I have table in haskell database. My 'link_des' table has two columns. I want to view both columns (data only) at the same time. My code is:
printURLs :: IO ()
printURLs = do urls <- getURLs
mapM_ print urls
getURLs :: IO [String]
getURLs = do conn <- connectSqlite3 "database.db"
res <- quickQuery' conn "SELECT * FROM link_des" []
return $ map fromSql (map head res)
With this I am getting first column data like
["col_1_data_1","col_1_data_2", ...]
using 'last' in lieu of 'head' I can get
["col_2_data_1","col_2_data_2", ...]
But I want to get data like
[("col_1_data_1","col_2_data_1"),("col_1_data_2","col_2_data_2"), ...]
which is actually like the pattern [(row_1),(row_2), ...]
Can anyone please help me. Thanks.
If you look at the type signature of quickQuery', you will see that it returns type IO [[SqlValue]]. That means that you already have the data in a form very similar to what you want.... Instead of
[("col_1_data_1","col_2_data_1"),("col_1_data_2","col_2_data_2"), ...]
you have
[["col_1_data_1","col_2_data_1"],["col_1_data_2","col_2_data_2"], ...]
The function you wrote is just pulling out the first column of this using "map head".
You could always write some code to convert a table with a known number of columns and types to the corresponding tuples (using a function like "convert [first, second] = (fromSql first, fromSql second)"), but it is much harder to write something that does this for arbitrary tables with differing number of columns and types. There are two reasons this is so....
a. First, you need to turn a list into a tuple, which isn't possible in Haskell for lists of differing sizes unless you use extensions. The main problem is that each size of tuple is its own type, and a single function can't choose its output type based on the input. You can do some trickery using GHC extensions, but the result is probably more complicated that you probably want to get into.
b. Second, You have to convert each value in the result from SqlValue to the appropriate Haskell type. This is also hard for similar reasons.
You might want to consider another approach altogether.... Take a look at the Yesod persistent database library, which is described at http://www.yesodweb.com/book/persistent. With that you define your schema in a quasiquote, and it creates Haskell records that are completely type safe.
Related
I'm currently working on an assignment. I have a function called gamaTipo that converts the values of a tuple into a data type previously defined by my professor.
The problem is: in order for gamaTipo to work, it needs to receive some preceding element. gamaTipo is defined like this: gamaTipo :: Peca -> (Int,Int) -> Peca where Peca is the data type defined by my professor.
What I need to do is to create a funcion that takes a list of tuples and converts it into Peca data type. The part that im strugling with is taking the preceding element of the list. i.e : let's say we have a list [(1,2),(3,4)] where the first element of the list (1,2) always corresponds to Dirt Ramp (data type defined by professor). I have to create a function convert :: [(Int,Int)] -> [Peca] where in order to calculate the element (3,4) i need to first translate (1,2) into Peca, and use it as the previous element to translate (3,4)
Here's what I've tried so far:
updateTuple :: [(Int,Int)] -> [Peca]
updateTuple [] = []
updateTuple ((x,y):xs) = let previous = Dirt Ramp
in (gamaTipo previous (x,y)): updateTuple xs
Although I get no error messages with this code, the expected output isn't correct. I'm also sorry if it's not easy to understand what I'm asking, English isn't my native tongue and it's hard to express my self. Thank you in advance! :)
If I understand correctly, your program needs to have a basic structure something like this:
updateTuple :: [(Int, Int)] -> [Peca]
updateTuple = go initialValue
where
go prev (xy:xys) =
let next = getNextValue prev xy
in prev : (go next xys)
go prev [] = prev
Basically, what’s happening here is:
updateTuple is defined in terms of a helper function go. (Note that ‘helper function’ isn’t standard terminology, it’s just what I’ve decided to call it).
go has an extra argument, which is used to store the previous value.
The implementation of go can then make use of the previous value.
When go recurses, the recursive call can then pass the newly-calculated value as the new ‘previous value’.
This is a reasonably common pattern in Haskell: if a recursive function requires an extra argument, then a new function (often named go) can be defined which has that extra argument. Then the original function can be defined in terms of go.
I have an Entry data type
data Entry = Entry {
count :: Integer,
name :: String }
Then I want to write a function, that takes the name and a list of Entrys as arguments an give me the Entrys with the highest count. What I have so far is
searchEntry :: String -> [Entry] -> Maybe Integer
searchEntry _ [] = Nothing
searchEntry name1 (x:xs) =
if name x == name1
then Just (count x)
else searchEntry name xs
That gives me the FIRST Entry that the function finds, but I want the Entry with the highest count. How can I implement that?
My suggestion would be to break the problem into two parts:
Find all entries matching a given name
Find the entry with the highest count
You could set it up as
entriesByName :: String -> [Entry] -> [Entry]
entriesByName name entries = undefined
-- Use Maybe since the list might be empty
entryWithHighestCount :: [Entry] -> Maybe Entry
entryWithHighestCount entries = undefined
entryByNameWithHighestCount :: String -> [Entry] -> Maybe Entry
entryByNameWithHighestCount name entires = entryWithHighestCount $ entriesByName name entries
All you have to do is implement the relatively simple functions that are used to implement getEntryByNameWithHighestCount.
You need to add an inner method that takes a current result as a parameter and returns that instead of Nothing when reaching the end of the method.
Also you would need to update your result found logic to compare a potentially existing function and the found value.
I would consider changing the signature of the function to String->Maybe Entry (or String->[Entry]) if you indeed want to return the "Entry" items with the highest count.
Otherwise, you can actually do what you want as a oneliner using some pretty common Haskell functions....
As Bheklilr mentioned, the name filter can be done first, and it is really easy to do this using the filter function....
filter (hasName theName) entries
Note that hasName can be written out fully as a separate function, but Haskell also offers you the following shortcut.
hasName = (== theName) . name
Now you just need the maximum value.... Haskell has a maximum function, but it only works on the Ord class. You can make Entry an instance of Ord, or you can just use the related maximumBy function, that takes an extra ordering function
maximumBy orderFunction entries2
Again, you can write orderFunction yourself (which you might want to do as an excercise), but haskell again offers a shortcut.
orderFunction = compare `on` count
You will need to import some libs to get this all to work (Data.Function, Data.List). You also will need to put in some extra code to account for the Nothing case.
It might be worth it to write out the functions longhand first, but I recommend that you use Hoogle to lookup and understand compare, on, and maximumBy.... Using tricks like this can really shorten your code.
Putting it all together, you can get the entry with the maximum count like this
maxEntry = maximumBy (compare `on` count) $ filter ((theName ==) . name) $ entries
You will need to modify this to account for the Nothing case, or if you want to return all max Entries (this just chooses one), or if you really wanted to return count, and not the entry.
Consider the following problem: given a list of length three of tuples (String,Int), is there a pair of elements having the same "Int" part? (For example, [("bob",5),("gertrude",3),("al",5)] contains such a pair, but [("bob",5),("gertrude",3),("al",1)] does not.)
This is how I would implement such a function:
import Data.List (sortBy)
import Data.Function (on)
hasPair::[(String,Int)]->Bool
hasPair = napkin . sortBy (compare `on` snd)
where napkin [(_, a),(_, b),(_, c)] | a == b = True
| b == c = True
| otherwise = False
I've used pattern matching to bind names to the "Int" part of the tuples, but I want to sort first (in order to group like members), so I've put the pattern-matching function inside a where clause. But this brings me to my question: what's a good strategy for picking names for functions that live inside where clauses? I want to be able to think of such names quickly. For this example, "hasPair" seems like a good choice, but it's already taken! I find that pattern comes up a lot - the natural-seeming name for a helper function is already taken by the outer function that calls it. So I have, at times, called such helper functions things like "op", "foo", and even "helper" - here I have chosen "napkin" to emphasize its use-it-once, throw-it-away nature.
So, dear Stackoverflow readers, what would you have called "napkin"? And more importantly, how do you approach this issue in general?
General rules for locally-scoped variable naming.
f , k, g, h for super simple local, semi-anonymous things
go for (tail) recursive helpers (precedent)
n , m, i, j for length and size and other numeric values
v for results of map lookups and other dictionary types
s and t for strings.
a:as and x:xs and y:ys for lists.
(a,b,c,_) for tuple fields.
These generally only apply for arguments to HOFs. For your case, I'd go with something like k or eq3.
Use apostrophes sparingly, for derived values.
I tend to call boolean valued functions p for predicate. pred, unfortunately, is already taken.
In cases like this, where the inner function is basically the same as the outer function, but with different preconditions (requiring that the list is sorted), I sometimes use the same name with a prime, e.g. hasPairs'.
However, in this case, I would rather try to break down the problem into parts that are useful by themselves at the top level. That usually also makes naming them easier.
hasPair :: [(String, Int)] -> Bool
hasPair = hasDuplicate . map snd
hasDuplicate :: Ord a => [a] -> Bool
hasDuplicate = not . isStrictlySorted . sort
isStrictlySorted :: Ord a => [a] -> Bool
isStrictlySorted xs = and $ zipWith (<) xs (tail xs)
My strategy follows Don's suggestions fairly closely:
If there is an obvious name for it, use that.
Use go if it is the "worker" or otherwise very similar in purpose to the original function.
Follow personal conventions based on context, e.g. step and start for args to a fold.
If all else fails, just go with a generic name, like f
There are two techniques that I personally avoid. One is using the apostrophe version of the original function, e.g. hasPair' in the where clause of hasPair. It's too easy to accidentally write one when you meant the other; I prefer to use go in such cases. But this isn't a huge deal as long as the functions have different types. The other is using names that might connote something, but not anything that has to do with what the function actually does. napkin would fall into this category. When you revisit this code, this naming choice will probably baffle you, as you will have forgotten the original reason that you named it napkin. (Because napkins have 4 corners? Because they are easily folded? Because they clean up messes? They're found at restaurants?) Other offenders are things like bob and myCoolFunc.
If you have given a function a name that is more descriptive than go or h, then you should be able to look at either the context in which it is used, or the body of the function, and in both situations get a pretty good idea of why that name was chosen. This is where my point #3 comes in: personal conventions. Much of Don's advice applies. If you are using Haskell in a collaborative situation, then coordinate with your team and decide on certain conventions for common situations.
I'm looking to call functions dynamically based on the contents found in an association list.
Here is an example in semi-pseudo-code. listOfFunctions would be passed to callFunctions.
listOfFunctions = [('function one', 'value one')
, ('function two', 'value two')
, ('function three', 'value three')]
callFunctions x = loop through functions
if entry found
then call function with value
else do nothing
The crux of the question is not looping through the list, rather, it's how to call a function once I have it's name?
Consider this use case for further clarification. You open the command prompt and are presented with the following menu.
1: Write new vHost file
2: Exit
You write the new vHost file and are not presented with a new menu
1: Enter new directive
2: Write file
3: Exit
You enter some new directives for the vHost and are now ready to write the file.
The program isn't going to blindly write each and every directive it can, rather, it will only write the ones that you supplied. This is where the association list comes in. Writing a giant if/then/else or case statement is madness. It would be much more elegant to loop through the list, look for which directives were added and call the functions to write them accordingly.
Hence, loop, find a function name, call said function with supplied value.
Thanks to anyone who can help out with this.
Edit:
Here is the solution that I've come up with (constructive critiques are always welcome).
I exported the functions which write the directives in an association list as every answer provided said that just including the function is the way to go.
funcMap = [("writeServerName", writeServerName)
,("writeServeralias", writeServerAlias)
,("writeDocRoot", writeDocRoot)
,("writeLogLevel", writeErrorLog)
,("writeErrorPipe", writeErrorPipe)
,("writeVhostOpen", writeVhostOpen)]
In the file which actually writes the hosts, that file is imported.
I have an association list called hostInfo to simulate some dummy value that would be gathered from an end-user and a function called runFunction which uses the technique supplied by edalorzo to filter through both the lists. By matching on the keys of both lists I ensure that the right function is called with the right value.
import Vhost.Directive
hostInfo = [("writeVhostOpen", "localhost:80")
,("writeServerName", "norics.com")]
runFunctions = [f val | (mapKey, f) <- funcMap, (key, val) <- hostInfo, mapKey == key]
You can simply include the function in the list directly; functions are values, so you can reference them by name in a list. Once you've got them out of the list, applying them is just as simple as func value. There's no need to involve their names at all.
Since I am farily new to Haskell I will risk that you consider my suggestion very naive, but anyways here it goes:
let funcs = [("sum", (+3),1),("product", (*3),2),("square", (^2),4)]
[f x | (name, f, x) <- funcs, name == "sum"]
I think it satisfies the requirements of the question, but perhaps what you intend is more sofisticated than what I can see with my yet limitted knowledge of Haskell.
It might be a bit of an overkill (I agree with ehird's reasoning) but you can evaluate a string with Haskell code by using the eval function in System.Eval.Haskell.
EDIT
As pointed out in the comments, hint is a better option for evaluating strings with Haskell expressions. Quoting the page:
This library defines an Interpreter monad. It allows to load Haskell modules, browse them, type-check and evaluate strings with Haskell expressions and even coerce them into values. The library is thread-safe and type-safe (even the coercion of expressions to values). It is, esentially, a huge subset of the GHC API wrapped in a simpler API. Works with GHC 6.10.x and 6.8.x
First we define our list of functions. This could be built using more machinery, but for the sake of example I just make one explicit list:
listOfFunctions :: [(Int, IO ())]
listOfFunctions = [(0, print "HI") -- notice the anonymous function
,(1, someNamedFunction) -- and something more traditional here
]
someNamedFunction = getChar >>= \x -> print x >> print x
Then we can select from this list however we want and execute the function:
executeFunctionWithVal :: Int -> IO ()
executeFunctionWithVal v = fromMaybe (return ()) (lookup v listOfFunctions)
and it works (if you import Data.Maybe):
Ok, modules loaded: Main.
> executeFunctionWithVal 0
"HI"
> executeFunctionWithVal 01
a'a'
'a'
Don't store the functions as strings, or rather, try storing the actual functions and then tagging them with a string. That way you can just call the function directly. Functions are first class values, so you can call the function using whatever name you assign it to.
I just uncovered this confusion and would like a confirmation that it is what it is. Unless, of course, I am just missing something.
Say, I have these data declarations:
data VmInfo = VmInfo {name, index, id :: String} deriving (Show)
data HostInfo = HostInfo {name, index, id :: String} deriving (Show)
vm = VmInfo "vm1" "01" "74653"
host = HostInfo "host1" "02" "98732"
What I always thought and what seems to be so natural and logical is this:
vmName = vm.name
hostName = host.name
But this, obviously, does not work. I got this.
Questions
So my questions are.
When I create a data type with record syntax, do I have to make sure that all the fields have unique names? If yes - why?
Is there a clean way or something similar to a "scope resolution operator", like :: or ., etc., so that Haskell distinguishes which data type the name (or any other none unique fields) belongs to and returns the correct result?
What is the correct way to deal with this if I have several declarations with the same field names?
As a side note.
In general, I need to return data types similar to the above example.
First I returned them as tuples (seemed to me the correct way at the time). But tuples are hard to work with as it is impossible to extract individual parts of a complex type as easy as with the lists using "!!". So next thing I thought of the dictionaries/hashes.
When I tried using dictionaries I thought what is the point of having own data types then?
Playing/learning data types I encountered the fact that led me to the above question.
So it looks like it is easier for me to use dictionaries instead of own data types as I can use the same fields for different objects.
Can you please elaborate on this and tell me how it is done in real world?
Haskell record syntax is a bit of a hack, but the record name emerges as a function, and that function has to have a unique type. So you can share record-field names among constructors of a single datatype but not among distinct datatypes.
What is the correct way to deal with this if I have several declarations with the same field names?
You can't. You have to use distinct field names. If you want an overloaded name to select from a record, you can try using a type class. But basically, field names in Haskell don't work the way they do in say, C or Pascal. Calling it "record syntax" might have been a mistake.
But tuples are hard to work with as it is impossible to extract individual parts of a complex type
Actually, this can be quite easy using pattern matching. Example
smallId :: VmInfo -> Bool
smallId (VmInfo { vmId = n }) = n < 10
As to how this is done in the "real world", Haskell programmers tend to rely heavily on knowing what type each field is at compile time. If you want the type of a field to vary, a Haskell programmer introduces a type parameter to carry varying information. Example
data VmInfo a = VmInfo { vmId :: Int, vmName :: String, vmInfo :: a }
Now you can have VmInfo String, VmInfo Dictionary, VmInfo Node, or whatever you want.
Summary: each field name must belong to a unique type, and experienced Haskell programmers work with the static type system instead of trying to work around it. And you definitely want to learn about pattern matching.
There are more reasons why this doesn't work: lowercase typenames and data constructors, OO-language-style member access with .. In Haskell, those member access functions actually are free functions, i.e. vmName = name vm rather than vmName = vm.name, that's why they can't have same names in different data types.
If you really want functions that can operate on both VmInfo and HostInfo objects, you need a type class, such as
class MachineInfo m where
name :: m -> String
index :: m -> String -- why String anyway? Shouldn't this be an Int?
id :: m -> String
and make instances
instance MachineInfo VmInfo where
name (VmInfo vmName _ _) = vmName
index (VmInfo _ vmIndex _) = vmIndex
...
instance MachineInfo HostInfo where
...
Then name machine will work if machine is a VmInfo as well as if it's a HostInfo.
Currently, the named fields are top-level functions, so in one scope there can only be one function with that name. There are plans to create a new record system that would allow having fields of the same name in different record types in the same scope, but that's still in the design phase.
For the time being, you can make do with unique field names, or define each type in its own module and use the module-qualified name.
Lenses can help take some of the pain out of dealing with getting and setting data structure elements, especially when they get nested. They give you something that looks, if you squint, kind of like object-oriented accessors.
Learn more about the Lens family of types and functions here: http://lens.github.io/tutorial.html
As an example for what they look like, this is a snippet from the Pong example found at the above github page:
data Pong = Pong
{ _ballPos :: Point
, _ballSpeed :: Vector
, _paddle1 :: Float
, _paddle2 :: Float
, _score :: (Int, Int)
, _vectors :: [Vector]
-- Since gloss doesn't cover this, we store the set of pressed keys
, _keys :: Set Key
}
-- Some nice lenses to go with it
makeLenses ''Pong
That makes lenses to access the members without the underscores via some TemplateHaskell magic.
Later on, there's an example of using them:
-- Update the paddles
updatePaddles :: Float -> State Pong ()
updatePaddles time = do
p <- get
let paddleMovement = time * paddleSpeed
keyPressed key = p^.keys.contains (SpecialKey key)
-- Update the player's paddle based on keys
when (keyPressed KeyUp) $ paddle1 += paddleMovement
when (keyPressed KeyDown) $ paddle1 -= paddleMovement
-- Calculate the optimal position
let optimal = hitPos (p^.ballPos) (p^.ballSpeed)
acc = accuracy p
target = optimal * acc + (p^.ballPos._y) * (1 - acc)
dist = target - p^.paddle2
-- Move the CPU's paddle towards this optimal position as needed
when (abs dist > paddleHeight/3) $
case compare dist 0 of
GT -> paddle2 += paddleMovement
LT -> paddle2 -= paddleMovement
_ -> return ()
-- Make sure both paddles don't leave the playing area
paddle1 %= clamp (paddleHeight/2)
paddle2 %= clamp (paddleHeight/2)
I recommend checking out the whole program in its original location and looking through the rest of the lens material; it's very interesting even if you don't end up using them.
Yes, you cannot have two records in the same module with the same field names. The field names are added to the module's scope as functions, so you would use name vm rather than vm.name. You could have two records with the same field names in different modules and import one of the modules qualified as some name, but this is probably awkward to work with.
For a case like this, you should probably just use a normal algebraic data type:
data VMInfo = VMInfo String String String
(Note that the VMInfo has to be capitalized.)
Now you can access the fields of VMInfo by pattern matching:
myFunc (VMInfo name index id) = ... -- name, index and id are bound here