(In my actual use case I have a list of type [SomeType], SomeType having a finite number of constructors, all nullary; in the following I'll use String instead of [SomeType] and use only 4 Chars, to simplify a bit.)
I have a list like this "aaassddddfaaaffddsssadddssdffsdf" where each element can be one of 'a', 's', 'd', 'f', and I want to do some further processing on each contiguous sequence of non-as, let's say turning them upper case and reversing the sequence, thus obtaining "aaaFDDDDSSaaaSSSDDFFaFDSFFDSSDDD". (I've added the reversing requirement to make it clear that the processing involves all the contiguous non 'a'-s at the same time.)
To turn each sub-String upper case, I can use this:
func :: String -> String
func = reverse . map Data.Char.toUpper
But how do I run that func only on the sub-Strings of non-'a's?
My first thought is that Data.List.groupBy can be useful, and the overall solution could be:
concat $ map (\x -> if head x == 'a' then x else func x)
$ Data.List.groupBy ((==) `on` (== 'a')) "aaassddddfaaaffddsssadddssdffsdf"
This solution, however, does not convince me, as I'm using == 'a' both when grouping (which to me seems good and unavoidable) and when deciding whether I should turn a group upper case.
I'm looking for advices on how I can accomplish this small task in the best way.
You could classify the list elements by the predicate before grouping. Note that I’ve reversed the sense of the predicate to indicate which elements are subject to the transformation, rather than which elements are preserved.
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
import Control.Arrow ((&&&))
import Data.Function (on)
import Data.Monoid (First(..))
mapSegmentsWhere
:: forall a. (a -> Bool) -> ([a] -> [a]) -> [a] -> [a]
mapSegmentsWhere p f
= concatMap (applyMatching . sequenceA) -- [a]
. groupBy ((==) `on` fst) -- [[(First Bool, a)]]
. map (First . Just . p &&& id) -- [(First Bool, a)]
where
applyMatching :: (First Bool, [a]) -> [a]
applyMatching (First (Just matching), xs)
= applyIf matching f xs
applyIf :: forall a. Bool -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
applyIf condition f
| condition = f
| otherwise = id
Example use:
> mapSegmentsWhere (/= 'a') (reverse . map toUpper) "aaassddddfaaaffddsssadddssdffsdf"
"aaaFDDDDSSaaaSSSDDFFaFDSFFDSSDDD"
Here I use the First monoid with sequenceA to merge the lists of adjacent matching elements from [(Bool, a)] to (Bool, [a]), but you could just as well use something like map (fst . head &&& map snd). You can also skip the ScopedTypeVariables if you don’t want to write the type signatures; I just included them for clarity.
If we need to remember the difference between the 'a's and the rest, let's put them in different branches of an Either. In fact, let's define a newtype now that we are at it:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveFoldable #-}
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveFunctor #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ViewPatterns #-}
import Data.Bifoldable
import Data.Char
import Data.List
newtype Bunched a b = Bunched [Either a b] deriving (Functor, Foldable)
instance Bifunctor Bunched where
bimap f g (Bunched b) = Bunched (fmap (bimap f g) b)
instance Bifoldable Bunched where
bifoldMap f g (Bunched b) = mconcat (fmap (bifoldMap f g) b)
fmap will let us work over the non-separators. fold will return the concatenation of the non-separators, bifold will return the concatenation of everything. Of course, we could have defined separate functions unrelated to Foldable and Bifoldable, but why avoid already existing abstractions?
To split the list, we can use an unfoldr that alternately searches for as and non-as with the span function:
splitty :: Char -> String -> Bunched String String
splitty c str = Bunched $ unfoldr step (True, str)
where
step (_, []) = Nothing
step (True, span (== c) -> (as, ys)) = Just (Left as, (False, ys))
step (False, span (/= c) -> (xs, ys)) = Just (Right xs, (True, ys))
Putting it to work:
ghci> bifold . fmap func . splitty 'a' $ "aaassddddfaaaffddsssadddssdffsdf"
"aaaFDDDDSSaaaSSSDDFFaFDSFFDSSDDD"
Note: Bunched is actually the same as Tannen [] Either from the bifunctors package, if you don't mind the extra dependency.
There are other answers here, but I think they get too excited about iteration abstractions. A manual recursion, alternately taking things that match the predicate and things that don't, makes this problem exquisitely simple:
onRuns :: Monoid m => (a -> Bool) -> ([a] -> m) -> ([a] -> m) -> [a] -> m
onRuns p = go p (not . p) where
go _ _ _ _ [] = mempty
go p p' f f' xs = case span p xs of
(ts, rest) -> f ts `mappend` go p' p f' f rest
Try it out in ghci:
Data.Char> onRuns ('a'==) id (reverse . map toUpper) "aaassddddfaaaffddsssadddssdffsdf"
"aaaFDDDDSSaaaSSSDDFFaFDSFFDSSDDD"
Here is a simple solution - function process below - that only requires that you define two functions isSpecial and func. Given a constructor from your type SomeType, isSpecial determines whether it is one of those constructors that form a special sublist or not. The function func is the one you included in your question; it defines what should happen with the special sublists.
The code below is for character lists. Just change isSpecial and func to make it work for your lists of constructors.
isSpecial c = c /= 'a'
func = reverse . map toUpper
turn = map (\x -> ([x], isSpecial x))
amalgamate [] = []
amalgamate [x] = [x]
amalgamate ((xs, xflag) : (ys, yflag) : rest)
| xflag /= yflag = (xs, xflag) : amalgamate ((ys, yflag) : rest)
| otherwise = amalgamate ((xs++ys, xflag) : rest)
work = map (\(xs, flag) -> if flag then func xs else xs)
process = concat . work . amalgamate . turn
Let's try it on your example:
*Main> process "aaassddddfaaaffddsssadddssdffsdf"
"aaaFDDDDSSaaaSSSDDFFaFDSFFDSSDDD"
*Main>
Applying one function at a time, shows the intermediate steps taken:
*Main> turn "aaassddddfaaaffddsssadddssdffsdf"
[("a",False),("a",False),("a",False),("s",True),("s",True),("d",True),
("d",True),("d",True),("d",True),("f",True),("a",False),("a",False),
("a",False),("f",True),("f",True),("d",True),("d",True),("s",True),
("s",True),("s",True),("a",False),("d",True),("d",True),("d",True),
("s",True),("s",True),("d",True),("f",True),("f",True),("s",True),
("d",True),("f",True)]
*Main> amalgamate it
[("aaa",False),("ssddddf",True),("aaa",False),("ffddsss",True),
("a",False),("dddssdffsdf",True)]
*Main> work it
["aaa","FDDDDSS","aaa","SSSDDFF","a","FDSFFDSSDDD"]
*Main> concat it
"aaaFDDDDSSaaaSSSDDFFaFDSFFDSSDDD"
*Main>
We can just do what you describe, step by step, getting a clear simple minimal code which we can easily read and understand later on:
foo :: (a -> Bool) -> ([a] -> [a]) -> [a] -> [a]
foo p f xs = [ a
| g <- groupBy ((==) `on` fst)
[(p x, x) | x <- xs] -- [ (True, 'a'), ... ]
, let (t:_, as) = unzip g -- ( [True, ...], "aaa" )
, a <- if t then as else (f as) ] -- final concat
-- unzip :: [(b, a)] -> ([b], [a])
We break the list into same-p spans and unpack each group with the help of unzip. Trying it out:
> foo (=='a') reverse "aaabcdeaa"
"aaaedcbaa"
So no, using == 'a' is avoidable and hence not especially good, introducing an unnecessary constraint on your data type when all we need is equality on Booleans.
Need to create a list of tuples from a tuple with a static element and a list. Such as:
(Int, [String]) -> [(Int, String)]
Feel like this should be a simple map call but am having trouble actually getting it to output a tuple as zip would need a list input, not a constant.
I think this is the most direct and easy to understand solution (you already seem to be acquainted with map anyway):
f :: (Int, [String]) -> [(Int, String)]
f (i, xs) = map (\x -> (i, x)) xs
(which also happens to be the desugared version of [(i, x) | x < xs], which Landei proposed)
then
Prelude> f (3, ["a", "b", "c"])
[(3,"a"),(3,"b"),(3,"c")]
This solution uses pattern matching to "unpack" the tuple argument, so that the first tuple element is i and the second element is xs. It then does a simple map over the elements of xs to convert each element x to the tuple (i, x), which I think is what you're after. Without pattern matching it would be slightly more verbose:
f pair = let i = fst pair -- get the FIRST element
xs = snd pair -- get the SECOND element
in map (\x -> (i, x)) xs
Furthermore:
The algorithm is no way specific to (Int, [String]), so you can safely generalize the function by replacing Int and String with type parameters a and b:
f :: (a, [b]) -> [(a, b)]
f (i, xs) = map (\x -> (i, x)) xs
this way you can do
Prelude> f (True, [1.2, 2.3, 3.4])
[(True,1.2),(True,2.3),(True,3.4)]
and of course if you simply get rid of the type annotation altogether, the type (a, [b]) -> [(a, b)] is exactly the type that Haskell infers (only with different names):
Prelude> let f (i, xs) = map (\x -> (i, x)) xs
Prelude> :t f
f :: (t, [t1]) -> [(t, t1)]
Bonus: you can also shorten \x -> (i, x) to just (i,) using the TupleSections language extension:
{-# LANGUAGE TupleSections #-}
f :: (a, [b]) -> [(a, b)]
f (i, xs) = map (i,) xs
Also, as Ørjan Johansen has pointed out, the function sequence does indeed generalize this even further, but the mechanisms thereof are a bit beyond the scope.
For completeness, consider also cycle,
f i = zip (cycle [i])
Using foldl,
f i = foldl (\a v -> (i,v) : a ) []
Using a recursive function that illustrates how to divide the problem,
f :: Int -> [a] -> [(Int,a)]
f _ [] = []
f i (x:xs) = (i,x) : f i xs
A list comprehension would be quite intuitive and readable:
f (i,xs) = [(i,x) | x <- xs]
Do you want the Int to always be the same, just feed zip with an infinite list. You can use repeat for that.
f i xs = zip (repeat i) xs
I am attempting to redefine the monad list instance using newtype to create a wrapped list type, so as to allow this to be done at all, since it seems the Prelude definitions are unable to be overridden.
So far I have the following:
newtype MyList a = MyList { unMyList :: [a] }
deriving Show
myReturn :: a -> [a]
myReturn x = [x]
myBind :: [a] -> (a -> [b]) -> [b]
myBind m f = concat $ map f m
instance Monad MyList where
return x = MyList [x]
xs >>= f = undefined
As a beginner in Haskell, I am at a loss to know how to define the >>= operator for the instance, using my function for the definition of bind.
Should the myReturn and myBind functions have types using MyList rather than plain type variables? How does one do the packing and unpacking necessary to define >>= properly?
I am getting stuck on the function argument to map f, where f :: a -> [b], but it seems I need f :: a -> MyList b, but then map won't accept that as an argument.
Apologies for the confusion. All assistance appreciated.
[I am aware there is a similar question here: Redefine list monad instance but I'm afraid I cannot follow the answers there.]
You simply need to unwrap your MyList type, operate on it, then wrap it back up:
instance Monad MyList where
return x = MyList [x]
(MyList xs) >>= f = MyList . concat . map unMyList . map f $ xs
You can (and should) condense this to MyList $ concatMap (unMyList . f) xs, but I've left it expanded for illustrative purposes. You could simplify this definition by defining your own map and concat functions for MyList:
myMap :: (a -> b) -> MyList a -> MyList b
myMap f (MyList xs) = MyList $ map f xs
myConcat :: MyList (MyList a) -> MyList a
myConcat (MyList xs) = MyList $ concat $ map unMyList xs
myConcatMap :: (a -> MyList b) -> MyList a -> MyList b
myConcatMap f xs = myConcat $ myMap f xs
instance Monad MyList where
return x = MyList [x]
xs >>= f = myConcatMap f xs
And now it looks like the normal list instance:
instance Monad [] where
return x = [x]
xs >>= f = concatMap f xs
I admit this is my homework. But I really couldn't find a good solution after working hard on it.
There might be some stupid ways to accomplish this, like:
myHead (x:[]) = x
myHead (x:y:xs) = fst (x, y)
But I don't think that's what the teacher wants.
BTW, error-handling is not required.
Thanks in advance!
There's a very natural function that's not in the prelude called "uncons" which is the inverse of uncurried cons.
cons :: a -> [a] -> [a]
uncurry cons :: (a, [a]) -> [a]
uncons :: [a] -> (a, [a])
uncons (x:xs) = (x, xs)
You can use it to implement head as
head = fst . uncons
Why is uncons natural?
You can think of a list as the datatype that's defined through the use of two constructor functions
nil :: [a]
nil = []
cons :: (a, [a]) -> [a]
cons (a,as) = a:as
You can also think of it as the data type which is deconstructed by a function
destruct :: [a] -> Maybe (a, [a])
destruct [] = Nothing
destruct (a:as) = Just (a, as)
It's well beyond this answer to explain why those are so definitively tied to the list type, but one way to look at it is to try to define
nil :: f a
cons :: (a, f a) -> f a
or
destruct :: f a -> Maybe (a, f a)
for any other container type f. You'll find that they all have very close relationships with lists.
You can almost already see uncons in the second case of the definition of destruct, but there's a Just in the way. This is uncons is better paired with head and tail which are not defined on empty lists
head [] = error "Prelude.head"
so we can adjust the previous answer to work for infinite streams. Here we can think of infinite streams as being constructed by one function
data Stream a = Next a (Stream a)
cons :: (a, Stream a) -> Stream a
cons (a, as) = Next a as
and destructed by one function
uncons :: Stream a -> (a, Stream a)
uncons (Next a as) = (a, as)
-- a. k. a.
uncons stream = (head stream, tail stream)
the two being inverses of one another.
Now we can get head for Streams by getting the first element of the return tuple from uncons
head = fst . uncons
And that's what head models in the Prelude, so we can pretend like lists are infinite streams and define head in that way
uncons :: [a] -> (a, [a])
uncons (a:as) = (a, as)
-- a. k. a.
uncons list = (head list, tail list)
head = fst . uncons
Perhaps you're expected write to your own cons List type, then it might make more sense. Although type synonyms can't be recursive, so you end up using a non-tuple data constructor, making the tuple superfluous.. it would look like:
data List a = Nil | List (a, List a)
deriving( Show )
head :: List a -> a
head (List c) = fst c
Like already said in the comments, this is just a silly task and you won't get something you could call a good implementation of head.
Your solution, for those requirements, is just fine – as the only change I would replace (x:y:xs) with (x:y:_) since xs isn't used at all (which would actually cause a compiler warning in some settings). In fact, you could do that with y as well:
myHead (x:_:_) = fst (x, undefined)
There would be alternatives that look perhaps not quite so useless use of fst, i.e. don't just build a tuple by hand and immediately deconstruct it again:
myHead' [x] = x
myHead' xs = myHead' . fst $ splitAt 1 xs
myHead'' = foldr1 $ curry fst
myHead''' = fromJust . find ((==0) . fst) . zip [0..]
but you could rightfully say that these are just ridiculous.
I would like to have a function with the type:
f :: [Maybe a] -> Maybe [a]
e.g.
f [Just 3, Just 5] == Just [3, 5]
f [Just 3, Nothing] == Nothing
f [] == Just []
It is similar to catMaybes :: [Maybe a] -> [a] in Data.Maybe, except that catMaybes ignores Nothing, while my f is very serious about Nothing. I could implement f in a naive way (as shown below), but wondering if there is more idiomatic way (like "applicative functor"):
f :: [Maybe a] -> Maybe [a]
f xs = let ys = catMaybes xs
in if length ys == length xs
then Just ys
else Nothing
or
f :: [Maybe a] -> Maybe [a]
f xs = if all isJust xs
then catMaybes xs
else Nothing
The function you're searching for is called sequence:
sequence :: (Monad m) => [m a] -> m [a]
You can find this function using hoogle: link.
Example:
>>> sequence [Just 3, Just 5]
Just [3,5]
>>> sequence [] :: Maybe [Int]
Just []
Note: There is also sequenceA in Data.Traversable which is a bit generalized, but for your use case sequence from Control.Monad is enough.
You want sequence from Control.Monad.
(This is also generalized in a useful way in Data.Traversable.)