So i've got this function to swap pairs of numbers in haskell, and i don't know what i've done wrong, maybe you guys can give me a hand.
SO basically this function gets a list, say, [1,2,3,4,5], and returns the numbers swapped by pairs, something like, [2,1,4,3,5]. if the number of elements is odd, the last element stays the same.
Here's what i've done:
swapPairs :: [a] -> [a]
swapPairs (x:xs) = [!!x = !!x+1 && !!x+1 = !!x| x <- xs]
-- Return first two elements in inverted order, recusively call for remaining list,
-- only matches lists of two or more elements
swapPairs (a:b:xs) = b : a : swapPairs xs
-- Return tail for zero or one remaining elements
swapPairs (xs) = xs
You can use pattern matching to fetch 2 head elements:
swapPairs (x:y:xs) = y : x : (swapPairs xs)
Related
I'm having trouble conceptualizing given answer for problem 27 in haskell's 99 problems https://wiki.haskell.org/99_questions/Solutions/27.
The Problem:
"
Group the elements of a set into disjoint subsets.
a) In how many ways can a group of 9 people work in 3 disjoint subgroups of 2, 3 and 4 persons? Write a function that generates all the possibilities and returns them in a list.
Example:
* (group3 '(aldo beat carla david evi flip gary hugo ida))
( ( (ALDO BEAT) (CARLA DAVID EVI) (FLIP GARY HUGO IDA) )
... )
b) Generalize the above predicate in a way that we can specify a list of group sizes and the predicate will return a list of groups.
"
The answer they give is this:
combination :: Int -> [a] -> [([a],[a])]
combination 0 xs = [([],xs)]
combination n [] = []
combination n (x:xs) = ts ++ ds
where
ts = [ (x:ys,zs) | (ys,zs) <- combination (n-1) xs ]
ds = [ (ys,x:zs) | (ys,zs) <- combination n xs ]
group :: [Int] -> [a] -> [[[a]]]
group [] _ = [[]]
group (n:ns) xs =
[ g:gs | (g,rs) <- combination n xs
, gs <- group ns rs ]
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how the first section (the section defining the function "combination") operates.
I'm pretty new to haskell too, so explain it to me like I'm in 5th grade.
Any feedback appreciated.
combination 0 xs = [([],xs)]
If we want to choose 0 elements from xs, there is only one way. No elements are taken [] and all the elements xs are left there.
combination n [] = []
Otherwise, we want to choose n (>0) elements. If we want to chose them from the empty list [], there are no ways to do that -- it's impossible.
combination n (x:xs) = ts ++ ds
where
ts = [ (x:ys,zs) | (ys,zs) <- combination (n-1) xs ]
ds = [ (ys,x:zs) | (ys,zs) <- combination n xs ]
Otherwise, we want to choose n (>0) elements from a nonempty list x:xs. There are many ways to do that, which we separate in two groups as follows:
we decide to take the element x among the chosen ones, and we are left with choosing n-1 from xs. This is done in ts, which considers all the ways to choose n-1 elements from xs, and then adds x to the list of "chosen" elements ys.
we decide to drop the element x from the input list, and we are left with choosing n from xs. This is done in ds, which considers all the ways to choose n elements from xs, and then adds x to the list of "dropped" elements zs.
We then output all such combinations using ts++ds.
Function combination takes list and one number. It creates the combination of the list considering the list has to be divided only in two parts. This is simply the original problem reduced only with 2 numbers k and n-k.
It does this using ts and ds lists.
ts is when the first element is in first part and then recursion occurs with remaining list and k-1. ds is where first element is in second part and recursion occurs with k and remaining part. Once remaining part is computed first element is added to it.
I'm reading Real world haskell book again and it's making more sense. I've come accross this function and wanted to know if my interpretation of what it's doing is correct. The function is
oddList :: [Int] -> [Int]
oddList (x:xs) | odd x = x : oddList xs
| otherwise = oddList xs
oddList _ = []
I've read that as
Define the function oddList which accepts a list of ints and returns a list of ints.
Pattern matching: when the parameter is a list.
Take the first item, binding it to x, leaving the remainder elements in xs.
If x is an odd number prepend x to the result of applying oddList to the remaining elements xs and return that result. Repeat...
When x isn't odd, just return the result of applying oddList to xs
In all other cases return an empty list.
1) Is that a suitable/correct way of reading that?
2) Even though I think I understand it, I'm not convinced I've got the (x:xs) bit down. How should that be read, what's it actually doing?
3) Is the |...| otherwise syntax similar/same as the case expr of syntax
1 I'd make only 2 changes to your description:
when the parameter is a nonempty list.
f x is an odd number prepend x to the result of applying oddList to the remaining elements xs and return that result. [delete "Repeat...""]
Note that for the "_", "In all other cases" actually means "When the argument is an empty list", since that is the only other case.
2 The (x:xs) is a pattern that introduces two variables. The pattern matches non empty lists and binds the x variable to the first item (head) of the list and binds xs to the remainder (tail) of the list.
3 Yes. An equivalent way to write the same function is
oddList :: [Int] -> [Int]
oddList ys = case ys of { (x:xs) | odd x -> x : oddList xs ;
(x:xs) | otherwise -> oddList xs ;
_ -> [] }
Note that otherwise is just the same as True, so | otherwise could be omitted here.
You got it right.
The (x:xs) parts says: If the list contains at least one element, bind the first element to x, and the rest of the list to xs
The code could also be written as
oddList :: [Int] -> [Int]
oddList (x:xs) = case (odd x) of
True -> x : oddList xs
False -> oddList xs
oddList _ = []
In this specific case, the guard (|) is just a prettier way to write that down. Note that otherwise is just a synonym for True , which usually makes the code easier to read.
What #DanielWagner is pointing out, is we in some cases, the use of guards allow for some more complex behavior.
Consider this function (which is only relevant for illustrating the principle)
funnyList :: [Int] -> [Int]
funnyList (x1:x2:xs)
| even x1 && even x2 = x1 : funnyList xs
| odd x1 && odd x2 = x2 : funnyList xs
funnyList (x:xs)
| odd x = x : funnyList xs
funnyList _ = []
This function will go though these clauses until one of them is true:
If there are at least two elements (x1 and x2) and they are both even, then the result is:
adding the first element (x1) to the result of processing the rest of the list (not including x1 or x2)
If there are at least one element in the list (x), and it is odd, then the result is:
adding the first element (x) to the result of processing the rest of the list (not including x)
No matter what the list looks like, the result is:
an empty list []
thus funnyList [1,3,4,5] == [1,3] and funnyList [1,2,4,5,6] == [1,2,5]
You should also checkout the free online book Learn You a Haskell for Great Good
You've correctly understood what it does on the low level.
However, with some experience you should be able to interpret it in the "big picture" right away: when you have two cases (x:xs) and _, and xs only turns up again as an argument to the function again, it means this is a list consumer. In fact, such a function is always equivalent to a foldr. Your function has the form
oddList' (x:xs) = g x $ oddList' xs
oddList' [] = q
with
g :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
g x qs | odd x = x : qs
| otherwise = qs
q = [] :: [Int]
The definition can thus be compacted to oddList' = foldr g q.
While you may right now not be more comfortable with a fold than with explicit recursion, it's actually much simpler to read once you've seen it a few times.
Actually of course, the example can be done even simpler: oddList'' = filter odd.
Read (x:xs) as: a list that was constructed with an expression of the form (x:xs)
And then, make sure you understand that every non-empty list must have been constructed with the (:) constructor.
This is apparent when you consider that the list type has just 2 constructors: [] construct the empty list, while (a:xs) constructs the list whose head is a and whose tail is xs.
You need also to mentally de-sugar expressions like
[a,b,c] = a : b : c : []
and
"foo" = 'f' : 'o' : 'o' : []
This syntactic sugar is the only difference between lists and other types like Maybe, Either or your own types. For example, when you write
foo (Just x) = ....
foo Nothing = .....
we are also considering the two base cases for Maybe:
it has been constructed with Just
it has been constructed with Nothing
I want to convert [1,2,3,4] to [[1 2] [2 3] [3 4]] or [(1 2) (2 3) (3 4)]. In clojure I have (partition 2 1 [1,2,3,4]). How can I do it in haskell? I suspect there is such function in standard api but I can't find it.
The standard trick for this is to zip the list with it's own tail:
> let xs = [1,2,3,4] in zip xs (tail xs)
[(1,2),(2,3),(3,4)]
To see why this works, line up the list and its tail visually.
xs = 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : []
tail xs = 2 : 3 : 4 : []
and note that zip is making a tuple out of each column.
There are two more subtle reasons why this always does the right thing:
zip stops when either list runs out of elements. That makes sense here since we can't have an "incomplete pair" at the end and it also ensures that we get no pairs from a single element list.
When xs is empty, one might expect tail xs to throw an exception. However, because zip
checks its first argument first, when it sees that it's the empty list, the second argument
is never evaluated.
Everything above also holds true for zipWith, so you can use the same method whenever you need to apply a function pairwise to adjacent elements.
For a generic solution like Clojure's partition, there is nothing in the standard libraries. However, you can try something like this:
partition' :: Int -> Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
partition' size offset
| size <= 0 = error "partition': size must be positive"
| offset <= 0 = error "partition': offset must be positive"
| otherwise = loop
where
loop :: [a] -> [[a]]
loop xs = case splitAt size xs of
-- If the second part is empty, we're at the end. But we might
-- have gotten less than we asked for, hence the check.
(ys, []) -> if length ys == size then [ys] else []
(ys, _ ) -> ys : loop (drop offset xs)
Just to throw another answer out there using a different approach:
For n=2 you want to simply zip the list with its tail. For n=3 you want to zip the list with its tail and with the tail of its tail. This pattern continues further, so all we have to do is generalise it:
partition n = sequence . take n . iterate tail
But this only works for an offset of 1. To generalise the offsets we just have to look at the genrated list. It will always have the form:
[[1..something],[2..something+1],..]
So all left to do is select every offsetth element and we should be fine. I shamelessy stole this version from #ertes from this question:
everyNth :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
everyNth n = map head . takeWhile (not . null) . iterate (drop n)
The entire function now becomes:
partition size offset = everyNth offset . sequence . take size . iterate tail
Sometimes is best to roll your own. Recursive functions are what gives LisP its power and appeal. Haskell tries to discourage them but too often a solution is best achieved with a recursive function. They are often quite simple as is this one to produce pairs.
Haskell pattern matching reduces code. This could easily be changed by changing only the pattern to (x:y:yys) to produce (a,b), (c,d), (e,f).
> prs (x:yys#(y:_)) = (x,y):prs yys
> prs "abcdefg"
[('a','b'),('b','c'),('c','d'),('d','e'),('e','f'),('f','g')
I need to get the nth element of a list but without using the !! operator. I am extremely new to haskell so I'd appreciate if you can answer in more detail and not just one line of code. This is what I'm trying at the moment:
nthel:: Int -> [Int] -> Int
nthel n xs = 0
let xsxs = take n xs
nthel n xs = last xsxs
But I get: parse error (possibly incorrect indentation)
There's a lot that's a bit off here,
nthel :: Int -> [Int] -> Int
is technically correct, really we want
nthel :: Int -> [a] -> a
So we can use this on lists of anything (Optional)
nthel n xs = 0
What you just said is "No matter what you give to nthel return 0". which is clearly wrong.
let xsxs = ...
This is just not legal haskell. let ... in ... is an expression, it can't be used toplevel.
From there I'm not really sure what that's supposed to do.
Maybe this will help put you on the right track
nthelem n [] = <???> -- error case, empty list
nthelem 0 xs = head xs
nthelem n xs = <???> -- recursive case
Try filling in the <???> with your best guess and I'm happy to help from there.
Alternatively you can use Haskell's "pattern matching" syntax. I explain how you can do this with lists here.
That changes our above to
nthelem n [] = <???> -- error case, empty list
nthelem 0 (x:xs) = x --bind x to the first element, xs to the rest of the list
nthelem n (x:xs) = <???> -- recursive case
Doing this is handy since it negates the need to use explicit head and tails.
I think you meant this:
nthel n xs = last xsxs
where xsxs = take n xs
... which you can simplify as:
nthel n xs = last (take n xs)
I think you should avoid using last whenever possible - lists are made to be used from the "front end", not from the back. What you want is to get rid of the first n elements, and then get the head of the remaining list (of course you get an error if the rest is empty). You can express this quite directly as:
nthel n xs = head (drop n xs)
Or shorter:
nthel n = head . drop n
Or slightly crazy:
nthel = (head .) . drop
As you know list aren't naturally indexed, but it can be overcome using a common tips.
Try into ghci, zip [0..] "hello", What's about zip [0,1,2] "hello" or zip [0..10] "hello" ?
Starting from this observation, we can now easily obtain a way to index our list.
Moreover is a good illustration of the use of laziness, a good hint for your learning process.
Then based on this and using pattern matching we can provide an efficient algorithm.
Management of bounding cases (empty list, negative index).
Replace the list by an indexed version using zipper.
Call an helper function design to process recursively our indexed list.
Now for the helper function, the list can't be empty then we can pattern match naively, and,
if our index is equal to n we have a winner
else, if our next element is empty it's over
else, call the helper function with the next element.
Additional note, as our function can fail (empty list ...) it could be a good thing to wrap our result using Maybe type.
Putting this all together we end with.
nth :: Int -> [a] -> Maybe a
nth n xs
| null xs || n < 0 = Nothing
| otherwise = helper n zs
where
zs = zip [0..] xs
helper n ((i,c):zs)
| i == n = Just c
| null zs = Nothing
| otherwise = helper n zs
im searching for a solution for my Haskell class.
I have a list of numbers and i need to return SUM for every part of list. Parts are divided by 0. I need to use FOLDL function.
Example:
initial list: [1,2,3,0,3,4,0,5,2,1]
sublist [[1,2,3],[3,4],[5,2,1]]
result [6,7,7]
I have a function for finding 0 in initial list:
findPos list = [index+1 | (index, e) <- zip [0..] list, e == 0]
(returns [4,6] for initial list from example)
and function for making SUM with FOLDL:
sumList list = foldl (+) 0 list
But I completely failed to put it together :/
---- MY SOLUTION
In the end I found something completely different that you guys suggested.
Took me whole day to make it :/
groups :: [Int] -> [Int]
groups list = [sum x | x <- makelist list]
makelist :: [Int] -> [[Int]]
makelist xs = reverse (foldl (\acc x -> zero x acc) [[]] xs)
zero :: Int -> [[Int]] -> [[Int]]
zero x acc | x == 0 = addnewtolist acc
| otherwise = addtolist x acc
addtolist :: Int -> [[Int]] -> [[Int]]
addtolist i listlist = (i : (head listlist)) : (drop 1 listlist)
addnewtolist :: [[Int]] -> [[Int]]
addnewtolist listlist = [] : listlist
I'm going to give you some hints, rather than a complete solution, since this sounds like it may be a homework assignment.
I like the breakdown of steps you've suggested. For the first step (going from a list of numbers with zero markers to a list of lists), I suggest doing an explicit recursion; try this for a template:
splits [] = {- ... -}
splits (0:xs) = {- ... -}
splits (x:xs) = {- ... -}
You can also abuse groupBy if you're careful.
For the second step, it looks like you're almost there; the last step you need is to take a look at the map :: (a -> b) -> ([a] -> [b]) function, which takes a normal function and runs it on each element of a list.
As a bonus exercise, you might want to think about how you might do the whole thing in one shot as a single fold. It's possible -- and even not too difficult, if you track through what the types of the various arguments to foldr/foldl would have to be!
Additions since the question changed:
Since it looks like you've worked out a solution, I now feel comfortable giving some spoilers. =)
I suggested two possible implementations; one that goes step-by-step, as you suggested, and another that goes all at once. The step-by-step one could look like this:
splits [] = []
splits (0:xs) = [] : splits xs
splits (x:xs) = case splits xs of
[] -> [[x]]
(ys:yss) -> ((x:ys):yss)
groups' = map sum . splits
Or like this:
splits' = groupBy (\x y -> y /= 0)
groups'' = map sum . splits'
The all-at-once version might look like this:
accumulate 0 xs = 0:xs
accumulate n (x:xs) = (n+x):xs
groups''' = foldr accumulate [0]
To check that you understand these, here are a few exercises you might like to try:
What do splits and splits' do with [1,2,3,0,4,5]? [1,2,0,3,4,0]? [0]? []? Check your predictions in ghci.
Predict what each of the four versions of groups (including yours) output for inputs like [] or [1,2,0,3,4,0], and then test your prediction in ghci.
Modify groups''' to exhibit the behavior of one of the other implementations.
Modify groups''' to use foldl instead of foldr.
Now that you've completed the problem on your own, I am showing you a slightly less verbose version. Foldr seems better in my opinion to this problem*, but because you asked for foldl I will show you my solution using both functions.
Also, your example appears to be incorrect, the sum of [5,2,1] is 8, not 7.
The foldr version.
makelist' l = foldr (\x (n:ns) -> if x == 0 then 0:(n:ns) else (x + n):ns) [0] l
In this version, we traverse the list, if the current element (x) is a 0, we add a new element to the accumulator list (n:ns). Otherwise, we add the value of the current element to the value of the front element of the accumulator, and replace the front value of the accumulator with this value.
Step by step:
acc = [0], x = 1. Result is [0+1]
acc = [1], x = 2. Result is [1+2]
acc = [3], x = 5. Result is [3+5]
acc = [8], x = 0. Result is 0:[8]
acc = [0,8], x = 4. Result is [0+4,8]
acc = [4,8], x = 3. Result is [4+3,8]
acc = [7,8], x = 0. Result is 0:[7,8]
acc = [0,7,8], x = 3. Result is [0+3,7,8]
acc = [3,7,8], x = 2. Result is [3+2,7,8]
acc = [5,7,8], x = 1. Result is [5+1,7,8] = [6,7,8]
There you have it!
And the foldl version. Works similarly as above, but produces a reversed list, hence the use of reverse at the beginning of this function to unreverse the list.
makelist l = reverse $ foldl (\(n:ns) x -> if x == 0 then 0:(n:ns) else (x + n):ns) [0] l
*Folding the list from the right allows the cons (:) function to be used naturally, using my method with a left fold produces a reversed list. (There is likely a simpler way to do the left fold version that I did not think of that eliminates this triviality.)
As you already solved it, another version:
subListSums list = reverse $ foldl subSum [0] list where
subSum xs 0 = 0 : xs
subSum (x:xs) n = (x+n) : xs
(Assuming that you have only non-negative numbers in the list)