I want format this function:
getEnv :: [Func] -> ([Char] -> RetType)
getEnv [] = (\_ -> undefined)
getEnv ((Func (RetTypeType t) (Ident fname) _ _):fs) = (\x -> if x == fname then t else getEnv fs)
The problem is caused by a long pattern matching, and for now I don't want to change the names of constructors. Also the right part of the function at the third line is not easy to formatting for me.
Although is not matter of life or death, I'm curios how you format this code. Thanks.
Basically, you have two possibilities:
Something like this:
getEnv ((Func
(RetTypeType t)
(Ident fname) _ _)
:fs)
= (\x -> if x == fname then t else getEnv fs)
or you can use pattern guards:
getEnv (h:fs)
| Func a b _ _ <- h,
Rectype t <- a,
Ident fname <- b
= (\x -> if x == fname then t else getEnv fs)
You could furthermore avoid the lambda:
getEnv (h:fs) x
| Func a b _ _ <- h,
Rectype t <- a,
Ident fname <- b
= if x == fname then t else getEnv fs
The downside with "open" pattern guards may be that the compiler cannot decide anymore whether your patterns are exhaustive.
As #leftaroundabout points out, we can put it even more clearly thus:
getEnv (h:fs) x
| Func a b _ _ <- h,
Rectype t <- a,
Ident fname <- b,
x == fname = t
| otherwise = getEnv fs
This will also let the compiler know that all possible forms of the head of the list are covered, so this I'd term the most preferred way to do it.
I would usually simply do
getEnv :: [Func] -> ([Char] -> RetType)
getEnv [] = (\_ -> undefined)
getEnv ((Func (RetTypeType t) (Ident fname) _ _):fs)
= \x -> if x == fname then t else getEnv fs
However I'd be inclined if I was doing a lot of that to use record syntax
data Func = Func {returnTypeType :: RetTypeType,
identifier :: Ident,
.... }
data RetTypeType = RetTypeType {unRetTypeType :: RetType}
data Ident = Ident {unIdent:: String}
so I could write
getEnv :: [Func] -> ([Char] -> RetType)
getEnv [] = (\_ -> undefined)
getEnv (f:fs) = \x -> if x == ident f
then unRetTypeType.returnTypeType $ f
else getEnv fs
First of all, I try to keep patterns simple. Usually it's just one constructor with variables or underscores as it's arguments. Exception: built-in constructors like (:) or (,) don't count. So, if you have that kind of pattern-matching, I think you are doing something wrong.
Secondly, I would just split the line at '=' and be happy.
Related
I want to implement a generic recursion operator for (at first simple) ADTs.
(Simple means that only with constructors whose argument types are the defined one.) The general idea is to be able to use something as simple as $(recop ''Alg).
It is easy to write down the recursion operator manually for a given type.
data D = E | C D D
recD :: t -> ((D, t) -> (D, t) -> t) -> D -> t
recD rE rC = let r = recD rE rC in \case
E -> rE
C pC0 pC1 -> rC (pC0, r pC0) (pC1, r pC1)
I wanted to use templates for that. My problem is the recursive call e.g. r pC0. I got it working without the recursive call.
newNames :: String -> Int -> Q [Name]
newNames stem n = sequence [ newName (stem ++ show i) | i <- [1::Int .. n] ]
match' :: PatQ -> ExpQ -> MatchQ
match' pat exp = match pat (normalB exp) []
recop :: Name -> ExpQ
recop name = do
TyConI (DataD _ algName [] {-_-} ctors _) <- reify name
let ctorNames = [ ctorName | NormalC ctorName _ <- ctors ] :: [Name]
let ctorTypes = [ [ typ | (_, typ) <- bts ] | NormalC _ bts <- ctors ]
rs <- newNames ("r" ++ nameBase algName) (length ctorNames)
pss <- sequence [ newNames ("p" ++ nameBase algName ++ nameBase ctorName) (length ctorTypes) | (ctorName, ctorTypes) <- zip ctorNames ctorTypes ]
let pats = zipWith conP ctorNames (map varP <$> pss) :: [PatQ]
let prs = zipWith (\p r -> tupE [varE p, r]) ps "recursive calls"
lamE (varP <$> rs) $ lamCaseE [ match' pat $ foldl appE (varE r) prs | (r, pat, ps) <- zip3 rs pats pss ]
I don't know how to get the hole of "recursive calls" filled. I have no idea and suspect that it's not easily doable.
You do it exactly the same way you've done it in your concrete code; you generate let r = .. in .. and refer to that r to construct the recursive calls. Right now, you are just constructing the \case { .. } portion. Keep in mind you can rewrite recD as
recD =
let
recD_ = \rE rC ->
let r = recD_ rE rC
in ...
in recD_
Credit goes to user2407038 who answered the question in a comment.
The general pattern is to use an additional let construct:
recursive = let recursive_ = expression in recursive_
so you can refer to recursive_ in expression.
I have this code:
module BalancedTwoDozenMultDrill where
import BalancedTwoDozenLib
myRandoms :: Int -> IO [Int]
myRandoms n = let x = 24^n `div` 2 in randomRs (-x,x) <$> getStdGen
drill :: [Int] -> IO ()
drill (x:y:rs) = do
putStr $ showInt x ++ " × " ++ showInt y ++ " = "
a <- getLine
case a of
"" -> return ()
showInt (x * y) -> do -- <= here
putStrLn "Correct"
drill rs
_ -> do
putStrLn $ "Wrong; " ++ showInt (x * y)
drill rs
main :: IO [Int]
main = drill =<< myRandoms =<< readLn
and get error:
BalancedTwoDozenMultDrill.hs:11:18: Parse error in pattern: x * y
However, replacing part of the case statement with:
-- ...stuff
let i = showInt (x * y)
case a of
"" -> return ()
i -> do
-- stuff...
Makes it parse (it goes to “not in scope” errors, which I can fix). The only reason I see for the first fragment being wrong is that there is function application going on. Is it true that I can't use ordinary function application for the alternatives in a case statement?
When you have a pattern in a case statement, it has to follow the same rules as that in pattern matching on function arguments. Only literals, constructors, and the wildcard _ can be matched on, not function applications. Instead, you could do something more like
a <- getLine
let xyStr = showInt (x * y) -- Avoid recomputation with a let binding
when (not $ null a) $ do
if a == xyStr
then do
putStrLn "Correct"
drill rs
else do
putStrLn $ "Wrong; " ++ xyStr
drill rs
You'll need to import when from Control.Monad, though.
The reason why you have to follow the same rules in case statements as in pattern matching in function definitions is because the compiler actually converts something like
head :: [a] -> a
head (x:xs) = x
head _ = error "Prelude.head: empty list"
Into
head :: [a] -> a
head list = case list of
(x:xs) -> x
_ -> error "Prelude.head: empty list"
The only reason we have the former version is convenience, it often makes for prettier looking code.
This link should be able to give you a more thorough explanation as to what is and isn't valid pattern matching constructs.
The other problem you had was trying to replace showInt (x * y) with i where let i = showInt (x * y). When you do this, you first bind the value showInt (x * y) to the name i, then in your case statement you have the patterns
"" -> ...
i -> ...
_ -> ...
So now your pattern is i, and it will act like a catch-all pattern after "". This rebinds the name i for the scope of that case statement.
A good rule to keep in mind is that you can't pattern match against a value obtained at run time, you have to check with equality or other comparison operations.
Although an answer already accepted I'd just mention there is a bit tricky way how use a boolean expressions in a case expression - by using guards:
case () of
_
| a == "" -> return ()
| showInt (x * y) -> do -- <= here
putStrLn "Correct"
drill rs
| otherwise -> do
putStrLn $ "Wrong; " ++ showInt (x * y)
drill rs
I'm a having a type error on my Haskell Code. termEnVoc is expected to return True if the Term given is part of the Vocabulario (vocabulary), I'm not completely sure if it works but anyway I can't understand why do I get a type error.
Here it's the code:
type Cte = Simbolo
type Funcion = (Simbolo,Aridad)
type Predicado = (Simbolo, Aridad)
type Vocabulario = ([Cte], [Funcion], [Predicado])
data Term = C Simbolo | L Var | F Simbolo [Term]
deriving (Show, Eq)
termEnVoc :: Term -> Vocabulario -> Bool --This is line 38, the one with the error
termEnVoc = \t -> \(cs,fs,ps)-> (or(map (\x ->(x==t))cs) || or(map (\x ->(x==t))f) || or(map (\x ->(x==t))p));
And here the error:
ERROR file:.\tarea3.hs:38 - Type error in explicitly typed binding
*** Term : termEnVoc
*** Type : [Char] -> ([[Char]],[([Char],Int)],[([Char],Int)]) -> Bool
*** Does not match : Term -> Vocabulario -> Bool
As chi suggests, the main problem appears to be that you are trying to compare Terms with values of other types. It's hard to see just what you're trying to do (specifically, what different types are supposed to represent), but here's the general way you probably want to structure the function definition:
termEnVoc (C simbolo) (cs, fs, ps) = cte `elem` cs
termEnVoc (F simbolo termList) (cs, fs, ps) = head $ filter ((== f) . fst) fs
termEnVoc (L var) (cs, fs, ps) = head $ filter ((== var) . fst) ps
As I indicated, some (or even most) of the details may be wrong, but this should give you a sense of how to structure the definition. The code above makes use of the following:
(== x) = (\y -> y == x)
You can actually do this with operators in general:
(/ 3) = (\x -> x/3)
and
(3 /) = (\x -> 3/x)
The only one that's wonky is subtraction, and I always have to look up the rules for that.
elem a as = or $ map (== a) as
a `elem` b = elem a b
filter p [] = []
filter p (x:xs)
| p x = x : filter p xs
| otherwise = filter p xs
Note that the real definitions of the above are likely different, for efficiency reasons.
I finally decided that the problem was as dfeuer said that I was comparing terms with values of other types.
I end up with this method:
esTerm :: Vocabulario -> Term -> Bool
esTerm = \(c,f,p)-> \t -> case t of {
C x -> elem x c;
L x -> True;
F n ts -> case (lookup n f) of {
Nothing -> False;
Just x -> x==(length ts)&& and(map (esTerm (c,f,p)) ts);
}
}
Thanks for the help, it was really useful for fixing other mistakes I was making on my project.
I have the following code:
import System.Environment
import System.Directory
import System.IO
import Data.List
dispatch :: [(String, [String] -> IO ())]
dispatch = [ ("add", add)
, ("view", view)
, ("remove", remove)
, ("bump", bump)
]
main = do
(command:args) <- getArgs
let result = lookup command dispatch
if result == Nothing then
errorExit
else do
let (Just action) = result
action args
errorExit :: IO ()
errorExit = do
putStrLn "Incorrect command"
add :: [String] -> IO ()
add [fileName, todoItem] = appendFile fileName (todoItem ++ "\n")
view :: [String] -> IO ()
view [fileName] = do
contents <- readFile fileName
let todoTasks = lines contents
numberedTasks = zipWith (\n line -> show n ++ " - " ++ line) [0..] todoTasks
putStr $ unlines numberedTasks
remove :: [String] -> IO ()
remove [fileName, numberString] = do
handle <- openFile fileName ReadMode
(tempName, tempHandle) <- openTempFile "." "temp"
contents <- hGetContents handle
let number = read numberString
todoTasks = lines contents
newTodoItems = delete (todoTasks !! number) todoTasks
hPutStr tempHandle $ unlines newTodoItems
hClose handle
hClose tempHandle
removeFile fileName
renameFile tempName fileName
bump :: [String] -> IO ()
bump [fileName, numberString] = do
handle <- openFile fileName ReadMode
(tempName, tempHandle) <- openTempFile "." "temp"
contents <- hGetContents handle
let number = read numberString
todoTasks = lines contents
bumpedItem = todoTasks !! number
newTodoItems = [bumpedItem] ++ delete bumpedItem todoTasks
hPutStr tempHandle $ unlines newTodoItems
hClose handle
hClose tempHandle
removeFile fileName
renameFile tempName fileName
Trying to compile it gives me the following error:
$ ghc --make todo
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( todo.hs, todo.o )
todo.hs:16:15:
No instance for (Eq ([[Char]] -> IO ()))
arising from a use of `=='
Possible fix:
add an instance declaration for (Eq ([[Char]] -> IO ()))
In the expression: result == Nothing
In a stmt of a 'do' block:
if result == Nothing then
errorExit
else
do { let (Just action) = ...;
action args }
In the expression:
do { (command : args) <- getArgs;
let result = lookup command dispatch;
if result == Nothing then
errorExit
else
do { let ...;
.... } }
I don't get why is that since lookup returns Maybe a, which I'm surely can compare to Nothing.
The type of the (==) operator is Eq a => a -> a -> Bool. What this means is that you can only compare objects for equality if they're of a type which is an instance of Eq. And functions aren't comparable for equality: how would you write (==) :: (a -> b) -> (a -> b) -> Bool? There's no way to do it.1 And while clearly Nothing == Nothing and Just x /= Nothing, it's the case that Just x == Just y if and only if x == y; thus, there's no way to write (==) for Maybe a unless you can write (==) for a.
There best solution here is to use pattern matching. In general, I don't find myself using that many if statements in my Haskell code. You can instead write:
main = do (command:args) <- getArgs
case lookup command dispatch of
Just action -> action args
Nothing -> errorExit
This is better code for a couple of reasons. First, it's shorter, which is always nice. Second, while you simply can't use (==) here, suppose that dispatch instead held lists. The case statement remains just as efficient (constant time), but comparing Just x and Just y becomes very expensive. Second, you don't have to rebind result with let (Just action) = result; this makes the code shorter and doesn't introduce a potential pattern-match failure (which is bad, although you do know it can't fail here).
1:: In fact, it's impossible to write (==) while preserving referential transparency. In Haskell, f = (\x -> x + x) :: Integer -> Integer and g = (* 2) :: Integer -> Integer ought to be considered equal because f x = g x for all x :: Integer; however, proving that two functions are equal in this way is in general undecidable (since it requires enumerating an infinite number of inputs). And you can't just say that \x -> x + x only equals syntactically identical functions, because then you could distinguish f and g even though they do the same thing.
The Maybe a type has an Eq instance only if a has one - that's why you get No instance for (Eq ([[Char]] -> IO ())) (a function can't be compared to another function).
Maybe the maybe function is what you're looking for. I can't test this at the moment, but it should be something like this:
maybe errorExit (\action -> action args) result
That is, if result is Nothing, return errorExit, but if result is Just action, apply the lambda function on action.
In the following Haskell code:
data Cmd =
CmdExit |
CmdOther
deriving (Read, Show)
guiString2Cmd s =
(return (read s :: Cmd)) `catch` \(e :: SomeException) -> return CmdExit
If I do:
guiString2Cmd "CmdOther"
it all works fine. However if I do:
guiString2Cmd "some wrong string"
the code crashes instead of evaluating to CmdExit.
How can I make the code handle the exception instead of crashing?
Use the reads function, which is total, and wrap the failure case as a Maybe, like so:
maybeRead :: Read a => String -> Maybe a
maybeRead s = case reads s of
[(x, "")] -> Just x
_ -> Nothing
maybeRead is quite a versatile way to do safe parsing.
A solution is to simply use reads instead.
There exists an idiom of reading inside a monad:
readM :: (Monad m, Read a) => String -> m a
readM s | [x] <- [x | (x, "") <- reads s] = return x
-- or #[x] <- [x | (x, _) <- reads s] = return x#
-- to allow the garbage at the end of parsed string
| otherwise = fail $ "Failed to parse: \"" ++ s ++ "\""
it's unsafe for the IO monad:
> readM "CmdOther" :: IO Cmd
CmdOther
> readM "Cmd?Other" :: IO Cmd
*** Exception: user error (Failed to parse: "Cmd?Other")
because fail throws an IOError exception in the case of IO, which, however, can be handled:
*Main> (readM "Cmd?Other" :: IO Cmd) `catch` const (return CmdOther)
CmdOther
And safe in the case of Maybe monad:
> readM "CmdOther" :: Maybe Cmd
Just CmdOther
> readM "Cmd?Other" :: Maybe Cmd
Nothing
because fail is const Nothing in this case.
Anyway, if you want a total function guiString2Cmd with a signature String -> Cmd you can write it just like readM:
guiString2Cmd :: String -> Cmd
guiString2Cmd s | [x] <- [x | (x, "") <- reads s] = x
| otherwise = CmdExit
and then:
> guiString2Cmd "CmdOther"
CmdOther
> guiString2Cmd "Cmd?Other"
CmdExit
Slightly more generic approach.
For * kinds:
class Failable0 t where
fail0 :: t
readG0 :: (Failable0 t, Read t) => String -> t
readG0 s | [x] <- [x | (x, "") <- reads s] = x
| otherwise = fail0
then:
instance Failable0 Cmd where
fail0 = CmdExit
For * -> * kinds:
class Failable f where
fail :: String -> f a
class Functor f => Pointed f where
pure :: a -> f a
readG :: (Failable f, Pointed f, Read a) => String -> f a
readG s | [x] <- [x | (x, "") <- reads s] = pure x
| otherwise = fail $ "Failed to parse: \"" ++ s ++ "\""
I would personally recommend using readMay from the safe package:
readMay :: Read a => String -> Maybe a
Then you can either pattern-match on the 'Maybe a' result, use 'maybe', or even use the 'Maybe' monad to handle the result.