I have to split the given list into non-empty sub-lists each of which
is either in strictly ascending order, in strictly descending order, or contains all equal elements. For example, [5,6,7,2,1,1,1] should become [[5,6,7],[2,1],[1,1]].
Here is what I have done so far:
splitSort :: Ord a => [a] -> [[a]]
splitSort ns = foldr k [] ns
where
k a [] = [[a]]
k a ns'#(y:ys) | a <= head y = (a:y):ys
| otherwise = [a]:ns'
I think I am quite close but when I use it it outputs [[5,6,7],[2],[1,1,1]] instead of [[5,6,7],[2,1],[1,1]].
Here is a kinda ugly solution, with three reverse in one line of code :).
addElement :: Ord a => a -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
addElement a [] = [[a]]
addElement a (x:xss) = case x of
(x1:x2:xs)
| any (check a x1 x2) [(==),(<),(>)] -> (a:x1:x2:xs):xss
| otherwise -> [a]:(x:xss)
_ -> (a:x):xss
where
check x1 x2 x3 op = (x1 `op` x2) && (x2 `op` x3)
splitSort xs = reverse $ map reverse $ foldr addElement [] (reverse xs)
You can possibly get rid of all the reversing if you modify addElement a bit.
EDIT:
Here is a less reversing version (even works for infinite lists):
splitSort2 [] = []
splitSort2 [x] = [[x]]
splitSort2 (x:y:xys) = (x:y:map snd here):splitSort2 (map snd later)
where
(here,later) = span ((==c) . uncurry compare) (zip (y:xys) xys)
c = compare x y
EDIT 2:
Finally, here is a solution based on a single decorating/undecorating, that avoids comparing any two values more than once and is probably a lot more efficient.
splitSort xs = go (decorate xs) where
decorate :: Ord a => [a] -> [(Ordering,a)]
decorate xs = zipWith (\x y -> (compare x y,y)) (undefined:xs) xs
go :: [(Ordering,a)] -> [[a]]
go ((_,x):(c,y):xys) = let (here, later) = span ((==c) . fst) xys in
(x : y : map snd here) : go later
go xs = map (return . snd) xs -- Deal with both base cases
Every ordered prefix is already in some order, and you don't care in which, as long as it is the longest:
import Data.List (group, unfoldr)
foo :: Ord t => [t] -> [[t]]
foo = unfoldr f
where
f [] = Nothing
f [x] = Just ([x], [])
f xs = Just $ splitAt (length g + 1) xs
where
(g : _) = group $ zipWith compare xs (tail xs)
length can be fused in to make the splitAt count in unary essentially, and thus not be as strict (unnecessarily, as Jonas Duregård rightly commented):
....
f xs = Just $ foldr c z g xs
where
(g : _) = group $ zipWith compare xs (tail xs)
c _ r (x:xs) = let { (a,b) = r xs } in (x:a, b)
z (x:xs) = ([x], xs)
The initial try turned out to be lengthy probably inefficient but i will keep it striked for the sake of integrity with the comments. You best just skip to the end for the answer.
Nice question... but turns out to be a little hard candy. My approach is in segments, those of each i will explain;
import Data.List (groupBy)
splitSort :: Ord a => [a] -> [[a]]
splitSort (x:xs) = (:) <$> (x :) . head <*> tail $ interim
where
pattern = zipWith compare <$> init <*> tail
tuples = zipWith (,) <$> tail <*> pattern
groups = groupBy (\p c -> snd p == snd c) . tuples $ (x:xs)
interim = groups >>= return . map fst
*Main> splitSort [5,6,7,2,1,1,1]
[[5,6,7],[2,1],[1,1]]
The pattern function (zipWith compare <$> init <*> tail) is of type Ord a => [a] -> [Ordering] when fed with [5,6,7,2,1,1,1] compares the init of it by the tail of it by zipWith. So the result would be [LT,LT,GT,GT,EQ,EQ]. This is the pattern we need.
The tuples function will take the tail of our list and will tuple up it's elements with the corresponding elements from the result of pattern. So we will end up with something like [(6,LT),(7,LT),(2,GT),(1,GT),(1,EQ),(1,EQ)].
The groups function utilizes Data.List.groupBy over the second items of the tuples and generates the required sublists such as [[(6,LT),(7,LT)],[(2,GT),(1,GT)],[(1,EQ),(1,EQ)]]
Interim is where we monadically get rid of the Ordering type values and tuples. The result of interim is [[6,7],[2,1],[1,1]].
Finally at the main function body (:) <$> (x :) . head <*> tail $ interim appends the first item of our list (x) to the sublist at head (it has to be there whatever the case) and gloriously present the solution.
Edit: So investigating the [0,1,0,1] resulting [[0,1],[0],[1]] problem that #Jonas Duregård discovered, we can conclude that in the result there shall be no sub lists with a length of 1 except for the last one when singled out. I mean for an input like [0,1,0,1,0,1,0] the above code produces [[0,1],[0],[1],[0],[1],[0]] while it should [[0,1],[0,1],[0,1],[0]]. So I believe adding a squeeze function at the very last stage should correct the logic.
import Data.List (groupBy)
splitSort :: Ord a => [a] -> [[a]]
splitSort [] = []
splitSort [x] = [[x]]
splitSort (x:xs) = squeeze $ (:) <$> (x :) . head <*> tail $ interim
where
pattern = zipWith compare <$> init <*> tail
tuples = zipWith (,) <$> tail <*> pattern
groups = groupBy (\p c -> snd p == snd c) $ tuples (x:xs)
interim = groups >>= return . map fst
squeeze [] = []
squeeze [y] = [y]
squeeze ([n]:[m]:ys) = [n,m] : squeeze ys
squeeze ([n]:(m1:m2:ms):ys) | compare n m1 == compare m1 m2 = (n:m1:m2:ms) : squeeze ys
| otherwise = [n] : (m1:m2:ms) : squeeze ys
squeeze (y:ys) = y : squeeze s
*Main> splitSort [0,1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0]
[[0,1],[0,1],[0,1],[0]]
*Main> splitSort [5,6,7,2,1,1,1]
[[5,6,7],[2,1],[1,1]]
*Main> splitSort [0,0,1,0,-1]
[[0,0],[1,0,-1]]
Yes; as you will also agree the code has turned out to be a little too lengthy and possibly not so efficient.
The Answer: I have to trust the back of my head when it keeps telling me i am not on the right track. Sometimes, like in this case, the problem reduces down to a single if then else instruction, much simpler than i had initially anticipated.
runner :: Ord a => Maybe Ordering -> [a] -> [[a]]
runner _ [] = []
runner _ [p] = [[p]]
runner mo (p:q:rs) = let mo' = Just (compare p q)
(s:ss) = runner mo' (q:rs)
in if mo == mo' || mo == Nothing then (p:s):ss
else [p] : runner Nothing (q:rs)
splitSort :: Ord a => [a] -> [[a]]
splitSort = runner Nothing
My test cases
*Main> splitSort [0,1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0]
[[0,1],[0,1],[0,1],[0]]
*Main> splitSort [5,6,7,2,1,1,1]
[[5,6,7],[2,1],[1,1]]
*Main> splitSort [0,0,1,0,-1]
[[0,0],[1,0,-1]]
*Main> splitSort [1,2,3,5,2,0,0,0,-1,-1,0]
[[1,2,3,5],[2,0],[0,0],[-1,-1],[0]]
For this solution I am making the assumption that you want the "longest rally". By that I mean:
splitSort [0, 1, 0, 1] = [[0,1], [0,1]] -- This is OK
splitSort [0, 1, 0, 1] = [[0,1], [0], [1]] -- This is not OK despite of fitting your requirements
Essentially, There are two pieces:
Firstly, split the list in two parts: (a, b). Part a is the longest rally considering the order of the two first elements. Part b is the rest of the list.
Secondly, apply splitSort on b and put all list into one list of list
Taking the longest rally is surprisingly messy but straight. Given the list x:y:xs: by construction x and y will belong to the rally. The elements in xs belonging to the rally depends on whether or not they follow the Ordering of x and y. To check this point, you zip every element with the Ordering is has compared against its previous element and split the list when the Ordering changes. (edge cases are pattern matched) In code:
import Data.List
import Data.Function
-- This function split the list in two (Longest Rally, Rest of the list)
splitSort' :: Ord a => [a] -> ([a], [a])
splitSort' [] = ([], [])
splitSort' (x:[]) = ([x],[])
splitSort' l#(x:y:xs) = case span ( (o ==) . snd) $ zip (y:xs) relativeOrder of
(f, s) -> (x:map fst f, map fst s)
where relativeOrder = zipWith compare (y:xs) l
o = compare y x
-- This applies the previous recursively
splitSort :: Ord a => [a] -> [[a]]
splitSort [] = []
splitSort (x:[]) = [[x]]
splitSort (x:y:[]) = [[x,y]]
splitSort l#(x:y:xs) = fst sl:splitSort (snd sl)
where sl = splitSort' l
I wonder whether this question can be solve using foldr if splits and groups a list from
[5,6,7,2,1,1,1]
to
[[5,6,7],[2,1],[1,1]]
instead of
[[5,6,7],[2],[1,1,1]]
The problem is in each step of foldr, we only know the sorted sub-list on right-hand side and a number to be processed. e.g. after read [1,1] of [5,6,7,2,1,1,1] and next step, we have
1, [[1, 1]]
There are no enough information to determine whether make a new group of 1 or group 1 to [[1,1]]
And therefore, we may construct required sorted sub-lists by reading elements of list from left to right, and why foldl to be used. Here is a solution without optimization of speed.
EDIT:
As the problems that #Jonas Duregård pointed out on comment, some redundant code has been removed, and beware that it is not a efficient solution.
splitSort::Ord a=>[a]->[[a]]
splitSort numList = foldl step [] numList
where step [] n = [[n]]
step sublists n = groupSublist (init sublists) (last sublists) n
groupSublist sublists [n1] n2 = sublists ++ [[n1, n2]]
groupSublist sublists sortedList#(n1:n2:ns) n3
| isEqual n1 n2 = groupIf (isEqual n2 n3) sortedList n3
| isAscen n1 n2 = groupIfNull isAscen sortedList n3
| isDesce n1 n2 = groupIfNull isDesce sortedList n3
| otherwise = mkNewGroup sortedList n3
where groupIfNull check sublist#(n1:n2:ns) n3
| null ns = groupIf (check n2 n3) [n1, n2] n3
| otherwise = groupIf (check (last ns) n3) sublist n3
groupIf isGroup | isGroup = addToGroup
| otherwise = mkNewGroup
addToGroup gp n = sublists ++ [(gp ++ [n])]
mkNewGroup gp n = sublists ++ [gp] ++ [[n]]
isEqual x y = x == y
isAscen x y = x < y
isDesce x y = x > y
My initial thought looks like:
ordruns :: Ord a => [a] -> [[a]]
ordruns = foldr extend []
where
extend a [ ] = [ [a] ]
extend a ( [b] : runs) = [a,b] : runs
extend a (run#(b:c:etc) : runs)
| compare a b == compare b c = (a:run) : runs
| otherwise = [a] : run : runs
This eagerly fills from the right, while maintaining the Ordering in all neighbouring pairs for each sublist. Thus only the first result can end up with a single item in it.
The thought process is this: an Ordering describes the three types of subsequence we're looking for: ascending LT, equal EQ or descending GT. Keeping it the same every time we add on another item means it will match throughout the subsequence. So we know we need to start a new run whenever the Ordering does not match. Furthermore, it's impossible to compare 0 or 1 items, so every run we create contains at least 1 and if there's only 1 we do add the new item.
We could add more rules, such as a preference for filling left or right. A reasonable optimization is to store the ordering for a sequence instead of comparing the leading two items twice per item. And we could also use more expressive types. I also think this version is inefficient (and inapplicable to infinite lists) due to the way it collects from the right; that was mostly so I could use cons (:) to build the lists.
Second thought: I could collect the lists from the left using plain recursion.
ordruns :: Ord a => [a] -> [[a]]
ordruns [] = []
ordruns [a] = [[a]]
ordruns (a1:a2:as) = run:runs
where
runs = ordruns rest
order = compare a1 a2
run = a1:a2:runcontinuation
(runcontinuation, rest) = collectrun a2 order as
collectrun _ _ [] = ([], [])
collectrun last order (a:as)
| order == compare last a =
let (more,rest) = collectrun a order as
in (a:more, rest)
| otherwise = ([], a:as)
More exercises. What if we build the list of comparisons just once, for use in grouping?
import Data.List
ordruns3 [] = []
ordruns3 [a] = [[a]]
ordruns3 xs = unfoldr collectrun marked
where
pairOrder = zipWith compare xs (tail xs)
marked = zip (head pairOrder : pairOrder) xs
collectrun [] = Nothing
collectrun ((o,x):xs) = Just (x:map snd markedgroup, rest)
where (markedgroup, rest) = span ((o==).fst) xs
And then there's the part where there's a groupBy :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [[a]] but no groupOn :: Eq b => (a -> b) -> [a] -> [[a]]. We can use a wrapper type to handle that.
import Data.List
data Grouped t = Grouped Ordering t
instance Eq (Grouped t) where
(Grouped o1 _) == (Grouped o2 _) = o1 == o2
ordruns4 [] = []
ordruns4 [a] = [[a]]
ordruns4 xs = unmarked
where
pairOrder = zipWith compare xs (tail xs)
marked = group $ zipWith Grouped (head pairOrder : pairOrder) xs
unmarked = map (map (\(Grouped _ t) -> t)) marked
Of course, the wrapper type's test can be converted into a function to use groupBy instead:
import Data.List
ordruns5 [] = []
ordruns5 [a] = [[a]]
ordruns5 xs = map (map snd) marked
where
pairOrder = zipWith compare xs (tail xs)
marked = groupBy (\a b -> fst a == fst b) $
zip (head pairOrder : pairOrder) xs
These marking versions arrive at the same decoration concept Jonas Duregård applied.
I'm fairly new to Haskell and trying to figure out how I would write a Function to do this and after combing Google for a few hours I'm at a loss on how to do it.
Given the following two lists in Haskell
[(500,False),(400,False),(952,True),(5,False),(42,False)]
[0,2,3]
How would I change the Boolean of the First list at each location given by the second list to a Value of True for an Output of
[(500,True),(400,False),(952,True),(5,True),(42,False)]
This is how I would do it (assumes the list of indexes to replace is sorted).
First we add an index list alongside the list of indexes to replace and the original list.
Then we recurse down the list and when we hit the next index to replace we replace the boolean and recurse on the tail of both all three lists. If this is not an index to
replace we recurse on the entire replacement index list and the tail of the other two lists.
setTrue :: [Int] -> [(a, Bool)] -> [(a, Bool)]
setTrue is xs = go is xs [0..] -- "Index" the list with a list starting at 0.
where
go [] xs _ = xs -- If we're out of indexes to replace return remaining list.
go _ [] _ = [] -- If we run out of list return the empty list.
go indexes#(i:is) (x:xs) (cur:cs)
| i == cur = (fst x, True) : go is xs cs -- At the next index to replace.
| otherwise = x : go indexes xs cs -- Otherwise, keep the current element.
This is basically the same as Andrew's approach, but it doesn't use an additional index list, and is a little bit more inspired by the traditional map. Note that unlike map, the provided function must be a -> a and cannot be a -> b.
restrictedMap :: (a -> a) -> [Int] -> [a] -> [a]
restrictedMap f is xs = go f is xs 0
where
go f [] xs _ = xs
go f _ [] _ = []
go f ind#(i:is) (x:xs) n
| i == n = f x : go f is xs (n+1)
| otherwise = x : go f ind xs (n+1)
setTrue = restrictedMap (\(x,_) -> (x, True))
Straightforward translation from the description will be:
setIndexTrue f a = [(x, p || i `elem` f) | (i, (x,p)) <- zip [0..] a]
Or using the fantastic lens library:
setTrue :: [(a,Bool)] -> Int -> [(a,Bool)]
setTrue xs i = xs & ix i . _2 .~ True
setTrues :: [(a,Bool)] -> [Int] -> [(a,Bool)]
setTrues = foldl setTrue
Since the approach I would use is not listed:
setTrue spots values = let
pattern n = replicate n False ++ [True] ++ Repeat False
toSet = foldl1 (zipWith (||)) $ map pattern spots
in zipWith (\s (v,o) -> (v, o || s)) toSet values
I want to create a simple (involving sets and lists) function that can do the following, and i'm not sure where to start.
split:: [(a,b)] -> ([a],[b])
Let's take it step by step. The two cases for the function are:
split [] = ???
split ((a,b):ps) = ???
One case is easy enough.
split [] = ([], [])
For the other one, we have to use the function recursively, someway
split ((a,b):ps) = ???? where
(as, bs) = split ps
I think it's easy to see that the solution is
split ((a,b):ps) = (a:as, b:bs) where
(as, bs) = split ps
In addition to Guido's solution, there is more than one way to do it in haskell.
Please take a look at fst and snd, which takes the first / second element out of a pair, respectively.
GHCi> :t fst
fst :: (a, b) -> a
GHCi> :t snd
snd :: (a, b) -> b
You should be familiar with map if you are playing with functional programming languages, which takes a function and a list, applies the function on every element of that list, and gives you all the results in another list:
GHCi> :t map
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
Given a list of pairs, you want two lists, one contains all first elements in order, and the other contains all second elements:
GHCi> let split xs = (map fst xs, map snd xs)
GHCi> split [(1,2),(3,4),(5,6)]
([1,3,5],[2,4,6])
GHCi>
One step further, as #jozefg has pointed out in the comment, that this method is not efficient as #Guido 's one, but we can make some changes to improve it (which is exactly what #Guido 's solution):
Now it's time to take a look at how map is implemented here
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
map _ [] = []
map f (x:xs) = f x : map f xs
so we can try to change our split a little:
we still need the base case, (i.e. what if xs is empty):
split [] = ([], [])
split ls = (map fst ls, map snd ls) -- attention!
and we break the list into head and tail, just like map:
split (x:xs) = (fst x: map fst xs, snd x: map snd xs)
Now we can do a pattern matching, (a,b) = x, so we don't have to call two individual functions to break a pair into two:
split (x:xs) = (a: map fst xs, b: map snd xs)
where (a,b) = x
Compare the code here with the line I commented "attention!", have you realized that if we know the result of (map fst xs, map snd xs), we can simply reuse that result to speed up. Luckily, we already have split ls = (map fst ls, map snd ls)!
Using this fact, we finally come up with this version:
split [] = ([], [])
split (x:xs) = (a:as , b:bs)
where (a,b) = x
(as,bs) = split xs
So there are essentially the same! (but as you can see, the last version we have is more efficient.)
I am new to Haskell.
I am trying to write a program which given a list as an input replicates each element of list k times, where k = position of element in list.
e.g. replic[5,6,7] gives [[5],[6,6],[7,7,7]].
Another condition is solution has to use map function.
Till now code I have written is :
replic [] = []
replic (x:xs) = map (replicate 2 ) [x] ++ replic xs
This replicates every element twice as replicate has input parameter 2.
What I need is replicate function should be given input as 1 ,2 ,3 in consecutive calls. So I need a counter. How can I use the counter there or do anything else that will give me position of element?
Expanding on Satvik, the notation
[1..]
gives you an infinite list of numbers counting up.
The function zip associates allows you to merge two lists into a list of tuples
zip :: [a] -> [b] -> [(a,b)]
for example
> zip [1..] [5,6,7]
[(1,5),(2,6),(3,7)]
this code associates each value in the list with its position in the list
now
replicate :: Int -> a -> [a]
repeats a value an arbitrary number of times. Given these two components, we can design a simple function
replic xs = map (\(a,b) -> replicate a b) (zip [1..] xs)
which I would write pointfree as
replic :: [a] -> [[a]]
replic = map (uncurry replicate) . zip [1..]
this does exactly what you want
> replic [5,6,7]
[[5],[6,6],[7,7,7]]
There are many ways of doing this
Here is a solution similar to what you tried to do. zipping the list with list [1..] gives you the counter you wanted.
replic = repl . zip [1..]
repl [] = []
repl ((x,y):xs) = (replicate x y) : (repl xs)
Another solution using just map
replic = map f . zip [1..]
where
f (c,l) = replicate c l
If you don't like idea of using zip you can also use mapAccumL
import Data.List
replic = snd . mapAccumL f 1
where
f a v = (a+1,replicate a v)
Usually you would write:
replic = zipWith replicate [1..]
Now you can write your own zipWith yourself using map:
zipWith' f xs ys = map (uncurry f) $ zip xs ys
Note that you don't necessarily need an index, e.g.
import Data.List
replic xs = reverse $ transpose (tail $ inits $ reverse xs)
You can do something like this with map when using explicit recursion:
replic = f . map return where
f [] = []
f (x:xs) = x : f (map (\(x:xs) -> x:x:xs) xs)