import Picosat
import Control.Applicative
main :: IO ()
main = do
dimacsList1 <- (read <$> getLine) :: IO [[Integer]]
dimacsList2 <- (read <$> getLine) :: IO [[Integer]]
res1 <- solve dimacsList1
res2 <- solve dimacsList2
putStrLn $ (show res1) ++ " " ++ (show res2)
Question: How can I change the above example to run the two sat calls in parallel, i.e., using concurrency? I am interested in performance, if there are different options.
(Just to check: As I understand it, the ST monad is orthogonal and cannot be used in conjunction with parallelization/concurrency. The ST monad confused me a bit in the beginning, is is one of the reasons I ask the question.)
The easiest approach is to use the async library. Something like this, maybe.
[res1, res2] <- mapConcurrently solve [dimacsList1, dimacsList2]
Related
I am trying to get a good grip on the do notation in Haskell.
I could use it with Maybe and then print the result. Like this:
maybeAdd :: Maybe Integer
maybeAdd = do one <- maybe1
two <- maybe2
three <- maybe3
return (one + two + three)
main :: IO ()
main = putStr (show $ fromMaybe 0 maybeAdd)
But instead of having a separate function I am trying to use the do notation with the Maybe inside the main function. But I am not having any luck. The various attempts I tried include:
main :: IO ()
main = do one <- maybe1
two <- maybe2
three <- maybe3
putStr (show $ fromMaybe 0 $ return (one + two + three))
main :: IO ()
main = do one <- maybe1
two <- maybe2
three <- maybe3
putStr (show $ fromMaybe 0 $ Just (one + two + three))
main :: IO ()
main = do one <- maybe1
two <- maybe2
three <- maybe3
putStr (show $ (one + two + three))
All of these leads to various types of compilation errors, which unfortunately I failed to decipher to get the correct way to do it.
How do I achieve the above? And perhaps maybe an explanation of why the approaches I tried were wrong also?
Each do block must work within a single monad. If you want to use multiple monads, you could use multiple do blocks. Trying to adapt your code:
main :: IO ()
main = do -- IO block
let x = do -- Maybe block
one <- maybe1
two <- maybe2
three <- maybe3
return (one + two + three)
putStr (show $ fromMaybe 0 x)
You could even use
main = do -- IO block
putStr $ show $ fromMaybe 0 $ do -- Maybe block
one <- maybe1
two <- maybe2
three <- maybe3
return (one + two + three)
-- other IO actions here
but it could be less readable in certain cases.
The MaybeT monad transformer would come handy in this particular case. MaybeT monad transformer is just a type defined something like;
newtype MaybeT m a = MaybeT {runMaybeT :: m (Maybe a)}
Actually transformers like MaybeT, StateT etc, are readily available in Control.Monad.Trans.Maybe, Control.Monad.Trans.State... For illustration purposes it' Monad instance could be something like shown below;
instance Monad m => Monad (MaybeT m) where
return = MaybeT . return . Just
x >>= f = MaybeT $ runMaybeT x >>= g
where
g Nothing = return Nothing
g (Just x) = runMaybeT $ f x
so as you will notice the monadic f function takes a value that resides in the Maybe monad which itself is in another monad (IO in our case). The f function does it's thing and wraps the result back into MaybeT m a.
Also there is a MonadTrans class where you can have some common functionalities those are used by the transformer types. One such is lift which is used to lift the value into a transformer according to that particular instance's definition. For MaybeT it should look like
instance MonadTrans MaybeT where
lift = MaybeT . (liftM Just)
Lets perform your task with monad transformers.
addInts :: MaybeT IO ()
addInts = do
lift $ putStrLn "Enter two integers.."
i <- lift getLine
guard $ test i
j <- lift getLine
guard $ test j
lift . print $ (read i :: Int) + (read j :: Int)
where
test = and . (map isDigit)
So when called like
λ> runMaybeT addInts
Enter two integers..
1453
1571
3024
Just ()
The catch is, since a monad transformer is also a member of Monad typeclass, one can nest them indefinitelly and still do things under a singe do notation.
Edit: answer gets downvoted but it is unclear to me why. If there is something wrong with the approach please care to elaborate me so that it helps people including me to learn something better.
Taking the opportunity of being on the edit session, i would like to add a better code since i think Char based testing might not be the best idea as it will not take negative Ints into account. So let's try using readMaybe from the Text.Read package while we are doing things with the Maybe type.
import Control.Monad.Trans.Maybe
import Control.Monad.Trans.Class (lift)
import Text.Read (readMaybe)
addInts :: MaybeT IO ()
addInts = do
lift $ putStrLn "Enter two integers.."
i <- lift getLine
MaybeT $ return (readMaybe i :: Maybe Int)
j <- lift getLine
MaybeT $ return (readMaybe j :: Maybe Int)
lift . print $ (read i :: Int) + (read j :: Int)
I guess now it works better...
λ> runMaybeT addInts
Enter two integers..
-400
500
100
Just ()
λ> runMaybeT addInts
Enter two integers..
Not an Integer
Nothing
I'm trying to write code in source -> transform -> sink style, for example:
let (|>) = flip ($)
repeat 1 |> take 5 |> sum |> print
But would like to do that using IO. I have this impression that my source can be an infinite list of IO actions, and each one gets evaluated once it is needed downstream. Something like this:
-- prints the number of lines entered before "quit" is entered
[getLine..] >>= takeWhile (/= "quit") >>= length >>= print
I think this is possible with the streaming libraries, but can it be done along the lines of what I'm proposing?
Using the repeatM, takeWhile and length_ functions from the streaming library:
import Streaming
import qualified Streaming.Prelude as S
count :: IO ()
count = do r <- S.length_ . S.takeWhile (/= "quit") . S.repeatM $ getLine
print r
This seems to be in that spirit:
let (|>) = flip ($)
let (.>) = flip (.)
getContents >>= lines .> takeWhile (/= "quit") .> length .> print
The issue here is that Monad is not the right abstraction for this, and attempting to do something like this results in a situation where referential transparency is broken.
Firstly, we can do a lazy IO read like so:
module Main where
import System.IO.Unsafe (unsafePerformIO)
import Control.Monad(forM_)
lazyIOSequence :: [IO a] -> IO [a]
lazyIOSequence = pure . go where
go :: [IO a] -> [a]
go (l:ls) = (unsafePerformIO l):(go ls)
main :: IO ()
main = do
l <- lazyIOSequence (repeat getLine)
forM_ l putStrLn
This when run will perform cat. It will read lines and output them. Everything works fine.
But consider changing the main function to this:
main :: IO ()
main = do
l <- lazyIOSequence (map (putStrLn . show) [1..])
putStrLn "Hello World"
This outputs Hello World only, as we didn't need to evaluate any of l. But now consider replacing the last line like the following:
main :: IO ()
main = do
x <- lazyIOSequence (map (putStrLn . show) [1..])
seq (head x) putStrLn "Hello World"
Same program, but the output is now:
1
Hello World
This is bad, we've changed the results of a program just by evaluating a value. This is not supposed to happen in Haskell, when you evaluate something it should just evaluate it, not change the outside world.
So if you restrict your IO actions to something like reading from a file nothing else is reading from, then you might be able to sensibly lazily evaluate things, because when you read from it in relation to all the other IO actions your program is taking doesn't matter. But you don't want to allow this for IO in general, because skipping actions or performing them in a different order can matter (and above, certainly does). Even in the reading a file lazily case, if something else in your program writes to the file, then whether you evaluate that list before or after the write action will affect the output of your program, which again, breaks referential transparency (because evaluation order shouldn't matter).
So for a restricted subset of IO actions, you can sensibly define Functor, Applicative and Monad on a stream type to work in a lazy way, but doing so in the IO Monad in general is a minefield and often just plain incorrect. Instead you want a specialised streaming type, and indeed Conduit defines Functor, Applicative and Monad on a lot of it's types so you can still use all your favourite functions.
I'm fairly new to Haskell and have been trying to find a way to pass multiple IO-tainted values to a function to deal with a C library. Most people seem to use the <- operator inside a do block, like this:
g x y = x ++ y
interactiveConcat1 = do {x <- getLine;
y <- getLine;
putStrLn (g x y);
return ()}
This makes me feel like I'm doing C, except emacs can't auto-indent. I tried to write this in a more Lispy style:
interactiveConcat2 = getLine >>= (\x ->
getLine >>= (\y ->
putStrLn (g x y) >>
return () ))
That looks like a mess, and has a string of closed parentheses you have to count at the end (except again, emacs can reliably assist with this task in Lisp, but not in Haskell). Yet another way is to say
import Control.Applicative
interactiveConcat3 = return g <*> getLine <*> getLine >>= putStrLn
which looks pretty neat but isn't part of the base language.
Is there any less laborious notation for peeling values out of the IO taint boxes? Perhaps there is a cleaner way using a lift* or fmap? I hope it isn't too subjective to ask what is considered "idiomatic"?
Also, any tips for making emacs cooperate better than (Haskell Ind) mode would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
John
Edit: I stumbled across https://wiki.haskell.org/Do_notation_considered_harmful and realized that the nested parentheses in the lambda chain I wrote is not necessary. However it seems the community (and ghc implementors) have embraced the Applicative-inspired style using , <*>, etc, which seems to make the code easier to read in spite of the headaches with figuring out operator precedence.
Note: This post is written in literate Haskell. You can save it as Main.lhs and try it in your GHCi.
A short remark first: you can get rid of the semicolons and the braces in do. Also, putStrLn has type IO (), so you don't need return ():
interactiveConcat1 = do
x <- getLine
y <- getLine
putStrLn $ g x y
We're going to work with IO, so importing Control.Applicative or Control.Monad will come in handy:
> module Main where
> import Control.Applicative
> -- Repeat your definition for completeness
> g :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
> g = (++)
You're looking for something like this:
> interactiveConcat :: IO ()
> interactiveConcat = magic g getLine getLine >>= putStrLn
What type does magic need? It returns a IO String, takes a function that returns an String and takes usual Strings, and takes two IO Strings:
magic :: (String -> String -> String) -> IO String -> IO String -> IO String
We can probably generalize this type to
> magic :: (a -> b -> c) -> IO a -> IO b -> IO c
A quick hoogle search reveals that there are already two functions with almost that type: liftA2 from Control.Applicative and liftM2 from Control.Monad. They're defined for every Applicative and – in case of liftM2 – Monad. Since IO is an instance of both, you can choose either one:
> magic = liftA2
If you use GHC 7.10 or higher, you can also use <$> and <*> without import and write interactiveConcat as
interactiveConcat = g <$> getLine <*> getLine >>= putStrLn
For completeness, lets add a main so that we can easily check this functionality via runhaskell Main.lhs:
> main :: IO ()
> main = interactiveConcat
A simple check shows that it works as intended:
$ echo "Hello\nWorld" | runhaskell Main.lhs
HelloWorld
References
Applicative in the Typeclassopedia
The section "Some useful monadic functions" of LYAH's chapter "For a Few Monads More".
You can use liftA2 (or liftM2 from Control.Monad):
import Control.Applicative (liftA2)
liftA2 g getLine getLine >>= putStrLn
I am using the Haskeline package and I want to get three strings in a row from the command line before I do anything and I have come up with what seems to be a neat solution to me. But I am sure that there might be a better way to do it. I am looking for best practices while using the Haskeline package. Please evaluate the merits of the following example code:
import System.Console.Haskeline
import Control.Monad.Trans
import Control.Monad.Maybe
import Data.Maybe
import Control.Monad
main :: IO ()
main = runInputT defaultSettings (runMaybeT getStrings) >>= print
getStrings :: MaybeT (InputT IO) (String, String, String)
getStrings = do
mone <- lift $ getInputLine "food> "
notNothing mone
mtwo <- lift $ getInputLine "drink> "
notNothing mtwo
mthree <- lift $ getInputLine "dessert> "
notNothing mthree
return (fromJust mone, fromJust mtwo, fromJust mthree)
where
notNothing a = guard (a /= Nothing)
As you can see it accomplishes the task of early termination but it looks a bit yucky still. I'm thinking of trying to convert the notNothing's and the getInputLine's into a single line like:
mone <- notNothing =<< lift $ getInputLine "food> " -- does not type check
Which I think does not look that bad. I think that is pretty clear and concise (though it does not type check so I will have to write a version that does).
However, this is the best I have come up with and my question finally is: How would you go about improving this code to be neater and more readily readable? Am I even on the right track?
Edit: If your guard is something other than 'a /= Nothing' then a nice helper function that I just discovered is:
myGuard s = guard (someConditionFunc s) >> s
Because then you can write (as luqui suggested):
mone <- myGuard =<< (lift $ getInputLine prompt)
Which is pretty cool. But if you are matching against only Nothing then TomMD's answer is better.
Why not just leverage the fact that fail _ = Nothing for the Maybe monad?
mthree <- lift $ getInputLine "dessert> "
notNothing mthree
becomes
Just mthree <- lift $ getInputLine "dessert> "
How about a helper function?
inputLine :: String -> MaybeT (InputT IO) String
inputLine prompt = do
m <- lift $ getInputLine prompt
case m of
Just x -> return x
Nothing -> mzero
This can be shortened considerably using various tricks, but I wanted to be clear. Now you can just forget that getInputLine can fail, MaybeT takes care of that for you.
I am trying to parse an input stream where the first line tells me how many lines of data there are. I'm ending up with the following code, and it works, but I think there is a better way. Is there?
main = do
numCases <- getLine
proc $ read numCases
proc :: Integer -> IO ()
proc numCases
| numCases == 0 = return ()
| otherwise = do
str <- getLine
putStrLn $ findNextPalin str
proc (numCases - 1)
Note: The code solves the Sphere problem https://www.spoj.pl/problems/PALIN/ but I didn't think posting the rest of the code would impact the discussion of what to do here.
Use replicate and sequence_.
main, proc :: IO ()
main = do numCases <- getLine
sequence_ $ replicate (read numCases) proc
proc = do str <- getLine
putStrLn $ findNextPalin str
sequence_ takes a list of actions, and runs them one after the other, in sequence. (Then it throws away the results; if you were interested in the return values from the actions, you'd use sequence.)
replicate n x makes a list of length n, with each element being x. So we use it to build up the list of actions we want to run.
Dave Hinton's answer is correct, but as an aside here's another way of writing the same code:
import Control.Applicative
main = (sequence_ . proc) =<< (read <$> getLine)
proc x = replicate x (putStrLn =<< (findNextPalin <$> getLine))
Just to remind everyone that do blocks aren't necessary! Note that in the above, both =<< and <$> stand in for plain old function application. If you ignore both operators, the code reads exactly the same as similarly-structured pure functions would. I've added some gratuitous parentheses to make things more explicit.
Their purpose is that <$> applies a regular function inside a monad, while =<< does the same but then compresses an extra layer of the monad (e.g., turning IO (IO a) into IO a).
The interesting part of looking at code this way is that you can mostly ignore where the monads and such are; typically there's very few ways to place the "function application" operators to make the types work.
You (and the previous answers) should work harder to divide up the IO from the logic. Make main gather the input and separately (purely, if possible) do the work.
import Control.Monad -- not needed, but cleans some things up
main = do
numCases <- liftM read getLine
lines <- replicateM numCases getLine
let results = map findNextPalin lines
mapM_ putStrLn results
When solving SPOJ problems in Haskell, try not to use standard strings at all. ByteStrings are much faster, and I've found you can usually ignore the number of tests and just run a map over everything but the first line, like so:
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -O2 -optc-O2 #-}
import qualified Data.ByteString.Lazy.Char8 as BS
main :: IO ()
main = do
(l:ls) <- BS.lines `fmap` BS.getContents
mapM_ findNextPalin ls
The SPOJ page in the Haskell Wiki gives a lot of good pointers about how to read Ints from ByteStrings, as well as how to deal with a large quantities of input. It'll help you avoid exceeding the time limit.