I'm a having a type error on my Haskell Code. termEnVoc is expected to return True if the Term given is part of the Vocabulario (vocabulary), I'm not completely sure if it works but anyway I can't understand why do I get a type error.
Here it's the code:
type Cte = Simbolo
type Funcion = (Simbolo,Aridad)
type Predicado = (Simbolo, Aridad)
type Vocabulario = ([Cte], [Funcion], [Predicado])
data Term = C Simbolo | L Var | F Simbolo [Term]
deriving (Show, Eq)
termEnVoc :: Term -> Vocabulario -> Bool --This is line 38, the one with the error
termEnVoc = \t -> \(cs,fs,ps)-> (or(map (\x ->(x==t))cs) || or(map (\x ->(x==t))f) || or(map (\x ->(x==t))p));
And here the error:
ERROR file:.\tarea3.hs:38 - Type error in explicitly typed binding
*** Term : termEnVoc
*** Type : [Char] -> ([[Char]],[([Char],Int)],[([Char],Int)]) -> Bool
*** Does not match : Term -> Vocabulario -> Bool
As chi suggests, the main problem appears to be that you are trying to compare Terms with values of other types. It's hard to see just what you're trying to do (specifically, what different types are supposed to represent), but here's the general way you probably want to structure the function definition:
termEnVoc (C simbolo) (cs, fs, ps) = cte `elem` cs
termEnVoc (F simbolo termList) (cs, fs, ps) = head $ filter ((== f) . fst) fs
termEnVoc (L var) (cs, fs, ps) = head $ filter ((== var) . fst) ps
As I indicated, some (or even most) of the details may be wrong, but this should give you a sense of how to structure the definition. The code above makes use of the following:
(== x) = (\y -> y == x)
You can actually do this with operators in general:
(/ 3) = (\x -> x/3)
and
(3 /) = (\x -> 3/x)
The only one that's wonky is subtraction, and I always have to look up the rules for that.
elem a as = or $ map (== a) as
a `elem` b = elem a b
filter p [] = []
filter p (x:xs)
| p x = x : filter p xs
| otherwise = filter p xs
Note that the real definitions of the above are likely different, for efficiency reasons.
I finally decided that the problem was as dfeuer said that I was comparing terms with values of other types.
I end up with this method:
esTerm :: Vocabulario -> Term -> Bool
esTerm = \(c,f,p)-> \t -> case t of {
C x -> elem x c;
L x -> True;
F n ts -> case (lookup n f) of {
Nothing -> False;
Just x -> x==(length ts)&& and(map (esTerm (c,f,p)) ts);
}
}
Thanks for the help, it was really useful for fixing other mistakes I was making on my project.
Related
So I'm trying to make a little program that can take in data captured during an experiment, and for the most part I think I've figured out how to recursively take in data until the user signals there is no more, however upon termination of data taking haskell throws Exception: <<loop>> and I can't really figure out why. Here's the code:
readData :: (Num a, Read a) => [Point a] -> IO [Point a]
readData l = do putStr "Enter Point (x,y,<e>) or (d)one: "
entered <- getLine
if (entered == "d" || entered == "done")
then return l
else do let l = addPoint l entered
nl <- readData l
return nl
addPoint :: (Num a, Read a) => [Point a] -> String -> [Point a]
addPoint l s = l ++ [Point (dataList !! 0) (dataList !! 1) (dataList !! 2)]
where dataList = (map read $ checkInputData . splitOn "," $ s) :: (Read a) => [a]
checkInputData :: [String] -> [String]
checkInputData xs
| length xs < 2 = ["0","0","0"]
| length xs < 3 = (xs ++ ["0"])
| length xs == 3 = xs
| length xs > 3 = ["0","0","0"]
As far as I can tell, the exception is indication that there is an infinite loop somewhere, but I can't figure out why this is occurring. As far as I can tell when "done" is entered the current level should simply return l, the list it's given, which should then cascade up the previous iterations of the function.
Thanks for any help. (And yes, checkInputData will have proper error handling once I figure out how to do that.)
<<loop>> basically means GHC has detected an infinite loop caused by a value which depends immediately on itself (cf. this question, or this one for further technical details if you are curious). In this case, that is triggered by:
else do let l = addPoint l entered
This definition, which shadows the l you passed as an argument, defines l in terms of itself. You meant to write something like...
else do let l' = addPoint l entered
... which defines a new value, l', in terms of the original l.
As Carl points out, turning on -Wall (e.g. by passing it to GHC at the command line, or with :set -Wall in GHCi) would make GHC warn you about the shadowing:
<interactive>:171:33: warning: [-Wname-shadowing]
This binding for ‘l’ shadows the existing binding
bound at <interactive>:167:10
Also, as hightlighted by dfeuer, the whole do-block in the else branch can be replaced by:
readData (addPoint l entered)
As an unrelated suggestion, in this case it is a good idea to replace your uses of length and (!!) with pattern matching. For instance, checkInputData can be written as:
checkInputData :: [String] -> [String]
checkInputData xs = case xs of
[_,_] -> xs ++ ["0"]
[_,_,_] -> xs
_ -> ["0","0","0"]
addPoint, in its turn, might become:
addPoint :: (Num a, Read a) => [Point a] -> String -> [Point a]
addPoint l s = l ++ [Point x y z]
where [x,y,z] = (map read $ checkInputData . splitOn "," $ s) :: (Read a) => [a]
That becomes even neater if you change checkInputData so that it returns a (String, String, String) triple, which would better express the invariant that you are reading exactly three values.
If I was given a string like skhfbvqa, how would I generate the next string? For this example, it would be skhfbvqb, and the next string of that would be skhfbvqc, and so on. The given string (and the answer) will always be N characters long (in this case, N=8).
What I tried:
I tried to generate the entire (infinite) list of possible combinations, and get the required (next) string of the given string, but unsurprisingly, it's so slow, that I don't even get the answer for N=6.
I used list comprehension:
allStrings = [ c : s | s <- "" : allStrings, c <- ['a'..'z'] ]
main = do
input <- readFile "k.in"
putStrLn . head . tail . dropWhile (not . (==) input) . map reverse $ allStrings
(Please excuse my incredibly bad Haskell-ing :) Still a noob)
So my question is, how can I do this? If there are multiple methods, a comparison between them is much appreciated. Thanks!
Here's a version with base conversion (this way you could add and subtract arbitrarily if you like):
encode x base = encode' x [] where
encode' x' z | x' == 0 = z
| otherwise = encode' (div x' base) ((mod x' base):z)
decode num base =
fst $ foldr (\a (b,i) -> (b + a * base^i,i + 1)) (0,0) num
Output:
*Main> map (\x -> toEnum (x + 97)::Char)
$ encode (decode (map (\x -> fromEnum x - 97) "skhfbvqa") 26 + 1) 26
"skhfbvqb"
I would go and make a helper function f :: Integer -> String and one g :: String -> Integer, where f 1 = "a", ... f 27 = "aa", f 28 = "ab" and so on and the inverse g.
Then incrementString = f . succ . g
Note: I omitted the implementation of f on purpose for learning
Update
for a different approach you could define a increment with carry function inc' :: Char -> (Char, Bool), and then
incString :: String -> String
incString = reverse . incString'
where incString' [] = []
incString' (x:xs) = case inc' x of (x',True) -> x': incString' xs
(x',False) -> x':xs
Note: this function is not tail recursive!
I found this to work. It just uses pattern matching to see if the string begins with a z and adds an additional a accordingly.
incrementString' :: String -> String
incrementString' [] = ['a']
incrementString' ('z':xs) = 'a' : incrementString' xs
incrementString' (x:xs) = succ x : xs
incrementString :: String -> String
incrementString = reverse . incrementString' . reverse
What I'm trying to do is that I want to take a list of strings as input and do some operations then return back a list of strings. The problem is, I am looking for specific yet generic patterns of the string for each case:
func :: [String] -> [String]
func [] = []
func [x] = [x]
func (["Not","(","Not"]:es:[")"]) = es --HERE
func ("Not":"(":pred:"And":rest:")") = ("Not":pred:"Or":(pushNotInwards rest))
func ("Not":"(":pred:"Or":rest:")") = ("Not":pred:"And":(pushNotInwards rest))
func ("Not":"(":"ForAll":x:scope:")") = ("Exists":"Not":"("scope:")")
func ("Not":"(":"Exists":x:scope:")") = ("ForAll":"Not":"(":scope:")")
For the third case for instance, I want to take a list of strings in the form of:
["Not","(","Not",some_strings,")"]
I tried using ++ on the left hand side as:
func (["Not"]++["("]++["Not"])++es++[")"]) = es
I also tried concat and : but they didn't work either. Any suggestions?
You seem to have some confusion about the different string operators.
A String is just a synonym for a list of chars i.e. [Char]. The colon : operator (aka cons) adds one element to the beginning of a list. Here's its type:
*Main> :t (:)
(:) :: a -> [a] -> [a]
For example:
*Main> 1:[2,3]
[1,2,3]
*Main> 'a':"bc"
"abc"
The ++ operator concatenates two lists. Here's its type:
*Main> :t (++)
(++) :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
Pattern matching can only be done using a data constructor. The : operator is a data constructor, but the ++ operator is not. So you cannot define a function using pattern matching over the ++ operator.
To define a function using pattern matching, I'd suggest defining a new data type for the different functions and qualifier rather than using strings:
-- Logic Operation
data LogicOp =
Not LogicOp | And [LogicOp] | Or [LogicOp] |
Forall String LogicOp | Exists String LogicOp | T | F
deriving (Eq, Show)
func :: LogicOp -> LogicOp
func (Not (Not x)) = x
func (Not (And (pred:rest))) = Or (Not pred:[func (Not (And rest))])
func (Not (Or (pred:rest))) = And (Not pred:[func (Not (Or rest))])
func (Not (Forall x scope)) = Exists x (Not scope)
func (Not (Exists x scope)) = Forall x (Not scope)
func x = x
Here are some examples:
*Main> func (Not (Not T))
T
*Main> func (Not (And [T, F, T]))
Or [Not T,Or [Not F,Or [Not T,Not (And [])]]]
*Main> func (Not (Or [T, F, T]))
And [Not T,And [Not F,And [Not T,Not (Or [])]]]
*Main> func (Not (Forall "x" (And T F))
*Main> func (Not (Forall "x" (And [T, F])))
Exists "x" (Not (And [T,F]))
*Main> func (Not (Exists "x" (And [T, F])))
Forall "x" (Not (And [T,F]))
You should probably not use strings for that. Create a new type:
data SomeExpr = Not SomeExpr
| And SomeExpr SomeExpr
| Or SomeExpr SomeExpr
deriving (Show)
Then you could match on that expression:
func :: SomeExpr -> SomeExpr
func (Not (Not x)) = func x
func (Not (And x y)) = Or (Not $ func x) (Not $ func y)
func (Not (Or x y)) = And (Not $ func x) (Not $ func y)
...
func x = x
You can't pattern match a list in the middle, e.g You want to match [1,2,3,4,5] with (1:middle:5:[]), but this is invalid.
Yes, using an own type has it's own problems, you have to parse it etc, but it is much more easier and safer than with strings (which could have arbitrary content).
So I'm trying to define a function in Haskell that if given an integer and a list of integers will give a 'true' or 'false' whether the integer occurs only once or not.
So far I've got:
let once :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool; once x l =
But I haven't finished writing the code yet. I'm very new to Haskell as you may be able to tell.
Start off by using pattern matching:
once x [] =
once x (y:ys) =
This won't give you a good program immediately, but it will lead you in the right direction.
Here's a solution that doesn't use pattern matching explicitly. Instead, it keeps track of a Bool which represents if a occurance has already been found.
As others have pointed out, this is probably a homework problem, so I've intentionally left the then and else branches blank. I encourage user3482534 to experiment with this code and fill them in themselves.
once :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool
once a = foldr f False
where f x b = if x == a then ??? else ???
Edit: The naive implementation I was originally thinking of was:
once :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool
once a = foldr f False
where f x b = if x == a then b /= True else b
but this is incorrect as,
λ. once 'x' "xxx"
True
which should, of course, be False as 'x' occurs more than exactly once.
However, to show that it is possible to write once using a fold, here's a revised version that uses a custom monoid to keep track of how many times the element has occured:
import Data.List
import Data.Foldable
import Data.Monoid
data Occur = Zero | Once | Many
deriving Eq
instance Monoid Occur where
mempty = Zero
Zero `mappend` x = x
x `mappend` Zero = x
_ `mappend` _ = Many
once :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool
once a = (==) Once . foldMap f
where f x = if x == a then Once else Zero
main = do
let xss = inits "xxxxx"
print $ map (once 'x') xss
which prints
[False,True,False,False,False]
as expected.
The structure of once is similar, but not identical, to the original.
I'll answer this as if it were a homework question since it looks like one.
Read about pattern matching in function declarations, especially when they give an example of processing a list. You'll use tools from Data.List later, but probably your professor is teaching about pattern matching.
Think about a function that maps values to a 1 or 0 depending on whethere there is a match ...
match :: a -> [a] -> [Int]
match x xs = map -- fill in the thing here such that
-- match 3 [1,2,3,4,5] == [0,0,1,0,0]
Note that there is the sum function that takes a list of numbers and returns the sum of the numbers in the list. So to count the matches a function can take the match function and return the counts.
countN :: a -> [a] -> Int
countN x xs = ? $ match x xs
And finally a function that exploits the countN function to check for a count of only 1. (==1).
Hope you can figure out the rest ...
You can filter the list and then check the length of the resulting list. If length == 1, you have only one occurrence of the given Integer:
once :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool
once x = (== 1) . length . filter (== x)
For counting generally, with import Data.List (foldl'), pointfree
count pred = foldl' (\ n x -> if pred x then n + 1 else n) 0
applicable like
count (< 10) [1 .. 10] == 9
count (== 'l') "Hello" == 2
gives
once pred xs = count pred xs == 1
Efficient O(n) short-circuit predicated form, testing whether the predicate is satisfied exactly once:
once :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Bool
once pred list = one list 0
where
one [] 1 = True
one [] _ = False
one _ 2 = False
one (x : xs) n | pred x = one xs (n + 1)
| otherwise = one xs n
Or, using any:
none pred = not . any pred
once :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Bool
once _ [] = False
once pred (x : xs) | pred x = none pred xs
| otherwise = one pred xs
gives
elemOnce y = once (== y)
which
elemOnce 47 [1,1,2] == False
elemOnce 2 [1,1,2] == True
elemOnce 81 [81,81,2] == False
I'm trying to complete the last part of my Haskell homework and I'm stuck, my code so far:
data Entry = Entry (String, String)
class Lexico a where
(<!), (=!), (>!) :: a -> a -> Bool
instance Lexico Entry where
Entry (a,_) <! Entry (b,_) = a < b
Entry (a,_) =! Entry (b,_) = a == b
Entry (a,_) >! Entry (b,_) = a > b
entries :: [(String, String)]
entries = [("saves", "en vaut"), ("time", "temps"), ("in", "<`a>"),
("{", "{"), ("A", "Un"), ("}", "}"), ("stitch", "point"),
("nine.", "cent."), ("Zazie", "Zazie")]
build :: (String, String) -> Entry
build (a, b) = Entry (a, b)
diction :: [Entry]
diction = quiksrt (map build entries)
size :: [a] -> Integer
size [] = 0
size (x:xs) = 1+ size xs
quiksrt :: Lexico a => [a] -> [a]
quiksrt [] = []
quiksrt (x:xs)
|(size [y|y <- xs, y =! x]) > 0 = error "Duplicates not allowed."
|otherwise = quiksrt [y|y <- xs, y <! x]++ [x] ++ quiksrt [y|y <- xs, y >! x]
english :: String
english = "A stitch in time save nine."
show :: Entry -> String
show (Entry (a, b)) = "(" ++ Prelude.show a ++ ", " ++ Prelude.show b ++ ")"
showAll :: [Entry] -> String
showAll [] = []
showAll (x:xs) = Main.show x ++ "\n" ++ showAll xs
main :: IO ()
main = do putStr (showAll ( diction ))
The question asks:
Write a Haskell programs that takes
the English sentence 'english', looks
up each word in the English-French
dictionary using binary search,
performs word-for-word substitution,
assembles the French translation, and
prints it out.
The function 'quicksort' rejects
duplicate entries (with 'error'/abort)
so that there is precisely one French
definition for any English word. Test
'quicksort' with both the original
'raw_data' and after having added
'("saves", "sauve")' to 'raw_data'.
Here is a von Neumann late-stopping
version of binary search. Make a
literal transliteration into Haskell.
Immediately upon entry, the Haskell
version must verify the recursive
"loop invariant", terminating with
'error'/abort if it fails to hold. It
also terminates in the same fashion if
the English word is not found.
function binsearch (x : integer) : integer
local j, k, h : integer
j,k := 1,n
do j+1 <> k --->
h := (j+k) div 2
{a[j] <= x < a[k]} // loop invariant
if x < a[h] ---> k := h
| x >= a[h] ---> j := h
fi
od
{a[j] <= x < a[j+1]} // termination assertion
found := x = a[j]
if found ---> return j
| not found ---> return 0
fi
In the Haskell version
binsearch :: String -> Integer -> Integer -> Entry
as the constant dictionary 'a' of type
'[Entry]' is globally visible. Hint:
Make your string (English word) into
an 'Entry' immediately upon entering
'binsearch'.
The programming value of the
high-level data type 'Entry' is that,
if you can design these two functions
over the integers, it is trivial to
lift them to to operate over Entry's.
Anybody know how I'm supposed to go about my binarysearch function?
The instructor asks for a "literal transliteration", so use the same variable names, in the same order. But note some differences:
the given version takes only 1
parameter, the signature he gives
requires 3. Hmmm,
the given version is not recursive, but he asks for a
recursive version.
Another answer says to convert to an Array, but for such a small exercise (this is homework after all), I felt we could pretend that lists are direct access. I just took your diction::[Entry] and indexed into that. I did have to convert between Int and Integer in a few places.
Minor nit: You've got a typo in your english value (bs is a shortcut to binSearch I made):
*Main> map bs (words english)
[Entry ("A","Un"),Entry ("stitch","point"),Entry ("in","<`a>"),Entry ("time","te
mps"),*** Exception: Not found
*Main> map bs (words englishFixed)
[Entry ("A","Un"),Entry ("stitch","point"),Entry ("in","<`a>"),Entry ("time","te
mps"),Entry ("saves","en vaut"),Entry ("nine.","cent.")]
*Main>
A binary search needs random access, which is not possible on a list. So, the first thing to do would probably be to convert the list to an Array (with listArray), and do the search on it.
here's my code for just the English part of the question (I tested it and it works perfectly) :
module Main where
class Lex a where
(<!), (=!), (>!) :: a -> a -> Bool
data Entry = Entry String String
instance Lex Entry where
(Entry a _) <! (Entry b _) = a < b
(Entry a _) =! (Entry b _) = a == b
(Entry a _) >! (Entry b _) = a > b
-- at this point, three binary (infix) operators on values of type 'Entry'
-- have been defined
type Raw = (String, String)
raw_data :: [Raw]
raw_data = [("than a", "qu'un"), ("saves", "en vaut"), ("time", "temps"),
("in", "<`a>"), ("worse", "pire"), ("{", "{"), ("A", "Un"),
("}", "}"), ("stitch", "point"), ("crime;", "crime,"),
("a", "une"), ("nine.", "cent."), ("It's", "C'est"),
("Zazie", "Zazie"), ("cat", "chat"), ("it's", "c'est"),
("raisin", "raisin sec"), ("mistake.", "faute."),
("blueberry", "myrtille"), ("luck", "chance"),
("bad", "mauvais")]
cook :: Raw -> Entry
cook (x, y) = Entry x y
a :: [Entry]
a = map cook raw_data
quicksort :: Lex a => [a] -> [a]
quicksort [] = []
quicksort (x:xs) = quicksort (filter (<! x) xs) ++ [x] ++ quicksort (filter (=! x) xs) ++ quicksort (filter (>! x) xs)
getfirst :: Entry -> String
getfirst (Entry x y) = x
getsecond :: Entry -> String
getsecond (Entry x y) = y
binarysearch :: String -> [Entry] -> Int -> Int -> String
binarysearch s e low high
| low > high = " NOT fOUND "
| getfirst ((e)!!(mid)) > s = binarysearch s (e) low (mid-1)
| getfirst ((e)!!(mid)) < s = binarysearch s (e) (mid+1) high
| otherwise = getsecond ((e)!!(mid))
where mid = (div (low+high) 2)
translator :: [String] -> [Entry] -> [String]
translator [] y = []
translator (x:xs) y = (binarysearch x y 0 ((length y)-1):translator xs y)
english :: String
english = "A stitch in time saves nine."
compute :: String -> [Entry] -> String
compute x y = unwords(translator (words (x)) y)
main = do
putStr (compute english (quicksort a))
An important Prelude operator is:
(!!) :: [a] -> Integer -> a
-- xs!!n returns the nth element of xs, starting at the left and
-- counting from 0.
Thus, [14,7,3]!!1 ~~> 7.