I am writing code in Haskell that acts like take, except it takes elements from the end of a list.
snatch :: (Num a, Ord a) => a -> [b] -> [b]
snatch n _
| n <= 0 = []
snatch _ [] = []
snatch n x = reverse (take n (reverse x))
The problem is with this line,
snatch n x = reverse (take n (reverse x))
It basically states that for take n, n has to be an Int. However, a is a Num type. If I change the definition of the function to this,
snatch :: Int -> [b] -> [b]
Then it works fine. I've tried reading the docs and searching the internet. But I can't find out why. Int is apparently a class of Num. So shouldn't this work? Why doesn't it work?
take, as the name suggests, takes n elements. Going by your logic, if Num was the only criteria, then your function should be able to take, say, 5.4343 elements from the list. Only, that doesn't make sense.
Therefore, in this case, even if Int is an instance of Num, the properties required are those specific to Int.
Related
I am writing a function that checks if a list containts an element at least N times
atLeastNtimes :: Eq a => Int -> a -> [a] -> Bool
atLeastNtimes n a l = n <= (sum [1 | x <- l, (x == a)])
It is working fine with finite list, but I am struggling to make this work for infinite lists, for example:
atLeastNtimes 100 'a' (repeat 'a')
Here are a few possible alternative approaches:
Define your function recursively, without ever trying to inspect the full list but only the needed prefix.
Start by filtering the list so to keep only the elements you want to count. Then, use drop (n-1) xs to drop n-1 elements (if any), and check if the resulting list is not empty (use null). Note that dropping more elements than those in the list is not an error, and it will result in an empty list.
We can separate the problem into two parts. The first just checks whether a list is long enough.
-- | Check whether the length of a list
-- is at least a certain value.
lengthAtLeast :: Int -> [a] -> Bool
lengthAtLeast n0 xs0 = foldr go stop xs0 n0
where
stop n = n <= 0
go _ _ n | n <= 0 = True
go _ r n = r (n - 1)
The second is filtering, which filter does for you. So
atLeastNtimes :: Eq a => Int -> a -> [a] -> Bool
atLeastNtimes n a = lengthAtLeast n . filter (a ==)
I want to shift a list by n elements to the left. Why do I get an error if I want to change the order from (x:xs) to (xs:x)?
shift n list#(x:xs)
| n == 0 = list
| otherwise = shift (n-1) (xs:x) -- (xs:x) error
Occurs check: cannot construct the infinite type: a ~ [a]
I don't know how to interpret this error. Maybe someone of you can help me.
Thank you very much.
EDIT: As it was already mentioned, the correct term to use is rotate and not shift
Why do I get an error if I want to change the order from (x:xs) to (xs:x)?
Because the types do not match. The type of (:) is (:) :: a -> [a] -> [a]. It thus expects an element x (type a) and a list with the rest of the elements (type [a]). You can not just use (:) in the opposite way.
You can use the (++) :: [a] -> [a] -> [a] to concatenate two lists together. We can thus rotate to the left by dropping n elements from the list and concatenating this with the first n elements of the list to this.
rotateL :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
rotateL 0 list = list
rotateL n list | n < 0 = error "Negative index"
| otherwise = drop n list ++ take n list
or we can, like #YannVernier says, use splitAt :: Int -> [a] -> ([a], [a]):
rotateL :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
rotateL 0 list = list
rotateL n list | n < 0 = error "Negative index"
| otherwise = lb ++ la
where (la, lb) = splitAt n list
or without mentioning the list parameter:
rotateL :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
rotateL 0 = id
rotateL n | n < 0 = error "Negative index"
| otherwise= uncurry (flip (++)) . splitAt n
Note: based on how your attempt, I think you actually want to rotate the list to the left, not shift it, since that would mean that you simply drop the first n elements, and fill it perhaps with some extra value.
Note: in case n is larger than the length of the list, then the rotateL will act as an identity function. That might not be the desired behavior. I leave it as an exercise to fix this edge-case.
It's not the names that define the types, but the positions in a function call, or type declarations. If we check the type of :, we see that the second argument is a list:
Prelude> :t (:)
(:) :: a -> [a] -> [a]
So pattern matching on this constructor will always give you the head and tail, not the init and last. Thus, using both x:xs and xs:x, you've declared that a and [a] are the same type, and the compiler balks. You could perform the append using e.g. xs ++ [x].
Data.Sequence has a type that does support both head and last patterns in the operators :<| and |>:.
In general, (singly linked) lists only make the head element efficiently accessible; operations like appending or even checking lengths are costly. When all you need is a stream or stack, they're great, but a long distance reordering operation like the rotation is better handled by a rope or circular buffer type. Either is available in Haskell, in e.g. container's Seq or ring-buffer's RingBuffer. Data.ByteString.Lazy and Data.Text.Lazy are also rope types.
I want to add two positive numbers together without the use of any basic operators like + for addition. I've already worked my way around that (in the add''' function) (i think) may not be efficient but thats not the point right now. I am getting lots of type errors however which i have no idea how to handle, and is very confusing for me as it works on paper and i've come from python.
add 1245 7489
--add :: Int -> Int -> Int
add x y = add'' (zip (add' x) (add' y))
where
add' :: Int -> [Int]
add' 0 = []
add' x = add' (x `div` 10) ++ [x `mod` 10]
conversion [1,2,4,5] [7,4,8,9] then zipping them together [(1,7),(2,4)....]
add'' :: [(Int,Int)] -> [Int]
add'' (x:xs) = [(add''' (head x) (last x))] ++ add'' xs
summary [8,6,...] what happens when the sum reaches 10 is not implemented yet.
where
--add''' :: (Int,Int) -> Int
add''' x y = last (take (succ y) $ iterate succ x)
adding two numbers together
You can't use head and last on tuples. ...Frankly, you should never use these functions at all because they're unsafe (partial), but they can be used on lists. In Haskell, lists are something completely different from tuples.To get at the elements of a tuple, use pattern matching.
add'' ((x,y):xs) = [add''' x y] ++ add'' xs
(To get at the elements of a list, pattern matching is very often the best too.) Alternatively, you can use fst and snd, these do on 2-tuples what you apparently thought head and last would.
Be clear which functions are curried and which aren't. The way you write add''', its type signature is actually Int -> Int -> Int. That is equivalent to (Int, Int) -> Int, but it's still not the same to the type checker.
The result of add'' is [Int], but you're trying to use this as Int in the result of add. That can't work, you need to translate from digits to numbers again.
add'' doesn't handle the empty case. That's fixed easily enough, but better than doing this recursion at all is using standard combinators. In your case, this is only supposed to work element-wise anyway, so you can simply use map – or do that right in the zipping, with zipWith. Then you also don't need to unwrap any tuples at all, because it works with a curried function.
A clean version of your attempt:
add :: Int -> Int -> Int
add x y = fromDigits 0 $ zipWith addDigits (toDigits x []) (toDigits y [])
where
fromDigits :: Int -> [Int] -> Int
fromDigits acc [] = acc
fromDigits acc (d:ds)
= acc `seq` -- strict accumulator, to avoid thunking.
fromDigits (acc*10 + d) ds
toDigits :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int] -- yield difference-list,
toDigits 0 = id -- because we're consing
toDigits x = toDigits (x`div`10) . ((x`mod`10):) -- left-associatively.
addDigits :: Int -> Int -> Int
addDigits x y = last $ take (succ x) $ iterate succ y
Note that zipWith requires both numbers to have the same number of digits (as does zip).
Also, yes, I'm using + in fromDigits, making this whole thing pretty futile. In practice you would of course use binary, then it's just a bitwise-or and the multiplication is a left shift. What you actually don't need to do here is take special care with 10-overflow, but that's just because of the cheat of using + in fromDigits.
By head and last you meant fst and snd, but you don't need them at all, the components are right there:
add'' :: [(Int, Int)] -> [Int]
add'' (pair : pairs) = [(add''' pair)] ++ add'' pairs
where
add''' :: (Int, Int) -> Int
add''' (x, y) = last (take (succ y) $ iterate succ x)
= iterate succ x !! y
= [x ..] !! y -- nice idea for an exercise!
Now the big question that remains is what to do with those big scary 10-and-over numbers. Here's a thought: produce a digit and a carry with
= ([(d, 0) | d <- [x .. 9]] ++ [(d, 1) | d <- [0 ..]]) !! y
Can you take it from here? Hint: reverse order of digits is your friend!
the official answer my professor gave
works on positive and negative numbers too, but still requires the two numbers to be the same length
add 0 y = y
add x y
| x>0 = add (pred x) (succ y)
| otherwise = add (succ x) (pred y)
The other answers cover what's gone wrong in your approach. From a theoretical perspective, though, they each have some drawbacks: they either land you at [Int] and not Int, or they use (+) in the conversion back from [Int] to Int. What's more, they use mod and div as subroutines in defining addition -- which would be okay, but then to be theoretically sound you would want to make sure that you could define mod and div themselves without using addition as a subroutine!
Since you say efficiency is no concern, I propose using the usual definition of addition that mathematicians give, namely: 0 + y = y, and (x+1) + y = (x + y)+1. Here you should read +1 as a separate operation than addition, a more primitive one: the one that just increments a number. We spell it succ in Haskell (and its "inverse" is pred). With this theoretical definition in mind, the Haskell almost writes itself:
add :: Int -> Int -> Int
add 0 y = y
add x y = succ (add (pred x) y)
So: compared to other answers, we can take an Int and return an Int, and the only subroutines we use are ones that "feel" more primitive: succ, pred, and checking whether a number is zero or nonzero. (And we land at only three short lines of code... about a third as long as the shortest proposed alternative.) Of course the price we pay is very bad performance... try add (2^32) 0!
Like the other answers, this only works for positive numbers. When you are ready for handling negative numbers, we should chat again -- there's some fascinating mathematical tricks to pull.
selectMenu :: Int->IO()
selectMenu num
|(num==2)=convertBinToDecimal
convertBinToDecimal:: IO()
convertBinToDecimal= do
putStrLn("\n\tConvert Binary To Decimal\n")
putStrLn("----------------------------------------------------------\n")
putStrLn("Enter 5 binary numbers [,,] : ")
input<-getLine
let n=(read input)::Int
--putStrLn (show n)
let result = convertionTO binaryToDec n
putStrLn(show result)
this code seems fine.but there is an error.
Any solutions to fix this error?
Thank you
You're trying to use reverse on x, which is an Int (since it's the argument of binaryToDec, which you have given the type Int -> Int), but reverse has the type [a] -> [a], so it only works on lists.
This is basically what the compiler means when it says "cannot match expected type [a] with actual type Int in the first argument of reverse". It's a good idea to read the error messages carefully, they often provide good clues to what is wrong.
To fix this, you probably want to convert x to a list somehow, or change the function to take a list instead.
Like hammar said you cannot reverse Int. You need to convert your number to list somehow with :: Int -> [Int]
Here is some kludges to do that.
listToNum :: [Int] -> Int
listToNum = foldl1 ( (+) . (*10) )
numToList :: Int -> [Int]
numToList n | n <= 9 = [n]
| otherwise = numToList (n `div` 10) ++ [n `mod` 10]
And then you can use it like reverse $ numToList x instead of reverse x.
And just a note. Your selectmenu function did not matches all possible cases. What if num is not equal to 2?
The question is to compute the mode (the value that occurs most frequently) of a sorted list of integers.
[1,1,1,1,2,2,3,3] -> 1
[2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,8,8,8,8] -> 3 or 8
[3,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6] -> 3
Just use the Prelude library.
Are the functions filter, map, foldr in Prelude library?
Starting from the beginning.
You want to make a pass through a sequence and get the maximum frequency of an integer.
This sounds like a job for fold, as fold goes through a sequence aggregating a value along the way before giving you a final result.
foldl :: (a -> b -> a) -> a -> [b] -> a
The type of foldl is shown above. We can fill in some of that already (I find that helps me work out what types I need)
foldl :: (a -> Int -> a) -> a -> [Int] -> a
We need to fold something through that to get the value. We have to keep track of the current run and the current count
data BestRun = BestRun {
currentNum :: Int,
occurrences :: Int,
bestNum :: Int,
bestOccurrences :: Int
}
So now we can fill in a bit more:
foldl :: (BestRun -> Int -> BestRun) -> BestRun -> [Int] -> BestRun
So we want a function that does the aggregation
f :: BestRun -> Int -> BestRun
f (BestRun current occ best bestOcc) x
| x == current = (BestRun current (occ + 1) best bestOcc) -- continuing current sequence
| occ > bestOcc = (BestRun x 1 current occ) -- a new best sequence
| otherwise = (BestRun x 1 best bestOcc) -- new sequence
So now we can write the function using foldl as
bestRun :: [Int] -> Int
bestRun xs = bestNum (foldl f (BestRun 0 0 0 0) xs)
Are the functions filter, map, foldr in Prelude library?
Stop...Hoogle time!
Did you know Hoogle tells you which module a function is from? Hoolging map results in this information on the search page:
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
base Prelude, base Data.List
This means map is defined both in Prelude and in Data.List. You can hoogle the other functions and likewise see that they are indeed in Prelude.
You can also look at Haskell 2010 > Standard Prelude or the Prelude hackage docs.
So we are allowed to map, filter, and foldr, as well as anything else in Prelude. That's good. Let's start with Landei's idea, to turn the list into a list of lists.
groupSorted :: [a] -> [[a]]
groupSorted = undefined
-- groupSorted [1,1,2,2,3,3] ==> [[1,1],[2,2],[3,3]]
How are we supposed to implement groupSorted? Well, I dunno. Let's think about that later. Pretend that we've implemented it. How would we use it to get the correct solution? I'm assuming it is OK to choose just one correct solution, in the event that there is more than one (as in your second example).
mode :: [a] -> a
mode xs = doSomething (groupSorted xs)
where doSomething :: [[a]] -> a
doSomething = undefined
-- doSomething [[1],[2],[3,3]] ==> 3
-- mode [1,2,3,3] ==> 3
We need to do something after we use groupSorted on the list. But what? Well...we should find the longest list in the list of lists. Right? That would tell us which element appears the most in the original list. Then, once we find the longest sublist, we want to return the element inside it.
chooseLongest :: [[a]] -> a
chooseLongest xs = head $ chooseBy (\ys -> length ys) xs
where chooseBy :: ([a] -> b) -> [[a]] -> a
chooseBy f zs = undefined
-- chooseBy length [[1],[2],[3,3]] ==> [3,3]
-- chooseLongest [[1],[2],[3,3]] ==> 3
chooseLongest is the doSomething from before. The idea is that we want to choose the best list in the list of lists xs, and then take one of its elements (its head does just fine). I defined this by creating a more general function, chooseBy, which uses a function (in this case, we use the length function) to determine which choice is best.
Now we're at the "hard" part. Folds. chooseBy and groupSorted are both folds. I'll step you through groupSorted, and leave chooseBy up to you.
How to write your own folds
We know groupSorted is a fold, because it consumes the entire list, and produces something entirely new.
groupSorted :: [Int] -> [[Int]]
groupSorted xs = foldr step start xs
where step :: Int -> [[Int]] -> [[Int]]
step = undefined
start :: [[Int]]
start = undefined
We need to choose an initial value, start, and a stepping function step. We know their types because the type of foldr is (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b, and in this case, a is Int (because xs is [Int], which lines up with [a]), and the b we want to end up with is [[Int]].
Now remember, the stepping function will inspect the elements of the list, one by one, and use step to fuse them into an accumulator. I will call the currently inspected element v, and the accumulator acc.
step v acc = undefined
Remember, in theory, foldr works its way from right to left. So suppose we have the list [1,2,3,3]. Let's step through the algorithm, starting with the rightmost 3 and working our way left.
step 3 start = [[3]]
Whatever start is, when we combine it with 3 it should end up as [[3]]. We know this because if the original input list to groupSorted were simply [3], then we would want [[3]] as a result. However, it isn't just [3]. Let's pretend now that it's just [3,3]. [[3]] is the new accumulator, and the result we would want is [[3,3]].
step 3 [[3]] = [[3,3]]
What should we do with these inputs? Well, we should tack the 3 onto that inner list. But what about the next step?
step 2 [[3,3]] = [[2],[3,3]]
In this case, we should create a new list with 2 in it.
step 1 [[2],[3,3]] = [[1],[2],[3,3]]
Just like last time, in this case we should create a new list with 1 inside of it.
At this point we have traversed the entire input list, and have our final result. So how do we define step? There appear to be two cases, depending on a comparison between v and acc.
step v acc#((x:xs):xss) | v == x = (v:x:xs) : xss
| otherwise = [v] : acc
In one case, v is the same as the head of the first sublist in acc. In that case we prepend v to that same sublist. But if such is not the case, then we put v in its own list and prepend that to acc. So what should start be? Well, it needs special treatment; let's just use [] and add a special pattern match for it.
step elem [] = [[elem]]
start = []
And there you have it. All you have to do to write your on fold is determine what start and step are, and you're done. With some cleanup and eta reduction:
groupSorted = foldr step []
where step v [] = [[v]]
step v acc#((x:xs):xss)
| v == x = (v:x:xs) : xss
| otherwise = [v] : acc
This may not be the most efficient solution, but it works, and if you later need to optimize, you at least have an idea of how this function works.
I don't want to spoil all the fun, but a group function would be helpful. Unfortunately it is defined in Data.List, so you need to write your own. One possible way would be:
-- corrected version, see comments
grp [] = []
grp (x:xs) = let a = takeWhile (==x) xs
b = dropWhile (==x) xs
in (x : a) : grp b
E.g. grp [1,1,2,2,3,3,3] gives [[1,1],[2,2],[3,3,3]]. I think from there you can find the solution yourself.
I'd try the following:
mostFrequent = snd . foldl1 max . map mark . group
where
mark (a:as) = (1 + length as, a)
mark [] = error "cannot happen" -- because made by group
Note that it works for any finite list that contains orderable elements, not just integers.