I have a custom data type Movie = String Int [(String,Int)] (Movie Name Year [(Fan,Rating)] and want to do a couple of things:
First I want to make a function that averages the Ints from the list of tuples and just outputs that number. So far I have this incomplete function:
avgRating :: [DataType] -> Int
avgRating [(Movie a b [(fan,rating)])] = sumRatings / (length [<mylist>])
Here I need a function sumRatings to recurse through the list and sum all the ratings, but i'm not sure where to start.
The other issue I have here is that i'm not sure what to put where <mylist> is as I would normally give the list a variable name and then use it there, but since I have split the list up to define other variables I can't name it.
I hope that makes sense, thanks.
I'm guessing you have a data structure defined as
data Movie = Movie String Int [(String, Int)]
While this works, it can be a bit cumbersome to work with when you have that many fields. Instead, you can leverage type aliases and record syntax as
type Name = String
type Year = Int
type Rating = Int
data Movie = Movie
{ mName :: Name
, mYear :: Year
, mRatings :: [(Name, Rating)]
} deriving (Eq, Show)
Now things are a bit more explicit and easier to work with. The mName, mYear, and mRatings functions will take a Movie and return the corresponding field from it. Your Movie constructor still works in the same way too, so it won't break existing code.
To calculate the average of the ratings, you really want a function that extracts all the ratings for a movie and aggregates them into a list:
ratings :: Movie -> [Rating]
ratings mov = map snd $ mRatings mov
Then you just need an average function. This will be a bit different because you can't calculate the average of Ints directly, you'll have to convert to a floating point type:
average :: [Rating] -> Float -- Double precision isn't really needed here
average rs = fromIntegral (sum rs) / fromIntegral (length rs)
The fromIntegral function converts an Int to a Float (the actual type signature is a bit more general). Since both the sum of Ints is an Int and the length of a list is always an Int, you need to convert both.
Now you can just compose these into a single function:
movieAvgRating :: Movie -> Float
movieAvgRating = average . ratings
Now, if you need to calculate the average ratings for several movies, you can apply ratings to each of them, aggregate them into a single list of ratings, then call average on that. I would suggest looking at the concatMap function. You'll be wanting to make a function like
moviesAvgRating :: [Movie] -> Float
moviesAvgRating movs = average $ ???
To answer your second question first, you can bind to a variable and unpack it simultaneously using #:
avgRating [(Movie a b mylist#[(fan, rating)])] = …
Note also that if you’re not going to be using variables that you unpack, it’s Haskell convention to bind them to _:
avgRating [(Movie _ _ mylist#[(fan, rating)])] = …
This helps readers focus on what’s actually important.
I don’t want to just give you the solution to your recursion problem, because learning to write recursive functions is an important and rewarding part of Haskell programming. (If you really want me to spoil it for you, let me know in a comment.) The basic idea, however, is that you need to think about two different cases: a base case (where the recursion stops) and a recursive case. As an example, consider the built-in sum function:
sum :: Num a => [a] -> a
sum [] = 0
sum (x:xs) = x + sum xs
Here, the base case is when sum gets an empty list – it simply evaluates to 0. In the recursive case, we assume that sum can already produce the sum of a smaller list, and we extend it to cover a larger list.
If you’re having trouble with recursion in general, Harold Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman present a detailed discussion on the topic in Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, 2nd ed., The MIT Press (Cambridge), 1996, starting on p. 21 (§§1.1.7–1.2). It’s in Scheme, not Haskell, but the languages are sufficiently similar – at least at this conceptual level – that each can serve as a decent model for the other.
Related
I am trying to learn haskell and saw a exercise which says
Write two different Haskell functions having the same type:
[a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
So from my understanding the expressions should take in two lists, an int and return a tuple of the type of the lists.
What i tried so far was
together :: [a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
together [] [] 0 = (0,0)
together [b] [a] x = if x == a | b then (b,a) else (0,0)
I know I am way off but any help is appreciated!
First you need to make your mind up what the function should return. That is partly determined by the signature. But still you can come up with a lot of functions that return different things, but have the same signature.
Here one of the most straightforward functions is probably to return the elements that are placed on the index determined by the third parameter.
It makes no sense to return (0,0), since a and b are not per se numerical types. Furthermore if x == a | b is not semantically valid. You can write this as x == a || x == b, but this will not work, since a and b are not per se Ints.
We can implement a function that returns the heads of the two lists in case the index is 0. In case the index is negative, or at least one of the two lists is exhausted, then we can raise an error. I leave it as an exercise what to do in case the index is greater than 0:
together :: [a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
together [] _ = error "List exhausted"
together _ [] = error "List exhausted"
together (a:_) (b:_) 0 = (a, b)
together (a:_) (b:_) n | n < 0 = error "Negative index!"
| …
you thus still need to fill in the ….
I generally dislike those "write any function with this signature"-type excercises precisely because of how arbitrary they are. You're supposed to figure out a definition that would make sense for that particular signature and implement it. In a lot of cases, you can wing it by ignoring as many arguments as possible:
fa :: [a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
fa (a:_) (b:_) _ = (a,b)
fa _ _ _ = error "Unfortunately, this function can't be made total because lists can be empty"
The error here is the important bit to note. You attempted to go around that problem by returning 0s, but this will only work when 0 is a valid value for types of a and b. Your next idea could be some sort of a "Default" value, but not every type has such a concept. The key observation is that without any knowledge about a type, in order to produce a value from a function, you need to get this value from somewhere else first*.
If you actually wanted a more sensible definition, you'd need to think up a use for that Int parameter; maybe it's the nth element from each
list? With the help of take :: Int -> [a] -> [a] and head :: [a] -> a this should be doable as an excercise.
Again, your idea of comparing x with a won't work for all types; not every type is comparable with an Int. You might think that this would make generic functions awfully limited; that's the point where you typically learn about how to express certain expectations about the types you get, which will allow you to operate only on certain subsets of all possible types.
* That's also the reason why id :: a -> a has only one possible implementation.
Write two different Haskell functions having the same type:
[a] -> [b] -> Int -> (a,b)
As Willem and Bartek have pointed out, there's a lot of gibberish functions that have this type.
Bartek took the approach of picking two based on what the simplest functions with that type could look like. One was a function that did nothing but throw an error. And one was picking the first element of each list, hoping they were not empty and failing otherwise. This is a somewhat theoretical approach, since you probably don't ever want to use those functions in practice.
Willem took the approach of suggesting an actually useful function with that type and proceeded to explore how to exhaust the possible patterns of such a function: For lists, match the empty list [] and the non-empty list a:_, and for integers, match some stopping point, 0 and some categories n < 0 and ….
A question that arises to me is if there is any other equally useful function with this type signature, or if a second function would necessarily have to be hypothetically constructed. It would seem natural that the Int argument has some relation to the positions of elements in [a] and [b], since they are also integers, especially because a pair of single (a,b) is returned.
But the only remotely useful functions (in the sense of not being completely silly) that I can think of are small variations of this: For example, the Int could be the position from the end rather than from the beginning, or if there's not enough elements in one of the lists, it could default to the last element of a list rather than an error. Neither of these are very pleasing to make ("from the end" conflicts with the list being potentially infinite, and having a fall-back to the last element of a list conflicts with the fact that lists don't necessarily have a last element), so it is tempting to go with Bartek's approach of writing the simplest useless function as the second one.
So my goal for the program is for it to receive an Int matrix for input, and program converts all numbers > 0 to a unique sequential char, while 0's convert into a '_' (doesn't matter, just any character not in the sequence).
eg.
main> matrixGroupings [[0,2,1],[2,2,0],[[0,0,2]]
[["_ab"],["cd_"],["__e"]]
The best I've been able to achieve is
[["_aa"],["aa_"],["__a"]]
using:
matrixGroupings xss = map (map (\x -> if x > 0 then 'a' else '_')) xss
As far as I can tell, the issue I'm having is getting the program to remember what its last value was, so that when the value check is > 0, it picks the next char in line. I can't for the life of me figure out how to do this though.
Any help would be appreciated.
Your problem is an instance of an ancient art: labelling of various structures with a stream of
labels. It dates back at least to Chris Okasaki, and my favourite treatment is by Jeremy
Gibbons.
As you can see from these two examples, there is some variety to the way a structure may be
labelled. But in this present case, I suppose the most straightforward way will do. And in Haskell
it would be really short. Let us dive in.
The recipe is this:
Define a polymorphic type for your matrices. It must be such that a matrix of numbers and a
matrix of characters are both rightful members.
Provide an instance of Traversable class. It may in many cases be derived automagically.
Pick a monad to your liking. One simple choice is State. (Actually, that is the only choice I
can think of.)
Create an action in this monad that takes a number to a character.
Traverse a matrix with this action.
Let's cook!
A type may be as simple as this:
newtype Matrix a = Matrix [[a]] deriving Show
It is entirely possible that the inner lists will be of unequal length — this type does not
protect us from making a "ragged" matrix. This is poor design. But I am going to skim over
it for now. Haskell provides an endless depth for perfection. This type is good enough for
our needs here.
We can immediately define an example of a matrix:
example :: Matrix Int
example = Matrix [[0,2,1],[2,2,0],[0,0,2]]
How hard is it to define a Traversable? 0 hard.
{-# language DeriveTraversable #-}
...
newtype Matrix a = Matrix [[a]] deriving (Show, Functor, Foldable, Traversable)
Presto.
Where do we get labels from? It is a side effect. The function reaches somewhere, takes a
stream of labels, takes the head, and puts the tail back in the extra-dimensional pocket. A
monad that can do this is State.
It works like this:
label :: Int -> State String Char
label 0 = return '_'
label x = do
ls <- get
case ls of
[ ] -> error "No more labels!"
(l: ls') -> do
put ls'
return l
I hope the code explains itself. When a function "creates" a monadic value, we call it
"effectful", or an "action" in a given monad. For instance, print is an action that,
well, prints stuff. Which is an effect. label is also an action, though in a different
monad. Compare and see for youself.
Now we are ready to cook a solution:
matrixGroupings m = evalState (traverse label m) ['a'..'z']
This is it.
λ matrixGroupings example
Matrix ["_ab","cd_","__e"]
Bon appetit!
P.S. I took all glory from you, it is unfair. To make things fun again, I challenge you for an exercise: can you define a Traversable instance that labels a matrix in another order — by columns first, then rows?
I am trying to understand the meaning of the universal quantification from the following page http://dev.stephendiehl.com/hask/#universal-quantification.
I am not sure, if I understand this sentence correctly
The essence of universal quantification is that we can express
functions which operate the same way for a set of types and whose
function behavior is entirely determined only by the behavior of all
types in this span.
Let`s take the function from the example:
-- ∀a. [a]
example1 :: forall a. [a]
example1 = []
What I can do with the function example1 is, to use every functions, that is defined for List type.
But I did not get the exactly purpose of the universal quantification in Haskell.
I need a collection of numbers, and I need to be able to easily insert into the middle of the list, so I decide on making a linked list. Being a savvy Hask-- programmer (Hask-- being the variant of Haskell that does not have universal quantification!), I quickly whip up a type and a length function without trouble:
data IntLinkedList = IntNil | IntCons Int IntLinkedList
length_IntLinkedList :: IntLinkedList -> Int
length_IntLinkedList IntNil = 0
length_IntLinkedList (IntCons _ tail) = 1 + length_IntLinkedList tail
Later I realize it would be handy to have a variant type that can store numbers not quite as big as 1 and not quite as small as 0. No problem...
data FloatLinkedList = FloatNil | FloatCons Float FloatLinkedList
length_FloatLinkedList :: FloatLinkedList -> Int
length_FloatLinkedList FloatNil = 0
length_FloatLinkedList (FloatCons _ tail) = 1 + length_FloatLinkedList tail
Boy that code looks awfully familiar! And if, later, I discover it would be nice to have a variant that can store Strings I am once again left copying and pasting the exact same code, and tweaking the exact same places that are specific to the contained type. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a way to just cook up a linked list once and for all that could contain elements of any single type, and a length function that worked uniformly no matter what elements it had? After all, our length functions above didn't even care what values the elements had. In Haskell, this is exactly what universal quantification gives you: a way to write a single function which works with an entire collection of types.
Here's how it looks:
data LinkedList a = Nil | Cons a (LinkedList a)
length_LinkedList :: forall a. LinkedList a -> Int
length_LinkedList Nil = 0
length_LinkedList (Cons _ tail) = 1 + length_LinkedList tail
The forall says that this function for all variants of linked lists -- linked lists of Ints, linked lists of Floats, linked lists of Strings, linked lists of functions that take FibbledyGibbets and return linked lists of tuples of Grazbars and WonkyNobbers, ...
How nice! Now instead of separate IntLinkedList and FloatLinkedList types, we can just use LinkedList Int and LinkedList Float for that, and length_LinkedList, implemented once, works for both.
I'm attempting to simulate a checkers game using haskell. I am given a 4-tuple named, checkersState, that I would like to manipulate with a few different functions. So far, I have a function, oneMove, that receives input from checkerState and should return a tuple of the modified data:
The Input Tuple:
(
3600,
"",
[
"----------",
"------r---",
"----------",
"----------",
"---r-r----",
"------r---",
"---w---w-w",
"----------",
"----------",
"------w---"
],
(
49
,
43
)
)
So far I have something similar to below defining my function but am unsure how to access the individual members within the tuple checkerState. This method will take a time, array of captured pieces, board, and move to make, and return a time, array of captured pieces, and board. Currently, I would like to modify the time (INT) in the tuple depending on the state of the board:
onemove :: (Int,[Char],[[Char]],(Int,Int)) -> (Int,[Char],[[Char]])
Thanks in advance!
You can use pattern-matching to pull out the elements, do whatever changes need to be made, and pack them back into a tuple. For example, if you wanted to increment the first value, you could:
onemove (a,b,c,d) = (a + 1,b,c,d)
If you find yourself doing this a lot, you might reconsider using a tuple and instead use a data type:
data CheckersState = CheckersState { time :: Int -- field names are just
, steps :: [Char] -- guesses; change them
, board :: [[Char]] -- to something that
, pos :: (Int, Int) -- makes sense
} deriving (Eq, Read, Show)
Then you can update it with a much more convenient syntax:
onemove state = state { time = time state + 1 }
If you want to stick with tuples and you happen to be using lenses, there’s another easy way to update your tuple:
onemove = over _1 (+1)
Or if you’re using lenses and your own data type (with an appropriately-defined accessor like the one provided), you can do something similar:
_time :: Lens' CheckersState Int
_time f state = (\newTime -> state { time = newTime }) <$> f (time state)
onemove = over _time (+1)
So there’s plenty of fancy ways to do it. But the most general way is to use pattern-matching.
As icktoofay is saying, using tuples is a code smell, and records with named components is way better.
Also, using Char (and String) is a code smell. To repair it, define a data type that precisely describes what you expect in a cell of the board, like data Colour = None | Red | Black, but see next item.
And, using Lists is also a code smell. You actually want something like type Board = Data.Map.Map Pos Colour or Data.Map.Map Pos (Maybe Colour') with data Colour' = Red | Black.
Oh, and Int is also a code smell. You could define newtype Row = Row Int ; newtype Col = Col Int ; type Pos = (Row,Col). Possibly deriving Num for the newtypes, but it's not clear, e.g., you don't want to multiply row numbers. Perhaps deriving (Eq,Ord,Enum) is enough, with Enum you get pred and succ.
(Ah - this Pos is using a tuple, thus it`s smelly? Well, no, 2-tuples is allowed, sometimes.)
You use pattern matching to decompose the tuple into variables.
onemove (i, c, board, (x, y)) = <do something> (i, c, board)
However, you should define a separate data structure for the board to make your intention clear. I don't know what the meaning of the first two values. See: http://learnyouahaskell.com/making-our-own-types-and-typeclasses
I'm trying to store randomly generated dice values in some data structure, but don't know how exactly to do it in Haskell. I have so far, only been able to generate random ints, but I want to be able to compare them to the corresponding color values and store the colors instead (can't really conceive what the function would look like). Here is the code I have --
module Main where
import System.IO
import System.Random
import Data.List
diceColor = [("Black",1),("Green",2),("Purple",3),("Red",4),("White",5),("Yellow",6)]
diceRoll = []
rand :: Int -> [Int] -> IO ()
rand n rlst = do
num <- randomRIO (1::Int, 6)
if n == 0
then printList rlst -- here is where I need to do something to store the values
else rand (n-1) (num:rlst)
printList x = putStrLn (show (sort x))
--matchColor x = doSomething()
main :: IO ()
main = do
--hSetBuffering stdin LineBuffering
putStrLn "roll, keep, score?"
cmd <- getLine
doYahtzee cmd
--rand (read cmd) []
doYahtzee :: String -> IO ()
doYahtzee cmd = do
if cmd == "roll"
then do rand 5 []
else putStrLn "Whatever"
After this, I want to be able to give the user the ability to keep identical dices (as in accumulate points for it) and give them a choice to re-roll the left over dices - I'm thinking this can done by traversing the data structure (with the dice values) and counting the repeating dices as points and storing them in yet another data structure. If the user chooses to re-roll he must be able to call random again and replace values in the original data structure.
I'm coming from an OOP background and Haskell is new territory for me. Help is much appreciated.
So, several questions, lets take them one by one :
First : How to generate something else than integers with the functions from System.Random (which is a slow generator, but for your application, performance isn't vital).
There is several approaches, with your list, you would have to write a function intToColor :
intToColor :: Int -> String
intToColor n = head . filter (\p -> snd p == n) $ [("Black",1),("Green",2),("Purple",3),("Red",4),("White",5),("Yellow",6)]
Not really nice. Though you could do better if you wrote the pair in the (key, value) order instead since there's a little bit of support for "association list" in Data.List with the lookup function :
intToColor n = fromJust . lookup n $ [(1,"Black"),(2,"Green"),(3,"Purple"),(4,"Red"),(5,"White"),(6,"Yellow")]
Or of course you could just forget this business of Int key from 1 to 6 in a list since lists are already indexed by Int :
intToColor n = ["Black","Green","Purple","Red","White","Yellow"] !! n
(note that this function is a bit different since intToColor 0 is "Black" now rather than intToColor 1, but this is not really important given your objective, if it really shock you, you can write "!! (n-1)" instead)
But since your colors are not really Strings and more like symbols, you should probably create a Color type :
data Color = Black | Green | Purple | Red | White | Yellow deriving (Eq, Ord, Show, Read, Enum)
So now Black is a value of type Color, you can use it anywhere in your program (and GHC will protest if you write Blak) and thanks to the magic of automatic derivation, you can compare Color values, or show them, or use toEnum to convert an Int into a Color !
So now you can write :
randColorIO :: IO Color
randColorIO = do
n <- randomRIO (0,5)
return (toEnum n)
Second, you want to store dice values (colors) in a data structure and give the option to keep identical throws. So first you should stock the results of several throws, given the maximum number of simultaneous throws (5) and the complexity of your data, a simple list is plenty and given the number of functions to handle lists in Haskell, it is the good choice.
So you want to throws several dices :
nThrows :: Int -> IO [Color]
nThrows 0 = return []
nThrows n = do
c <- randColorIO
rest <- nThrows (n-1)
return (c : rest)
That's a good first approach, that's what you do, more or less, except you use if instead of pattern matching and you have an explicit accumulator argument (were you going for a tail recursion ?), not really better except for strict accumulator (Int rather than lists).
Of course, Haskell promotes higher-order functions rather than direct recursion, so let's see the combinators, searching "Int -> IO a -> IO [a]" with Hoogle gives you :
replicateM :: Monad m => Int -> m a -> m [a]
Which does exactly what you want :
nThrows n = replicateM n randColorIO
(I'm not sure I would even write this as a function since I find the explicit expression clearer and almost as short)
Once you have the results of the throws, you should check which are identical, I propose you look at sort, group, map and length to achieve this objective (transforming your list of results in a list of list of identical results, not the most efficient of data structure but at this scale, the most appropriate choice). Then keeping the colors you got several time is just a matter of using filter.
Then you should write some more functions to handle interaction and scoring :
type Score = Int
yahtzee :: IO Score
yahtzeeStep :: Int -> [[Color]] -> IO [[Color]] -- recursive
scoring :: [[Color]] -> Score
So I recommend to keep and transmit a [[Color]] to keeps track of what was put aside. This should be enough for your needs.
You are basically asking two different questions here. The first question can be answered with a function like getColor n = fst . head $ filter (\x -> snd x == n) diceColor.
Your second question, however, is much more interesting. You can't replace elements. You need a function that can call itself recursively, and this function will be driving your game. It needs to accept as parameters the current score and the list of kept dice. On entry the score will be zero and the kept dice list will be empty. It will then roll as many dice as needed to fill the list (I'm not familiar with the rules of Yahtzee), output it to the user, and ask for choice. If the user chooses to end the game, the function returns the score. If he chooses to keep some dice, the function calls itself with the current score and the list of kept dice. So, to sum it up, playGame :: Score -> [Dice] -> IO Score.
Disclaimer: I am, too, very much a beginner in Haskell.
at first thought:
rand :: Int -> IO [Int]
rand n = mapM id (take n (repeat (randomRIO (1::Int, 6))))
although the haskellers could remove the parens