I'm solving 99 Haskell Probems. I've successfully solved problem No. 21, and when I opened solution page, the following solution was proposed:
Insert an element at a given position into a list.
insertAt :: a -> [a] -> Int -> [a]
insertAt x xs (n+1) = let (ys,zs) = split xs n in ys++x:zs
I found pattern (n + 1) interesting, because it seems to be an elegant way to convert 1-based argument of insertAt into 0-based argument of split (it's function from previous exercises, essentially the same as splitAt). The problem is that GHC did not find this pattern that elegant, in fact it says:
Parse error in pattern: n + 1
I don't think that the guy who wrote the answer was dumb and I would like to know if this kind of patterns is legal in Haskell, and if it is, how to fix the solution.
I believe it has been removed from the language, and so was likely around when the author of 99 Haskell Problems wrote that solution, but it is no longer in Haskell.
The problem with n+k patterns goes back to a design decision in Haskell, to distinguish between constructors and variables in patterns by the first character of their names. If you go back to ML, a common function definition might look like (using Haskell syntax)
map f nil = nil
map f (x:xn) = f x : map f xn
As you can see, syntactically there's no difference between f and nil on the LHS of the first line, but they have different roles; f is a variable that needs to be bound to the first argument to map while nil is a constructor that needs to be matched against the second. Now, ML makes this distinction by looking each variable up in the surrounding scope, and assuming names are variables when the look-up fails. So nil is recognized as a constructor when the lookup fails. But consider what happens when there's a typo in the pattern:
map f niil = nil
(two is in niil). niil isn't a constructor name in scope, so it gets treated as a variable, and the definition is silently interpreted incorrectly.
Haskell's solution to this problem is to require constructor names to begin with uppercase letters, and variable names to begin with lowercase letters. And, for infix operators / constructors, constructor names must begin with : while operator names may not begin with :. This also helps distinguish between deconstructing bindings:
x:xn = ...
is clearly a deconstructing binding, because you can't define a function named :, while
n - m = ...
is clearly a function definition, because - can't be a constructor name.
But allowing n+k patterns, like n+1, means that + is both a valid function name, and something that works like a constructor in patterns. Now
n + 1 = ...
is ambiguous again; it could be part of the definition of a function named (+), or it could be a deconstructing pattern match definition of n. In Haskell 98, this ambiguity was solved by declaring
n + 1 = ...
a function definition, and
(n + 1) = ...
a deconstructing binding. But that obviously was never a satisfactory solution.
Note that you can now use view patterns instead of n+1.
For example:
{-# LANGUAGE ViewPatterns #-}
module Temp where
import Data.List (splitAt)
split :: [a] -> Int -> ([a], [a])
split = flip splitAt
insertAt :: a -> [a] -> Int -> [a]
insertAt x xs (subtract 1 -> n) = let (ys,zs) = split xs n in ys++x:zs
Related
GHC accepts this code, but it ought to be illegal syntax(?) Any guesses as to what's going on?
module Tilde where
~ x = x + 2 -- huh?
~ x +++ y = y * 3 -- this makes sense
The (+++) equation makes sense: it's declaring an operator, using infix syntax, and using an irrefutable pattern match on the first argument.
The first 'equation' looks like the same to start with. But there's no operator. If I ask
λ> :i ~
===> <interactive>:1:1: error: parse error on input `~'
λ> :i (~)
===> class (a ~ b) => (~) (a :: k) (b :: k)
-- Defined in `Data.Type.Equality'
instance [incoherent] forall k (a :: k) (b :: k). (a ~ b) => a ~ b
-- Defined in `Data.Type.Equality'
which is a bemusing discovery, but nothing to do with it(?) I can't define my own class or operator (~) -- Illegal binding of built-in syntax, not surprisingly.
Oh:
λ> :i x
===> x :: Integer -- GHCi defaulting, presumably
and trying to run x loops for ever. So the strangeness is actually defining
x = x + 2
Then what's the ~ doing?
The tilde is doing exactly what it did in your other example: it makes the pattern irrefutable (so the pattern match can not fail). The pattern already was irrefutable, of course, in both cases (being a plain variable, which always matches), but that doesn't make the tilde illegal, just unnecessary.
Writing
x = 5
creates a global variable named x, bound to the value 5. Adding a tilde makes the pattern match irrefutable, but it was already irrefutable, so that doesn't make much sense. But it's legal to write something like
(xs, ys) = span odd [1..10]
This defines two global variables, xs and ys, containing all the odd numbers and all the even numbers between 1 and 10. You could even make this irrefutable if you want by adding a tilde. Of course, this pattern can't fail (if the expression is well-typed), so there's no point to that. But consider:
~(x:xs) = filter odd [1..10]
This defines two global variables, x and xs, if the filter returns at least one result. If the filter were to return zero results, the pattern match would fail. (In practice, this means that accessing x or xs would throw a pattern match failure exception.)
You can even write utterly bizarre stuff like
False = True
This seemingly nonsensical declaration pattern-matches the pattern False against the value True, and does nothing either way. It's one of those obscure corners of the language.
Suppose we want to write our own sum function in Haskell:
sum' :: (Num a) => [a] -> a
sum' [] = 0
sum' (x:xs) = x + sum' xs
Why can't we do something like:
sum' :: (Num a) => [a] -> a
sum' [] = 0
sum' (xs++[x]) = x + sum' xs
In other words why can't we use ++ in pattern matching ?
This is a deserving question, and it has so far received sensible answers (mutter only constructors allowed, mutter injectivity, mutter ambiguity), but there's still time to change all that.
We can say what the rules are, but most of the explanations for why the rules are what they are start by over-generalising the question, addressing why we can't pattern match against any old function (mutter Prolog). This is to ignore the fact that ++ isn't any old function: it's a (spatially) linear plugging-stuff-together function, induced by the zipper-structure of lists. Pattern matching is about taking stuff apart, and indeed, notating the process in terms of the plugger-togetherers and pattern variables standing for the components. Its motivation is clarity. So I'd like
lookup :: Eq k => k -> [(k, v)] -> Maybe v
lookup k (_ ++ [(k, v)] ++ _) = Just v
lookup _ _ = Nothing
and not only because it would remind me of the fun I had thirty years ago when I implemented a functional language whose pattern matching offered exactly that.
The objection that it's ambiguous is a legitimate one, but not a dealbreaker. Plugger-togetherers like ++ offer only finitely many decompositions of finite input (and if you're working on infinite data, that's your own lookout), so what's involved is at worst search, rather than magic (inventing arbitrary inputs that arbitrary functions might have thrown away). Search calls for some means of prioritisation, but so do our ordered matching rules. Search can also result in failure, but so, again, can matching.
We have a sensible way to manage computations offering alternatives (failure and choice) via the Alternative abstraction, but we are not used to thinking of pattern matching as a form of such computation, which is why we exploit Alternative structure only in the expression language. The noble, if quixotic, exception is match-failure in do-notation, which calls the relevant fail rather than necessarily crashing out. Pattern matching is an attempt to compute an environment suitable for the evaluation of a 'right-hand side' expression; failure to compute such an environment is already handled, so why not choice?
(Edit: I should, of course, add that you only really need search if you have more than one stretchy thing in a pattern, so the proposed xs++[x] pattern shouldn't trigger any choices. Of course, it takes time to find the end of a list.)
Imagine there was some sort of funny bracket for writing Alternative computations, e.g., with (|) meaning empty, (|a1|a2|) meaning (|a1|) <|> (|a2|), and a regular old (|f s1 .. sn|) meaning pure f <*> s1 .. <*> sn. One might very well also imagine (|case a of {p1 -> a1; .. pn->an}|) performing a sensible translation of search-patterns (e.g. involving ++) in terms of Alternative combinators. We could write
lookup :: (Eq k, Alternative a) => k -> [(k, v)] -> a k
lookup k xs = (|case xs of _ ++ [(k, v)] ++ _ -> pure v|)
We may obtain a reasonable language of search-patterns for any datatype generated by fixpoints of differentiable functors: symbolic differentiation is exactly what turns tuples of structures into choices of possible substructures. Good old ++ is just the sublists-of-lists example (which is confusing, because a list-with-a-hole-for-a-sublist looks a lot like a list, but the same is not true for other datatypes).
Hilariously, with a spot of LinearTypes, we might even keep hold of holey data by their holes as well as their root, then plug away destructively in constant time. It's scandalous behaviour only if you don't notice you're doing it.
You can only pattern match on constructors, not on general functions.
Mathematically, a constructor is an injective function: each combination of arguments gives one unique value, in this case a list. Because that value is unique, the language can deconstruct it again into the original arguments. I.e., when you pattern match on :, you essentially use the function
uncons :: [a] -> Maybe (a, [a])
which checks if the list is of a form you could have constructed with : (i.e., if it is non-empty), and if yes, gives you back the head and tail.
++ is not injective though, for example
Prelude> [0,1] ++ [2]
[0,1,2]
Prelude> [0] ++ [1,2]
[0,1,2]
Neither of these representations is the right one, so how should the list be deconstructed again?
What you can do however is define a new, “virtual” constructor that acts like : in that it always seperates exactly one element from the rest of the list (if possible), but does so on the right:
{-# LANGUAGE PatternSynonyms, ViewPatterns #-}
pattern (:>) :: [a] -> a -> [a]
pattern (xs:>ω) <- (unsnoc -> Just (xs,ω))
where xs:>ω = xs ++ [ω]
unsnoc :: [a] -> Maybe ([a], a)
unsnoc [] = Nothing
unsnoc [x] = Just x
unsnoc (_:xs) = unsnoc xs
Then
sum' :: Num a => [a] -> a
sum' (xs:>x) = x + sum xs
sum' [] = 0
Note that this is very inefficient though, because the :> pattern-synonym actually needs to dig through the entire list, so sum' has quadratic rather than linear complexity.
A container that allows pattern matching on both the left and right end efficiently is Data.Sequence, with its :<| and :|> pattern synonyms.
You can only pattern-match on data constructors, and ++ is a function, not a data constructor.
Data constructors are persistent; a value like 'c':[] cannot be simplified further, because it is a fundamental value of type [Char]. An expression like "c" ++ "d", however, can replaced with its equivalent "cd" at any time, and thus couldn't reliably be counted on to be present for pattern matching.
(You might argue that "cd" could always replaced by "c" ++ "d", but in general there isn't a one-to-one mapping between a list and a decomposition via ++. Is "cde" equivalent to "c" ++ "de" or "cd" ++ "e" for pattern matching purposes?)
++ isn't a constructor, it's just a plain function. You can only match on constructors.
You can use ViewPatterns or PatternSynonyms to augment your ability to pattern match (thanks #luqui).
In working through a solution to the 8 Queens problem, a person used the following line of code:
sameDiag try qs = any (\(colDist,q) -> abs (try - q) == colDist) $ zip [1..] qs
try is an an item; qs is a list of the same items.
Can someone explain how colDist and q in the lambda function get bound to anything?
How did try and q used in the body of lambda function find their way into the same scope?
To the degree this is a Haskell idiom, what problem does this design approach help solve?
The function any is a higher-order function that takes 2 arguments:
the 1st argument is of type a -> Bool, i.e. a function from a to Bool
the 2nd argument is of type [a], i.e. a list of items of type a;
i.e. the 1st argument is a function that takes any element from the list passed as the 2nd argument, and returns a Bool based on that element. (well it can take any values of type a, not just the ones in that list, but it's quite obviously certain that any won't be invoking it with some arbitrary values of a but the ones from the list.)
You can then simplify thinking about the original snippet by doing a slight refactoring:
sameDiag :: Int -> [Int] -> Bool
sameDiag try qs = any f xs
where
xs = zip [1..] qs
f = (\(colDist, q) -> abs (try - q) == colDist)
which can be transformed into
sameDiag :: Int -> [Int] -> Bool
sameDiag try qs = any f xs
where
xs = zip [1..] qs
f (colDist, q) = abs (try - q) == colDist)
which in turn can be transformed into
sameDiag :: Int -> [Int] -> Bool
sameDiag try qs = any f xs
where
xs = zip [1..] qs
f pair = abs (try - q) == colDist) where (colDist, q) = pair
(Note that sameDiag could also have a more general type Integral a => a -> [a] -> Bool rather than the current monomorphic one)
— so how does the pair in f pair = ... get bound to a value? well, simple: it's just a function; whoever calls it must pass along a value for the pair argument. — when calling any with the first argument set to f, it's the invocation of the function any who's doing the calling of f, with individual elements of the list xs passed in as values of the argument pair.
and, since the contents of xs is a list of pairs, it's OK to pass an individual pair from this list to f as f expects it to be just that.
EDIT: a further explanation of any to address the asker's comment:
Is this a fair synthesis? This approach to designing a higher-order function allows the invoking code to change how f behaves AND invoke the higher-order function with a list that requires additional processing prior to being used to invoke f for every element in the list. Encapsulating the list processing (in this case with zip) seems the right thing to do, but is the intent of this additional processing really clear in the original one-liner above?
There's really no additional processing done by any prior to invoking f. There is just very minimalistic bookkeeping in addition to simply iterating through the passed in list xs: invoking f on the elements during the iteration, and immediately breaking the iteration and returning True the first time f returns True for any list element.
Most of the behavior of any is "implicit" though in that it's taken care of by Haskell's lazy evaluation, basic language semantics as well as existing functions, which any is composed of (well at least my version of it below, any' — I haven't taken a look at the built-in Prelude version of any yet but I'm sure it's not much different; just probably more heavily optimised).
In fact, any is simple it's almost trivial to re-implement it with a one liner on a GHCi prompt:
Prelude> let any' f xs = or (map f xs)
let's see now what GHC computes as its type:
Prelude> :t any'
any' :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Bool
— same as the built-in any. So let's give it some trial runs:
Prelude> any' odd [1, 2, 3] -- any odd values in the list?
True
Prelude> any' even [1, 3] -- any even ones?
False
Prelude> let adult = (>=18)
Prelude> any' adult [17, 17, 16, 15, 17, 18]
— see how you can sometimes write code that almost looks like English with higher-order functions?
zip :: [a] -> [b] -> [(a,b)] takes two lists and joins them into pairs, dropping any remaining at the end.
any :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Bool takes a function and a list of as and then returns True if any of the values returned true or not.
So colDist and q are the first and second elements of the pairs in the list made by zip [1..] qs, and they are bound when they are applied to the pair by any.
q is only bound within the body of the lambda function - this is the same as with lambda calculus. Since try was bound before in the function definition, it is still available in this inner scope. If you think of lambda calculus, the term \x.\y.x+y makes sense, despite the x and the y being bound at different times.
As for the design approach, this approach is much cleaner than trying to iterate or recurse through the list manually. It seems quite clear in its intentions to me (with respect to the larger codebase it comes from).
I have the following code :
-- A CharBox is a rectangular matrix of characters
data CharBox = CharBox [String]
deriving Show
-- Build a CharBox, ensuring the contents are rectangular
mkCharBox :: [String] -> CharBox
mkCharBox [] = CharBox []
mkCharBox xxs#(x:xs) = if (all (\s -> (length s) == length x) xs)
then CharBox xxs
else error "CharBox must be a rectangle."
The [[Char]] must be rectangular (i.e. all sub-lists must have the same length) for many functions in the module to work properly. Inside the module I'm always using the mkCharBox "constructor" so I don't have to enforce this constraint all the time.
Initially I wanted my module declaration to look like this :
module CharBox (
CharBox, -- No (CharBox) because it doesn't enforce rectangularity
mkCharBox
) where
But like that, users of my module cannot pattern match on CharBox. In another module I do
findWiresRight :: CharBox -> [Int]
findWiresRight (CharBox xs) = elemIndices '-' (map last xs)
And ghci complains: Not in scope: data constructor 'CharBox'
Is it possible to enforce my constraint that CharBoxes contain only rectangular arrays, while still allowing pattern matching ? (Also if this is not possible, I'd be interested in knowing the technical reason why. I find there's usually a lot to learn in Haskell when exploring such restrictions)
It's not possible in vanilla Haskell to both hide the constructors and support pattern matching.
The usual approaches to address this are:
view patterns, essentially, export the pattern matching functions.
or:
move the invariant into the type system via size types.
The simplest solution would be to add an extract function to the module:
extract :: CharBox -> [String]
extract (CharBox xs) = xs
and then use it instead of pattern matching:
findWiresRight :: CharBox -> [Int]
findWiresRight c = elemIndices '-' $ map last $ extract c
I have to dessignate types of 2 functions(without using compiler :t) i just dont know how soudl i read these functions to make correct steps.
f x = map -1 x
f x = map (-1) x
Well i'm a bit confuse how it will be parsed
Function application, or "the empty space operator" has higher precedence than any operator symbol, so the first line parses as f x = map - (1 x), which will most likely1 be a type error.
The other example is parenthesized the way it looks, but note that (-1) desugars as negate 1. This is an exception from the normal rule, where operator sections like (+1) desugar as (\x -> x + 1), so this will also likely1 be a type error since map expects a function, not a number, as its first argument.
1 I say likely because it is technically possible to provide Num instances for functions which may allow this to type check.
For questions like this, the definitive answer is to check the Haskell Report. The relevant syntax hasn't changed from Haskell 98.
In particular, check the section on "Expressions". That should explain how expressions are parsed, operator precedence, and the like.
These functions do not have types, because they do not type check (you will get ridiculous type class constraints). To figure out why, you need to know that (-1) has type Num n => n, and you need to read up on how a - is interpreted with or without parens before it.
The following function is the "correct" version of your function:
f x = map (subtract 1) x
You should be able to figure out the type of this function, if I say that:
subtract 1 :: Num n => n -> n
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
well i did it by my self :P
(map) - (1 x)
(-)::Num a => a->a->->a
1::Num b=> b
x::e
map::(c->d)->[c]->[d]
map::a
a\(c->d)->[c]->[d]
(1 x)::a
1::e->a
f::(Num ((c->d)->[c]->[d]),Num (e->(c->d)->[c]->[d])) => e->(c->d)->[c]->[d]