I was just wondering if there is a possibility to create a function that returns an (hopefully infinite) list of numbers similar to this. [1, [2, [3, [4]]]].
The closest I got was this.
func list 0 = list
func list num = func newList (num-1)
where newList = list ++ [[num]]
This is used something like this.
func [] 3
Which returns this.
[[3],[2],[1]]
Now I know that this is not infinite nor is it in the correct order but I just wanted to show that I was at least attempting something before posting. :)
Thanks a bunch!
You cannot write such a function, because all elements of a list must have the same type. The list you want to create would not typecheck even in the case of just two elements:
Prelude> :t [1::Int,[2::Int]]
<interactive>:1:9:
Couldn't match expected type `Int' with actual type `[Int]'
In the expression: [2 :: Int]
In the expression: [1 :: Int, [2 :: Int]]
First element is a Int, second one a list of Int, hence typechecking fails.
Although you can express the result with tuples, e.g.
Prelude> :t (1::Int,(2::Int,(3::Int,4::Int)))
(1::Int,(2::Int,(3::Int,4::Int))) :: (Int, (Int, (Int, Int)))
You still cannot write the function, because the type of the result would change depending on the number of elements you wish to have. Let's call f the hypothetical function:
f 1 :: (Int)
f 2 :: (Int,(Int))
f 3 :: (Int,(Int,(Int)))
...
The type of f changes with the argument, so f cannot be written.
The key is to come up with the correct type.
If you want something like [1, [2, [3, [4]]]], then doing exactly that won't work, because all list elements must be the same type.
This makes sense, because when I grab an element out of the list, I need to know what type it is before I can do anything with it (this is sort of the whole point of types, they tell you what you can and can't do with a thing).
But since Haskell's type system is static, I need to know what type it is even without knowing which element of the list it is, because which list index I'm grabbing might not be known until the program runs. So I pretty much have to get the same type of thing whatever index I use.
However, it's possible to do something very much like what you want: you want a data type that might be an integer, or might be a list:
type IntegerOrList a = Either Integer [a]
If you're not familiar with the Either type, a value of Either l r can either be Left x for some x :: l, or Right y for some y :: r. So IntegerOrList a is a type whose values are either an integer or a list of something. So we can make a list of those things: the following is a value of type [IntegerOrList Bool]:
[Left 7, Left 4, Right [True, False], Left 8, Right [], Right [False]]
Okay, so that's one level of lists inside lists, but we can't put lists inside lists inside lists yet – the inner lists contain Bools, which can't be lists. If we instead had [IntegerOrList (IntegerOrList Bool)], we'd be able to have lists inside lists inside lists, but we'd still get no further. In our example, we had a list which contained values which were either integers or lists, and the lists were lists which contained values which were either integers or lists, and... what we really want is something like IntegerOrList (IntegerOrList (IntegerOrList ..., or more simply, something like:
type IntegerOrLists = Either Integer [IntegerOrLists]
But that's not allowed – type synonyms can't be recursive, because that would produce an infinitely large type, which is confusing for the poor compiler. However, proper data types can be recursive:
data IntegerOrLists = I Integer | L [IntegerOrLists]
Now you can build lists like these, mixing integers and lists of your type:
L [I 1, L [I 2, L [I 3, L [I 4]]]]
The key is that whether each item is an integer or a list has to be flagged by using the I or L constructors. Now each element of the list is of type IntegerOrLists, and we can distinguish which it is by looking at that constructor. So the typechecker is happy at last.
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
class Foo a
instance Foo Int
instance Foo [a]
data F = forall a. Foo a => F a
test = F [F (1 :: Int), F [F (2 :: Int), F [F (3 :: Int), F [F (4 :: Int)]]]]
This example shows
That you can have such structures in Haskell, just use some gift wrapping
That these structures are practically useless (try to do something with it)
Related
I am new to Haskell, and currently looking for a way to extract or delete the first Int in a tuple. Is there a built-in Haskell function to do that?
For instance:
tuple :: (Int)
tuple = (1,2,3,4,5)
tuple !! 0 =
As defined in the OP, the type of tuple is this:
Prelude> tuple = (1,2,3,4,5)
Prelude> :t tuple
tuple
:: (Num t4, Num t3, Num t2, Num t1, Num t) => (t4, t3, t2, t1, t)
There's no type (Int). Instead, the type is (t4, t3, t2, t1, t), where each of those five types has to be a Num instance. There's more than a single type to chose from, and since all five types can vary independently of each other, the type could be (Int, Word, Float, Integer, Int).
The reason for this is that each literal in the definition (1, 2, etc.) could be interpreted as any of those types, and when you write an expression like that, the compiler keeps your options open.
If you want it to be a tuple exclusively made up of Int values, you can declare that:
tuple :: (Int, Int, Int, Int, Int)
tuple = (1,2,3,4,5)
If you want the first element of the tuple, you can use pattern matching to extract that information:
Prelude> (x, _, _, _, _) = tuple
Prelude> x
1
The above expression uses wildcards to ignore the other four elements of the tuple, but if you need one or more of those, you can bind to named values as well:
Prelude> (x, _, z, _, _) = tuple
Prelude> z
3
As Thomas M. DuBuisson points out in a comment to the OP, however, you'd probably be better off with other language constructs than large tuples.
If I may venture a guess, I suppose the OP is actually about lists, not tuples. Certain languages (particularly dynamic languages) don't make much of a distinction between lists and tuples. This makes some sense in a dynamic language where types are unknown at compile-time.
Haskell, however, is a statically typed language, and lists and tuples are different.
A tuple is a data structure with a fixed length, but where you can flexibly choose the type of each individual element.
A list is a data structure with a fixed element type, but where you can vary the length.
Perhaps you're looking for a list of integers:
list :: [Int]
list = [1,2,3,4,5]
Given such a list, you can, for instance, use the !! operator to extract the first element:
Prelude> list !! 0
1
Do note, however, that !! is unsafe, because if you give it an out-of-range index, it's going to throw an exception.
You can use the lens library:
tuple :: (Int, Int, Int, Int, Int)
tuple = (1,2,3,4,5)
secondElement = tuple ^. _2 -- One indexed
For tuples with exactly 2 elements you can use fst and snd from Prelude to get the first and second element respectively
In several programming languages (including JavaScript, Python, and Ruby), it's possible to place a list inside itself, which can be useful when using lists to represent infinitely-detailed fractals. However, I tried doing this in Haskell, and it did not work as I expected:
--aList!!0!!0!!1 should be 1, since aList is recursively defined: the first element of aList is aList.
main = putStrLn $ show $ aList!!0!!0!!1
aList = [aList, 1]
Instead of printing 1, the program produced this compiler error:
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( prog.hs, prog.o )
prog.hs:3:12:
Occurs check: cannot construct the infinite type: t0 = [t0]
In the expression: aList
In the expression: [aList, 1]
In an equation for `aList': aList = [aList, 1]
Is it possible to put an list inside itself in Haskell, as I'm attempting to do here?
No, you can't. First off, there's a slight terminological confusion: what you have there are lists, not arrays (which Haskell also has) , although the point stands either way. So then, as with all things Haskell, you must ask yourself: what would the type of aList = [aList, 1] be?
Let's consider the simpler case of aList = [aList]. We know that aList must be a list of something, so aList :: [α] for some type α. What's α? As the type of the list elements, we know that α must be the type of aList; that is, α ~ [α], where ~ represents type equality. So α ~ [α] ~ [[α]] ~ [[[α]]] ~ ⋯ ~ [⋯[α]⋯] ~ ⋯. This is, indeed, an infinite type, and Haskell forbids such things.
In the case of the value aList = [aList, 1], you also have the restriction that 1 :: α, but all that that lets us conclude is that there must be a Num α constraint (Num α => [⋯[α]⋯]), which doesn't change anything.
The obvious next three questions are:
Why do Haskell lists only contain one type of element?
Why does Haskell forbid infinite types?
What can I do about this?
Let's tackle those in order.
Number one: Why do Haskell lists only contain one type of element? This is because of Haskell's type system. Suppose you have a list of values of different types: [False,1,2.0,'c']. What's the type of the function someElement n = [False,1,2.0,'c'] !! n? There isn't one, because you couldn't know what type you'd get back. So what could you do with that value, anyway? You don't know anything about it, after all!
Number two: Why does Haskell forbid infinite types? The problem with infinite types is that they don't add many capabilities (you can always wrap them in a new type; see below), and they make some genuine bugs type-check. For example, in the question "Why does this Haskell code produce the ‘infinite type’ error?", the non-existence of infinite types precluded a buggy implementation of intersperse (and would have even without the explicit type signature).
Number three: What can I do about this? If you want to fake an infinite type in Haskell, you must use a recursive data type. The data type prevents the type from having a truly infinite expansion, and the explicitness avoids the accidental bugs mentioned above. So we can define a newtype for an infinitely nested list as follows:
Prelude> newtype INL a = MkINL [INL a] deriving Show
Prelude> let aList = MkINL [aList]
Prelude> :t aList
aList :: INL a
Prelude> aList
MkINL [MkINL [MkINL [MkINL ^CInterrupted.
This got us our infinitely-nested list that we wanted—printing it out is never going to terminate—but none of the types were infinite. (INL a is isomorphic to [INL a], but it's not equal to it. If you're curious about this, the difference is between isorecursive types (what Haskell has) and equirecursive types (which allow infinite types).)
But note that this type isn't very useful; the only lists it contains are either infinitely nested things like aList, or variously nested collections of the empty list. There's no way to get a base case of a value of type a into one of the lists:
Prelude> MkINL [()]
<interactive>:15:8:
Couldn't match expected type `INL a0' with actual type `()'
In the expression: ()
In the first argument of `MkINL', namely `[()]'
In the expression: MkINL [()]
So the list you want is an arbitrarily nested list. The 99 Haskell Problems has a question about these, which requires defining a new data type:
data NestedList a = Elem a | List [NestedList a]
Every element of NestedList a is either a plain value of type a, or a list of more NestedList as. (This is the same thing as an arbitrarily-branching tree which only stores data in its leaves.) Then you have
Prelude> data NestedList a = Elem a | List [NestedList a] deriving Show
Prelude> let aList = List [aList, Elem 1]
Prelude> :t aList
aList :: NestedList Integer
Prelude> aList
List [List [List [List ^CInterrupted.
You'll have to define your own lookup function now, and note that it will probably have type NestedList a -> Int -> Maybe (NestedList a)—the Maybe is for dealing with out-of-range integers, but the important part is that it can't just return an a. After all, aList ! 0 is not an integer!
Yes. If you want a value that contains itself, you'll need a type that contains itself. This is no problem; for example, you might like rose trees, defined roughly like this in Data.Tree:
data Tree a = Node a [Tree a]
Now we can write:
recursiveTree = Node 1 [recursiveTree]
This isn't possible with the list type in Haskell, since each element has to be of the same type, but you could create a data type to do it. I'm not exactly sure why you'd want to, though.
data Nested a
= Value a
| List [Nested a]
deriving (Eq, Show)
nested :: Nested Int
nested = List [nested, Value 1]
(!) :: Nested a -> Int -> Nested a
(!) (Value _) _ = undefined
(!) (List xs) n = xs !! n
main = print $ nested ! 0 ! 0 ! 1
This will print out Value 1, and this structure could be of some use, but I'd imagine it's pretty limited.
There were several answers from "yes you can" to "no you absolutely cannot". Well, both are right, because all of them address different aspects of your question.
One other way to add "array" to itself, is permit a list of anything.
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
data T = forall a. T a
arr :: [T]
arr = [T arr, T 1]
So, this adds arr to itself, but you cannot do anything else with it, except prove it is a valid construct and compile it.
Since Haskell is strongly typed, accessing list elements gives you T, and you could extract the contained value. But what is the type of that value? It is "forall a. a" - can be any type, which in essence means there are no functions at all that can do anything with it, not even print, because that would require a function that can convert any type a to String. Note that this is not specific to Haskell - even in dynamic languages the problem exists; there is no way to figure out the type of arr !! 1, you only assume it is a Int. What makes Haskell different to that other language, is that it does not let you use the function unless you can explain the type of the expression.
Other examples here define inductive types, which is not exactly what you are asking about, but they show the tractable treatment of self-referencing.
And here is how you could actually make a sensible construct:
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
data T = forall a. Show a => T a
instance Show T where -- this also makes Show [T],
-- because Show a => Show [a] is defined in standard library
show (T x) = show x
arr :: [T]
arr = [T arr, T 1]
main = print $ arr !! 1
Now the inner value wrapped by T is restricted to be any instance of Show ("implementation of Show interface" in OOP parlance), so you can at least print the contents of the list.
Note that earlier we could not include arr in itself only because there was nothing common between a and [a]. But the latter example is a valid construct once you can determine what's the common operation that all the elements in the list support. If you can define such a function for [T], then you can include arr in the list of itself - this function determines what's common between certain kinds of a and [a].
No. We could emulate:
data ValueRef a = Ref | Value a deriving Show
lref :: [ValueRef Int]
lref = [Value 2, Ref, Value 1]
getValue :: [ValueRef a] -> Int -> [ValueRef a]
getValue lref index = case lref !! index of
Ref -> lref
a -> [a]
and have results:
>getValue lref 0
[Value 2]
>getValue lref 1
[Value 2,Ref,Value 1]
Sure, we could reuse Maybe a instead of ValueRef a
I'm really new to Haskell and have been going through the 99 problems translation. This is my solution to number 9:
pack :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [[a]]
pack (xs)
| null xs = []
| otherwise =
let (matched, unmatched) = span (== head xs) xs
in [matched] ++ pack unmatched
I don't get how I'm allowed to do | null xs = [] when the type signature says the function returns a [[]]. I've seen other solutions to the same problem do the same thing.
I mean, I'm not complaining, but is this something specifically allowed? Are there any caveats I have to look out for?
I'm using the GHCi on a default Windows 7 Haskell Platform 2013.2.0.0 installation, if that helps.
[] is an empty list. It has the following type:
[] :: [b] -- Note: I'm using b instead of a because your function already uses a
That b can be everything. Can you choose a b such that [b] ~ [[a]]? (~ is equality for types)? Yes, just use b ~ [a] and the type of [] becomes:
[] :: [b] :: [[a]] -- When b ~ [a]
So [] is also a value of type [[a]]. [] is a valid value for any type of list, be it a list of a's or a list of lists of a's.
[Integer] is the type meaning "a list of integer values". Can there be a value in this type that doesn't actually contain any integers? Yes, the empty list [] contains zero integers.
[[Integer]] is the type meaning "a list of lists of integer values". Can there be a value in this type that doesn't actually contain any lists? Yes, the empty list [] contains zero lists.
Note that [] with type [[Integer]] is quite different from [[]] with the same type. The first represents the empty list of lists. The second is a non-empty list; it contains exactly one element, which is itself the empty list. A box containing one empty box is not the same thing as a box containing nothing at all! We could of course have [[], [], [], []] as well, where the outer non-empty list contains several elements, each of which is a empty list.
If it helps, think of the type [[Integer]] as representing list of rows, where each row is a list of integers. For example, the following:
11, 12, 13;
21, 22, 23, 24;
31;
is one way of visualising the [[Integer]] value [[11, 12, 13], [21, 22, 23, 24], [31]], where I've used commas to separate elements of the inner lists, and also semicolons to terminate each row (also line breaks to make it easy to read).
In that scheme, [[]] is the list consisting of one empty row. so you'd write it as just a single line ending in a semicolon. Whereas [] is a list with no rows at all, not even empty ones. So you'd write it as a blank file with no semicolons.
If that helped, then it should be easy to see how that applies to more abstract types like [[a]]. In general tough, [] with some list type (regardless of what type is written between the brackets) is always the list consisting of zero of the element type; it doesn't matter whether the element type itself is a list (or anything else with a concept of "empty").
Because [] is of type [[a]] in this case: it is a list containing exactly 0 alpha lists.
In general, the empty list can match any list type because every element (all zero of them) is of the correct type.
You already have a lot of great examples, but this might be a useful way to think about it.
Consider a type isomorphic to Haskell's lists, but without the syntactic sugar:
data List a = Nil
| Cons a (List a)
Each type in Haskell is classified by its kind. This List type is of kind * -> *, which you can think of as a sort of type-level function that takes a basic type (of kind *) and returns another basic type.
You'll notice that the Cons constructor is also parameterized this way; it will be different for every different type a passed to the List type. But the Nil constructor is not parameterized that way; this means that the empty list constructor is the same for every type a that you may pass to List a. Nil remains polymorphic even when List a is constrained to a single type because its value does not depend on what a we choose!
So, the type of Nil is List a. This corresponds to [] in standard list notation. But how does [[]] translate to this desugared list type? The value is Cons Nil Nil and the type is List (List a)! In this syntax it is clearly not an empty list; it is a single-element list containing the empty list. It's still fully polymorphic, since nothing has yet constrained a to a single type, but it's definitely not empty.
The confusing thing about your example is that the name of the overall list type is the same as one of its constructors. If you see [[a]] in code you have to look at whether it's in a type context or a value context. In the former, it would mean (in our desugared notation) the type List (List a) while in the latter it would mean the value Cons (Cons a Nil) Nil.
This is not an answer, but may I suggest using pattern matches instead of head and null?
pack :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [[a]]
pack xs = case xs of
[] -> []
x:_ ->
let (matched, unmatched) = span (== x) xs
in [matched] ++ pack unmatched
This has the benefit the compiler will statically check that you don't access the first element of the list when the list is empty. Generally, use of head is considered non-idiomatic.
The following would be perhaps instructive: instead of
pack :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [[a]]
pack (xs)
| null xs = []
...
try to write it thus:
pack :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [[a]]
pack (xs)
| null xs = xs -- since xs is the empty list (WRONG!)
...
Based on the following (wrong) reasoning: We know that we must return the empty list when the argument is empty, hence, we can save typing [] (which would require pressing AltGr, for example on german keyboards) and return the argument right away -- it is the empty list, after all, as the null check confirmed.
The type checker will disagree, however, on this point.
As a matter of fact, for the typechecker there exist infinitely many different empty lists, each possible list element type has its own empty list. In most cases, however, the type checker will identify the correct one when you give him [] - after all, in our example it knows that it must be a list of lists of as from the type signature.
I am new to programming and to Haskell. I'm having trouble understanding how to define a function. Let's say I want a function that will return element in position a of a list [b]. For a specific a and [b] I can do this in the interpreter:
Prelude> [2, 3, 5, 6] !! 1
Prelude> 3
But I run into trouble if I try to make a function, either in the interpreter or in a text editor that is then loaded:
Prelude> let getElement a [b] = [b] !! a
Prelude> getElement 1 [2, 3, 5, 6]
***Exception: <interactive>:17:5-27: Non-exhaustive pattern in function getElement
let getElement a [b] = [b] !! a
Your function takes one argument a of type Int, since (!!) second parameter is an Int, and [b] pattern matches on a list with one element.
It looks like you were trying to tell the complier that the second parameter should be a list. To do this you normally use the type signature.
In a file:
getElement :: Int -> [b] -> b
getElement a bs = bs !! a
This type of function is considered partial since you can give it an integer that causes the function to fail and throw an exception, such as a negative number or trying to access an index larger then the list. This chapter in real world Haskell has some information on partial function. The Haskell wiki in on the programming guidelines page has some advise too.
You may want to look at the
safe package and how they define headMay for a total, rather then partial, implementation.
Edit: b changed to bs as recommend by Rein Henrichs below, as he points out it does make it easier to read and is a rather common idiom.
I'm going through the 99 Haskell problems to build my proficiency with the language. On problem 7 ("Flatten a nested list structure"), I found myself wanting to define a conditional behavior based on the type of argument passed to a function. That is, since
*Main> :t 1
1 :: (Num t) => t
*Main> :t [1,2]
[1,2] :: (Num t) => [t]
*Main> :t [[1],[2]]
[[1],[2]] :: (Num t) => [[t]]
(i.e. lists nested at different levels have different data types) it seems like I should be able to write a function that can read the type of the argument, and then behave accordingly. My first attempt was along these lines:
listflatten l = do
if (:t l) /= ((Num t) => [t]) then
listflatten (foldl (++) [] l)
else id l
But when I try to do that, Haskell returns a parse error. Is Haskell flexible enough to allow this sort of type manipulation, do I need to find another way?
1. Use pattern matching instead
You can solve that problem without checking for data types dynamically. In fact, it is very rarely needed in Haskell. Usually you can use pattern matching instead.
For example, if you have a type
data List a = Elem a | Nested [List a]
you can pattern match like
flatten (Elem x) = ...
flatten (Nested xs) = ...
Example:
data List a = Elem a | Nested [List a]
deriving (Show)
nested = Nested [Elem 1, Nested [Elem 2, Elem 3, Nested [Elem 4]], Elem 5]
main = print $ flatten nested
flatten :: List a -> [a]
flatten (Elem x) = [x]
flatten (Nested lists) = concat . map flatten $ lists
map flatten flattens every inner list, thus it behaves like [List a] -> [[a]], and we produce a list of lists here. concat merges all lists together (concat [[1],[2,3],[4]] gives [1,2,3,4]). concat . map flatten is the same as concatMap flatten.
2. To check types dynamically, use Data.Typeable
And if on some rare occasion (not in this problem) you really need to check types dynamically, you can use Data.Typeable type class and its typeOf function. :t works only in GHCI, it is not part of the language.
ghci> :m + Data.Typeable
ghci> typeOf 3 == typeOf "3"
False
ghci> typeOf "a" == typeOf "b"
True
Likely, you will need to use DeriveDataTypeable extension too.
(Sorry about the length—I go a little bit far afield/in excessive depth. The CliffsNotes version is "No, you can't really do what you want because types aren't values and we can't give your function a sensible type; use your own data type.". The first and the fifth paragraph, not counting this one or the code block, explain the core of what I mean by that first part, and the rest of the answer should provide some clarification/detail.)
Roughly speaking, no, this is not possible, for two reasons. The first is the type-dispatch issue. The :t command is a feature (an enormously useful one) of GHCi, and isn't a Haskell function. Think about why: what type would it have? :t :: a -> ?? Types themselves aren't values, and thus don't have a type. It's two different worlds. So the way you're trying to do this isn't possible. Also note that you have a random do. This is bad—do notation is a syntactic sugar for monadic computation, and you aren't doing any of that. Get rid of it!
Why is this? Haskell has two kinds polymorphism, and the one we're concerned with at the moment is parametric polymorphism. This is what you see when you have a type like concat :: [[a]] -> a. That a says that one single definition of concat must be usable for every possible a from now until the end of time. How on earth would you type flatten using this scheme? It's just not possible.
You're trying to call a different function, defined ad-hoc, for different kinds of data. This is called, shockingly, ad-hoc polymorphism. For instance, in C++, you could define the following function:
template <typename T>
void flatten(vector<T>& v) { ... }
template <typename T>
void flatten(vector< vector<T> >& v) { ... }
This would allow you do different things for different types. You could even have template <> void flatten(int) { ... }! You can accomplish this in Haskell by using type classes such as Num or Show; the whole point of a type signature like Show a => a -> String is that a different function can be called for different as. And in fact, you can take advantage of this to get a partial solution to your problem…but before we do, let's look at the second problem.
This issue is with the list you are trying to feed in. Haskell's list type is defined as (roughly) data [a] = [] | a : [a]. In other words, every element of a list must have the same type; a list of ints, [Int], contains only ints, Int; and a list of lists of ints, [[Int]], contains only lists of ints, [Int]. The structure [1,2,[3,4],5] is illegal! Reading your code, I think you understand this; however, there's another ramification. For similar reasons, you can't write a fully-generic flatten function of type flatten :: [...[a]...] -> [a]. Your function also has to be able to deal with arbitrary nesting depth, which still isn't possible with a list. You need [a], [[a]], and so on to all be the same type!
Thus, to get all of the necessary properties, you want a different type. The type you want has a different property: it contains either nothing, a single element followed by the rest of the value, or a nested list of elements followed by the rest of the value. In other words, something like
data NList a = Nil
| a :> NList a
| (NList a) :>> NList a
deriving (Eq, Show)
infixr 5 :>, :>>
Then, instead of the list [1,2,3] == 1 : 2 : 3 : [], you would write 1 :> 2 :> 3 :> Nil; instead of Lisp's (1 (2 3) 4 ()), you would write
1 :> (2 :> 3 :> Nil) :>> 4 :> Nil :>> Nil. You can even begin to define functions to manipulate it:
nhead :: NList a -> Either a [a]
nhead Nil = error "nhead: Empty NList."
nhead (h :> _) = Left a
nhead (h :>> _) = Right a
ntail :: NList a -> NList a
ntail Nil = error "nhead: Empty NList."
ntail (_ :> t) = t
ntail (_ :>> t) = t
Admittedly, you might find this a bit clunky (or perhaps not), so you might try to think about your type differently. Another option, which the Haskell translation of the 99 problems uses, is to realize that everything in a nested list is either a single item or a list of nested lists. This translation gives you
data NestedList a = Elem a
| List [NestedList a]
deriving (Eq, Show)
The two above lists then become List [Elem 1, Elem 2, Elem 3] and List [Elem 1, List [Elem 2, Elem 3], Elem 4, List []]. As for how to flatten them—since you're trying to learn from the 99 problems, that I won't say :) And after all, you seem to have a handle on that part of the problem.
Now, let's return to type classes. I lied a bit when I said that you couldn't write something which took an arbitrarily-nested list—you can, in fact, using type classes and some GHC extensions. Now, before I continue, I should say: don't use this! Seriously. The other technique is almost definitely a better choice. However, this technique is cool, and so I will present it here. Consider the following code:
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, FlexibleInstances, UndecidableInstances #-}
class Flattenable f e where
flatten :: f -> [e]
instance Flattenable a a where
flatten = return
instance Flattenable f e => Flattenable [f] e where
flatten = concatMap flatten
We are creating a type class whose instances are the things we can flatten. If we have Flattenable f e, then f should be a collection, in this case a list, whose elements are ultimately of type e. Any single object is such a collection, and its element type is itself; thus, the first instance declaration allows us to flatten anything into a singleton list. The second instance declaration says that if we can flatten an f into a list of es, then we can also flatten a list of fs into a list of es by flattening each f and sticking the resulting lists together. This recursive class definition defines the function recursively for the nested list types, giving you the ability to flatten a list of any nesting with the single function flatten: [1,2,3], [[4,5],[6]], [[[7,8],[9]],[[10]],[[11],[12]]], and so on.
However, because of the multiple instances and such, it does require a single type annotation: you will need to write, for instance, flatten [[True,False],[True]] :: [Bool]. If you have something that's type class-polymorphic within your lists, then things are a little stricter; you need to write flatten [[1],[2,3 :: Int]] :: [Int], and as far as I can tell, the resulting list cannot be polymorphic itself. (However, I could well be wrong about this last part, as I haven't tried everything by any means.) For a similar reason, this is too open—you could declare instance Flattenable [f] () where flatten = [()] if you wanted too. I tried to get things to work with type families/functional dependencies in order to remove some of these problems, but thanks to the recursive structure, couldn't get it to work (I had no e and a declaration along the lines of type Elem a = a and type Elem [f] = Elem f, but these conflicted since [f] matches a). If anyone knows how, I'd very much like to see it!
Again, sorry about the length—I tend to start blathering when I get tired. Still, I hope this is helpful!
You are confusing the interactive command :t in the interpreter with a built-in function. You cannot query the type at runtime.
Look at the example for that problem:
flatten (List [Elem 1, List [Elem 2, List [Elem 3, Elem 4], Elem 5]])
As you see, the problem wants you to create your own data structure for arbitrarily nested lists.
Normal haskell lists can not be arbitrarily nested. Every element of the list has to have the same type, statically known, which is why it makes no sense to check the type of the elements dynamically.
In general haskell does not allow you to create a list of different types and then check the type at runtime. You could use typeclasses to define different behaviors for flatten with different types of arguments, but that still wouldn't give you arbitrarily nested lists.