimal where
total :: [Integer]
total = []
binToDecimal :: String -> Integer
binToDecimal a = if (null a) then (sum total)
else if (head a == "0") then binToDecimal (tail a)
else if (head a == "1") then total ++ (2^((length a)-1))
binToDecimal (tail a)
So, total may not be doing what you think it is. total isn't a mutable variable that you're changing, it will always be the empty list []. I think your function should include another parameter for the list you're building up. I would implement this by having binToDecimal call a helper function with the starting case of an empty list, like so:
binToDecimal :: String -> Integer
binToDecimal s = binToDecimal' s []
binToDecimal' :: String -> [Integer] -> Integer
-- implement binToDecimal' here
In addition to what #Sibi has said, I would highly recommend using pattern matching rather than nested if-else. For example, I'd implement the base case of binToDecimal' like so:
binToDecimal' :: String -> [Integer] -> Integer
binToDecimal' "" total = sum total -- when the first argument is the empty string, just sum total. Equivalent to `if (null a) then (sum total)`
-- Include other pattern matching statements here to handle your other if/else cases
If you think it'd be helpful, I can provide the full implementation of this function instead of giving tips.
Ok, let me give you hints to get you started:
You cannot do head a == "0" because "0" is String. Since the type of a is [Char], the type of head a is Char and you have to compare it with an Char. You can solve it using head a == '0'. Note that "0" and '0' are different.
Similarly, rectify your type error in head a == "1"
This won't typecheck: total ++ (2^((length a)-1)) because the type of total is [Integer] and the type of (2^((length a)-1)) is Integer. For the function ++ to typecheck both arguments passed to it should be list of the same type.
You are possible missing an else block at last. (before the code binToDecimal (tail a))
That being said, instead of using nested if else expression, try to use guards as they will increase the readability greatly.
There are many things we can improve here (but no worries, this is perfectly normal in the beginning, there is so much to learn when we start Haskell!!!).
First of all, a string is definitely not an appropriate way to represent a binary, because nothing prevents us to write "éaldkgjasdg" in place of a proper binary. So, the first thing is to define our binary type:
data Binary = Zero | One deriving (Show)
We just say that it can be Zero or One. The deriving (Show) will allow us to have the result displayed when run in GHCI.
In Haskell to solve problem we tend to start with a more general case to dive then in our particular case. The thing we need here is a function with an additional argument which holds the total. Note the use of pattern matching instead of ifs which makes the function easier to read.
binToDecimalAcc :: [Binary] -> Integer -> Integer
binToDecimalAcc [] acc = acc
binToDecimalAcc (Zero:xs) acc = binToDecimalAcc xs acc
binToDecimalAcc (One:xs) acc = binToDecimalAcc xs $ acc + 2^(length xs)
Finally, since we want only to have to pass a single parameter we define or specific function where the acc value is 0:
binToDecimal :: [Binary] -> Integer
binToDecimal binaries = binToDecimalAcc binaries 0
We can run a test in GHCI:
test1 = binToDecimal [One, Zero, One, Zero, One, Zero]
> 42
OK, all fine, but what if you really need to convert a string to a decimal? Then, we need a function able to convert this string to a binary. The problem as seen above is that not all strings are proper binaries. To handle this, we will need to report some sort of error. The solution I will use here is very common in Haskell: it is to use "Maybe". If the string is correct, it will return "Just result" else it will return "Nothing". Let's see that in practice!
The first function we will write is to convert a char to a binary. As discussed above, Nothing represents an error.
charToBinary :: Char -> Maybe Binary
charToBinary '0' = Just Zero
charToBinary '1' = Just One
charToBinary _ = Nothing
Then, we can write a function for a whole string (which is a list of Char). So [Char] is equivalent to String. I used it here to make clearer that we are dealing with a list.
stringToBinary :: [Char] -> Maybe [Binary]
stringToBinary [] = Just []
stringToBinary chars = mapM charToBinary chars
The function mapM is a kind of variation of map which acts on monads (Maybe is actually a monad). To learn about monads I recommend reading Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!
http://learnyouahaskell.com/a-fistful-of-monads
We can notice once more that if there are any errors, Nothing will be returned.
A dedicated function to convert strings holding binaries can now be written.
binStringToDecimal :: [Char] -> Maybe Integer
binStringToDecimal = fmap binToDecimal . stringToBinary
The use of the "." function allow us to define this function as an equality with another function, so we do not need to mention the parameter (point free notation).
The fmap function allow us to run binToDecimal (which expect a [Binary] as argument) on the return of stringToBinary (which is of type "Maybe [Binary]"). Once again, Learn you a Haskell... is a very good reference to learn more about fmap:
http://learnyouahaskell.com/functors-applicative-functors-and-monoids
Now, we can run a second test:
test2 = binStringToDecimal "101010"
> Just 42
And finally, we can test our error handling system with a mistake in the string:
test3 = binStringToDecimal "102010"
> Nothing
Related
I begin the function from here and don't know what to do next. Please help me in solving this function.
Write a Haskell recursive function noDupl which returns True if there
are no duplicates characters in the given string.
noDupl :: String -> Bool
noDupl = ?
Example Output:
noDupl "abcde"
True
noDupl "aabcdee"
False
Well, you've got the type signature right. Now like all recursion questions you can then think about the base case (where the recursion ends) and the recursive case (which will recurse with a smaller input).
For strings (and lists in general), the base case is usually the empty string (list). The recursive case usually takes the head of the list, processes it, then pushes to the front of the new result.
This probably sounds pretty confusing. It'll make sense when you look at some examples:
-- Increment each character by one (by ASCII).
incAll :: String -> String
incAll [] = [] -- Base case: empty string (list).
incAll (x:xs) = chr (ord x + 1) : incAll xs -- Recursive case, process head and prepend to recursed result.
There's a more concise way to write the above, but it demonstrates how recursion could be done.
Of course, you don't have to process each char individually, you could pattern match on two chars like so:
f (x0:x1:xs) = ...
(But you'll need to be careful with the base case.)
Hopefully this provides you with enough hints to write noDupl.
If I want to add a space at the end of a character to return a list, how would I accomplish this with partial application if I am passing no arguments?
Also would the type be?
space :: Char -> [Char]
I'm having trouble adding a space at the end due to a 'parse error' by using the ++ and the : operators.
What I have so far is:
space :: Char -> [Char]
space = ++ ' '
Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks
Doing what you want is so common in Haskell it's got its own syntax, but being Haskell, it's extraordinarily lightweight. For example, this works:
space :: Char -> [Char]
space = (:" ")
so you weren't far off a correct solution. ([Char] is the same as String. " " is the string containing the character ' '.) Let's look at using a similar function first to get the hang of it. There's a function in a library called equalFilePath :: FilePath -> FilePath -> Bool, which is used to test whether two filenames or folder names represent the same thing. (This solves the problem that on unix, mydir isn't the same as MyDir, but on Windows it is.) Perhaps I want to check a list to see if it's got the file I want:
isMyBestFile :: FilePath -> Bool
isMyBestFile fp = equalFilePath "MyBestFile.txt" fp
but since functions gobble their first argument first, then return a new function to gobble the next, etc, I can write that shorter as
isMyBestFile = equalFilePath "MyBestFile.txt"
This works because equalFilePath "MyBestFile.txt" is itself a function that takes one argument: it's type is FilePath -> Bool. This is partial application, and it's super-useful. Maybe I don't want to bother writing a seperate isMyBestFile function, but want to check whether any of my list has it:
hasMyBestFile :: [FilePath] -> Bool
hasMyBestFile fps = any (equalFilePath "MyBestFile.txt") fps
or just the partially applied version again:
hasMyBestFile = any (equalFilePath "MyBestFile.txt")
Notice how I need to put brackets round equalFilePath "MyBestFile.txt", because if I wrote any equalFilePath "MyBestFile.txt", then filter would try and use just equalFilePath without the "MyBestFile.txt", because functions gobble their first argument first. any :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Bool
Now some functions are infix operators - taking their arguments from before and after, like == or <. In Haskell these are just regular functions, not hard-wired into the compiler (but have precedence and associativity rules specified). What if I was a unix user who never heard of equalFilePath and didn't care about the portability problem it solves, then I would probably want to do
hasMyBestFile = any ("MyBestFile.txt" ==)
and it would work, just the same, because == is a regular function. When you do that with an operator function, it's called an operator section.
It can work at the front or the back:
hasMyBestFile = any (== "MyBestFile.txt")
and you can do it with any operator you like:
hassmalls = any (< 5)
and a handy operator for lists is :. : takes an element on the left and a list on the right, making a new list of the two after each other, so 'Y':"es" gives you "Yes". (Secretly, "Yes" is actually just shorthand for 'Y':'e':'s':[] because : is a constructor/elemental-combiner-of-values, but that's not relevant here.) Using : we can define
space c = c:" "
and we can get rid of the c as usual
space = (:" ")
which hopefully make more sense to you now.
What you want here is an operator section. For that, you'll need to surround the application with parentheses, i.e.
space = (: " ")
which is syntactic sugar for
space = (\x -> x : " ")
(++) won't work here because it expects a string as the first argument, compare:
(:) :: a -> [a] -> [a]
(++) :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
I'm building comfort going through some Haskell toy problems and I've written the following speck of code
multipOf :: [a] -> (Int, a)
multipOf x = (length x, head x)
gmcompress x = (map multipOf).group $ x
which successfully preforms the following operation
gmcompress [1,1,1,1,2,2,2,3] = [(4,1),(3,2),(1,3)]
Now I want this function to instead of telling me that an element of the set had multiplicity 1, to just leave it alone. So to give the result [(4,1),(3,2),3] instead. It be great if there were a way to say (either during or after turning the list into one of pairs) for all elements of multiplicity 1, leave as just an element; else, pair. My initial, naive, thought was to do the following.
multipOf :: [a] -> (Int, a)
multipOf x = if length x = 1 then head x else (length x, head x)
gmcompress x = (map multipOf).group $ x
BUT this doesn't work. I think because the then and else clauses have different types, and unfortunately you can't piece-wise define the (co)domain of your functions. How might I go about getting past this issue?
BUT this doesn't work. I think because the then and else clauses have different types, and unfortunately you can't piece-wise define the (co)domain of your functions. How might I go about getting past this issue?
Your diagnosis is right; the then and else must have the same type. There's no "getting past this issue," strictly speaking. Whatever solution you adopt has to use same type in both branches of the conditional. One way would be to design a custom data type that encodes the possibilities that you want, and use that instead. Something like this would work:
-- | A 'Run' of #a# is either 'One' #a# or 'Many' of them (with the number
-- as an argument to the 'Many' constructor).
data Run a = One a | Many Int a
But to tell you the truth, I don't think this would really gain you anything. I'd stick to the (Int, a) encoding rather than going to this Run type.
I have a list of strings:
[" ix = index"," ctr = counter"," tbl = table"]
and I want to create a tuple from it like:
[("ix","index"),("ctr","counter"),("tbl","table")]
I even tried:
genTuple [] = []
genTuples (a:as)= do
i<-splitOn '=' a
genTuples as
return i
Any help would be appriciated
Thank you.
Haskell's type system is really expressive, so I suggest to think about the problem in terms of types. The advantage of this is that you can solve the problem 'top-down' and the whole program can be typechecked as you go, so you can catch all kinds of errors early on. The general approach is to incrementally divide the problem into smaller functions, each of which remaining undefined initially but with some plausible type.
What you want is a function (let's call it convert) which take a list of strings and generates a list of tuples, i.e.
convert :: [String] -> [(String, String)]
convert = undefined
It's clear that each string in the input list will need to be parsed into a 2-tuple of strings. However, it's possible that the parsing can fail - the sheer type String makes no guarantees that your input string is well formed. So your parse function maybe returns a tuple. We get:
parse :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
parse = undefined
We can immediately plug this into our convert function using mapMaybe:
convert :: [String] -> [(String, String)]
convert list = mapMaybe parse list
So far, so good - but parse is literally still undefined. Let's say that it should first verify that the input string is 'valid', and if it is - it splits it. So we'll need
valid :: String -> Bool
valid = undefined
split :: String -> (String, String)
split = undefined
Now we can define parse:
parse :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
parse s | valid s = Just (split s)
| otherwise = Nothing
What makes a string valid? Let's say it has to contain a = sign:
valid :: String -> Bool
valid s = '=' `elem` s
For splitting, we'll take all the characters up to the first = for the first tuple element, and the rest for the second. However, you probably want to trim leading/trailing whitespace as well, so we'll need another function. For now, let's make it a no-op
trim :: String -> String
trim = id
Using this, we can finally define
split :: String -> (String, String)
split s = (trim a, trim (tail b))
where
(a, b) = span (/= '=') s
Note that we can safely call tail here because we know that b is never empty because there's always a separator (that's what valid verified). Type-wise, it would've been nice to express this guarantee using a "non-empty string" but that may be a bit overengineered. :-)
Now, there are a lot of solutions to the problem, this is just one example (and there are ways to shorten the code using eta reduction or existing libraries). The main point I'm trying to get across is that Haskell's type system allows you to approach the problem in a way which is directed by types, which means the compiler helps you fleshing out a solution from the very beginning.
You can do it like this:
import Control.Monda
import Data.List
import Data.List.Split
map ((\[a,b] -> (a,b)) . splitOn "=" . filter (/=' ')) [" ix = index"," ctr = counter"," tbl = table"]
I have function in haskell (lets call it 'dumb') which calls 3 different functions. These three different functions return different types, for example, a boolean or a list of booleans. How can I define function 'dumb' to either return a boolean or a list of booleans?
data Sumtype = givelist Integer | getprod Integer
prod :: Int -> Int
prod x = x*3
listnums :: Int -> [Int]
listnums x = [1...x]
dumb :: Sumtype -> (what comes here..?)
dumb (givelist x) -> listnums x
dum (getprod x) -> prod x
You make it return Either Boolean [Boolean]. But I'm suspicious about your motives. It sounds like an X/Y problem.
You're probably looking for the the Either type, although with it your function will return Either values. It's defined like this:
data Either a b = Left a | Right b
When you want to define a function that can return either a Bool or a list of Bools its type should look something like this:
dumb :: Either Bool [Bool]
In this case 'dumb' will be a function that doesn't take any arguments and return either a Bool or a list of Bools. In the function's body you can return a Bool like this:
Left bool
Or a list of bools like this:
Right [bool]
You can see a concrete example here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/More_on_datatypes#More_than_one_type_parameter
All that said though, the reason Sebastian asked you for more details is that Either is rarely used outside of error handling (AFAIK I know anyway). It's possible that in your case you don't really need it at all, but we can't be sure unless you tell us more about the other functions you use in 'dumb' and about your goals.
Unrelated Probems
It appears you are a beginner - welcome to Haskell! I strongly suggest you read and work through one of the many tutorials as that is more efficient and complete than asking individual questions.
Syntax
Let's start with correcting the syntax errors. Constructors, such as Givelist and Getprod must start with a capital letter. The function dumb was typo'ed once. Function definitions use = and not ->.
Types
Now we have type errors to address. The Sumtype uses Integer and you then switch to using Int. Lets just stick with Integer for simplicity.
With these fixes we get:
data Sumtype = Givelist Integer | Getprod Integer
prod :: Integer -> Integer
prod x = x*3
listnums :: Integer -> [Integer]
listnums x = [1...x]
dumb :: Sumtype -> (what comes here..?)
dumb (Givelist x) = listnums x
dumb (Getprod x) = prod x
The Question
You want to know "what comes here" where 'here' is the result type. As written, the function is actually invalid. One definition yields a list of integers, [Integer], while the other yields a single integer Integer. One solution is to use a sum type such as Either Integer [Integer] - this is very much like your pre-existing Sumtype:
dumb :: Sumtype -> Either Integer [Integer]
So now we need to return a constructor of Either in our function definitions. You can lookup the documentation or use :info Either in GHCi to learn the constructors if you don't have them memorized.
dumb (Givelist x) = Right (listnums x)
dumb (Getprod x) = Left (prod x)
Notice we had to use Left for the second case which returns an Integer, because the first type we wrote after Either (the left type) is Integer.