WIth the help of the members of this community, especially by Daniel I can mke the list of pascal triangles number. BUt Whenever i want to display the triangle as a triangle shape it gives error like: parse error on input 'import'. I expct some1 will cme forward to explain me this. the code is below:
import Text.Printf
pascal :: [[Integer]]
pascal = iterate (\prev -> 1 : zipWith (+) prev (tail prev) ++ [1]) [1]
prettyPascal :: Int -> IO ()
prettyPascal n = mapM_ (\r -> printf "%*s\n" (div (longest + length r) 2) r) rows
where rows = map (unwords . map show) $ take (n + 1) pascal
longest = length $ last rows
Summary answer:
module PrettyPascal where -- good practice, means you can combine it with other code
import Text.Printf
pascal :: [[Integer]]
pascal = iterate (\prev -> 1 : zipWith (+) prev (tail prev) ++ [1]) [1]
where must be further indented than the line before, and longest must line up with rows:
prettyPascal :: Int -> IO ()
prettyPascal n = mapM_ (\r -> printf "%*s\n" (div (longest + length r) 2) r) rows
where rows = map (unwords . map show) $ take (n + 1) pascal
longest = length $ last rows
You could do main = prettyPascal 10, but you might prefer:
main =
putStrLn "How many rows of Pascal's triangle would you like to see?"
>> readLn >>= prettyPascal
(If you're using ghci or Hugs, you don't need a main, you can just type prettyPrint 10 at the prompt.)
Other points from discussion below:
Haskell is case sensitive, so it has to be prettyPascal, not PrettyPascal.
When you're using a type class (as in your other code), you need Eq a => instead of Eq a ->
Use copy-and-paste to avoid typing errors
Save your functions in a file called something like PrettyPascal.hs.
Then load your functions in ghci by typing :l PrettyPascal.
Sometimes if you're not sure whether it's your compiler or your code, copy-and-paste to codepad.org for a second opinion. (You could also download and install the fast Hugs compiler which does Haskell 98 and multiparameter typeclasses, but not lots of ghc extensions.)
Related
I would like to get all sub numbers of a number from a particular side.
In the case of the number 1234, the sub numbers from the left side are:
1, 12, 123, 1234
I implemented it with:
tail . inits $ show 1234
This way I get all the sub numbers in [[Char]] format.
["1","12","123","1234"]
I tried to convert them to Integer, with the following line.
map read . tail . inits $ show 1234
But I get the following error
[*** Exception: Prelude.read: no parse
What am I doing wrong?
because the interpreter does not know what type you want back
this will work:
λ> map read . tail . inits $ show 1234 :: [Int]
[1,12,123,1234]
of course you can just add a type-signature as well (most likely in your code file):
subnums :: Int -> [Int]
subnums = map read . tail . inits . show
in ghci:
λ> subnums 1234
[1,12,123,1234]
and a nice exercise can be to do this without show/read:
subnumbers :: Int -> [Int]
subnumbers 0 = []
subnumbers n =
n : subnumbers (n `div` 10)
Can you solve the problem with the order here?
A good approach is to use an unfold. While a fold (variously known as reduce, accumulate or aggregate in other languages) can process a list of numbers (or values of other types) to compute a single result value, an unfold starts with a single value and expands it into a list of values according to a given function. Let us examine the type of an unfold function:
Data.List.unfoldr :: (b -> Maybe (a, b)) -> b -> [a]
We see that unfoldr take a function (b -> Maybe (a, b), and a starting b. The result is a [a]. If the function evaluates to Just (a, b), the a will be appended to the result, and the unfold recurses with the new b. If the function evaluates to Nothing, the unfold is complete.
The function for your unfold is:
f :: Integral b => b -> Maybe (b, b)
f x = if x > 0
then Just (x, x `div` 10) -- append x to result; continue with x/10
else Nothing -- x = 0; we're done
Now we can solve your problem without any of this show and read hackery:
λ> let f = (\x -> if x > 0 then Just (x, x `div` 10) else Nothing)
λ> reverse $ unfoldr f 1234
[1,12,123,1234]
As Carsten suggests, you need to give some indication of what type you want. This is because read is polymorphic in its result type. Until the compiler knows what type you want, it doesn't know what parser to use! An explicit type annotation is usually the way to go, but you might sometimes consider the function
asTypeOf :: a -> a -> a
asTypeOf x _ = x
how to use this here
I see two obvious ways to use asTypeOf here:
λ> asTypeOf (map read . tail . inits $ show 1234) ([0] :: [Int])
[1,12,123,1234]
and
λ> map (asTypeOf read length) . tail . inits $ show 1234
[1,12,123,1234]
the first one seems hardly better at all and the second might be a bit tricky for beginners - but it works ;)
Why? Because length has type [a] -> Int and so the result type will be fixed to Int:
λ> :t (`asTypeOf` length)
(`asTypeOf` length) :: ([a] -> Int) -> [a] -> Int
which is just what we need for read
Please note that it's not important what length does - only it's type is important - any other function with an compatible signature would have worked as well (although I can come up only with length right now)
For example:
wantInt :: [a] -> Int
wantInt = undefined
λ> map (asTypeOf read wantInt) . tail . inits $ show 1234
[1,12,123,1234]
A working list comprehension solution:
subNums :: Int -> [Int]
subNums num = [read x | let str = show num, let size = length str, n <- [1 .. size], let x = take n str]
λ> subNums 1234
[1,12,123,1234]
How can I improve the the following rolling sum implementation?
type Buffer = State BufferState (Maybe Double)
type BufferState = ( [Double] , Int, Int )
-- circular buffer
buff :: Double -> Buffer
buff newVal = do
( list, ptr, len) <- get
-- if the list is not full yet just accumulate the new value
if length list < len
then do
put ( newVal : list , ptr, len)
return Nothing
else do
let nptr = (ptr - 1) `mod` len
(as,(v:bs)) = splitAt ptr list
nlist = as ++ (newVal : bs)
put (nlist, nptr, len)
return $ Just v
-- create intial state for circular buffer
initBuff l = ( [] , l-1 , l)
-- use the circular buffer to calculate a rolling sum
rollSum :: Double -> State (Double,BufferState) (Maybe Double)
rollSum newVal = do
(acc,bState) <- get
let (lv , bState' ) = runState (buff newVal) bState
acc' = acc + newVal
-- subtract the old value if the circular buffer is full
case lv of
Just x -> put ( acc' - x , bState') >> (return $ Just (acc' - x))
Nothing -> put ( acc' , bState') >> return Nothing
test :: (Double,BufferState) -> [Double] -> [Maybe Double] -> [Maybe Double]
test state [] acc = acc
test state (x:xs) acc =
let (a,s) = runState (rollSum x) state
in test s xs (a:acc)
main :: IO()
main = print $ test (0,initBuff 3) [1,1,1,2,2,0] []
Buffer uses the State monad to implement a circular buffer. rollSum uses the State monad again to keep track of the rolling sum value and the state of the circular buffer.
How could I make this more elegant?
I'd like to implement other functions like rolling average or a difference, what could I do to make this easy?
Thanks!
EDIT
I forgot to mention I am using a circular buffer as I intend to use this code on-line and process updates as they arrive - hence the need to record state. Something like
newRollingSum = update rollingSum newValue
I haven't managed to decipher all of your code, but here is the plan I would take for solving this problem. First, an English description of the plan:
We need windows into the list of length n starting at each index.
Make windows of arbitrary length.
Truncate long windows to length n.
Drop the last n-1 of these, which will be too short.
For each window, add up the entries.
This was the first idea I had; for windows of length three it's an okay approach because step 2 is cheap on such a short list. For longer windows, you may want an alternate approach, which I will discuss below; but this approach has the benefit that it generalizes smoothly to functions other than sum. The code might look like this:
import Data.List
rollingSums n xs
= map sum -- add up the entries
. zipWith (flip const) (drop (n-1) xs) -- drop the last n-1
. map (take n) -- truncate long windows
. tails -- make arbitrarily long windows
$ xs
If you're familiar with the "equational reasoning" approach to optimization, you might spot a first place we can improve the performance of this function: by swapping the first map and zipWith, we can produce a function with the same behavior but with a map f . map g subterm, which can be replaced by map (f . g) to get slightly less allocation.
Unfortunately, for large n, this adds n numbers together in the inner loop; we would prefer to simply add the value at the "front" of the window and subtract the one at the "back". So we need to get trickier. Here's a new idea: we'll traverse the list twice in parallel, n positions apart. Then we'll use a simple function for getting the rolling sum (of unbounded window length) of prefixes of a list, namely, scanl (+), to convert this traversal into the actual sums we're interested in.
rollingSumsEfficient n xs = scanl (+) firstSum deltas where
firstSum = sum (take n xs)
deltas = zipWith (-) (drop n xs) xs -- front - back
There's one twist, which is that scanl never returns an empty list. So if it's important that you be able to handle short lists, you'll want another equation that checks for these. Don't use length, as that forces the entire input list into memory before starting the computation -- a potentially lethal performance mistake. Instead add a line like this above the previous definition:
rollingSumsEfficient n xs | null (drop (n-1) xs) = []
We can try these two out in ghci. You'll notice that they do not quite have the same behavior as yours:
*Main> rollingSums 3 [10^n | n <- [0..5]]
[111,1110,11100,111000]
*Main> rollingSumsEfficient 3 [10^n | n <- [0..5]]
[111,1110,11100,111000]
On the other hand, the implementations are considerably more concise and are fully lazy in the sense that they work on infinite lists:
*Main> take 5 . rollingSums 10 $ [1..]
[55,65,75,85,95]
*Main> take 5 . rollingSumsEfficient 10 $ [1..]
[55,65,75,85,95]
Efficient implementation for rolling sum in haskell-
rollingSums :: Num a => Int -> [a] -> Maybe [a]
rollingSums n xs | n <= 0 = Nothing
| otherwise = Just $ if length as == n then go (sum as) xs bs else []
where
(as, bs) = splitAt n xs
go s xs [] = [s]
go s xs (y:ys) = s : go (s + y - head xs) (tail xs) ys
Asuming that - sum((i+1)...(i+1+n)) = sum(i..(i+n)) - arr[i] + arr[i+n+1]
I want to make a function that firstly divides a list l to two list m and n. Then create two thread to find out the longest palindrome in the two list. My code is :
import Control.Concurrent (forkIO)
import System.Environment (getArgs)
import Data.List
import Data.Ord
main = do
l <- getArgs
forkIO $ putStrLn $ show $ longestPalindr $ mList l
forkIO $ putStrLn $ show $ longestPalindr $ nList l
longestPalindr x =
snd $ last $ sort $
map (\l -> (length l, l)) $
map head $ group $ sort $
filter (\y -> y == reverse y) $
concatMap inits $ tails x
mList l = take (length l `div` 2) l
nList l = drop (length l `div` 2) l
Now I can compile it, but the result is a [ ]. When I just run the longestPalindr and mList , I get the right result. I thought the logic here is right. So what is the problem?
The question title may need to be changed, as this is no longer about type errors.
The functionality of the program can be fixed by simply mapping longestPalindr across the two halves of the list. In your code, you are finding the longest palindrome across [[Char]], so the result length is usually just 1.
I've given a simple example of par and pseq. This just suggests to the compiler that it may be smart to evaluate left and right independently. It doesn't guarantee parallel evaluation, but rather leaves it up to the compiler to decide.
Consult Parallel Haskell on the wiki to understand sparks, compile with the -threaded flag, then run it with +RTS -N2. Add -stderr for profiling, and see if there is any benefit to sparking here. I would expect negative returns until you start to feed it longer lists.
For further reading on functional parallelism, take a look at Control.Parallel.Strategies. Manually wrangling threads in Haskell is only really needed in nondeterministic scenarios.
import Control.Parallel (par, pseq)
import System.Environment (getArgs)
import Data.List
import Data.Ord
import Control.Function (on)
main = do
l <- getArgs
let left = map longestPalindr (mList l)
right = map longestPalindr (nList l)
left `par` right `pseq` print $ longest (left ++ right)
longestPalindr x = longest pals
where pals = nub $ filter (\y -> y == reverse y) substrings
substrings = concatMap inits $ tails x
longest = maximumBy (compare `on` length)
mList l = take (length l `div` 2) l
nList l = drop (length l `div` 2) l
For reference, please read the Parallelchapter from Simon Marlow's book.
http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1230000000929/ch02.html#sec_par-eval-whnf
As others have stated, using par from the Eval monad seems to be the correct approach here.
Here is a simplified view of your problem. You can test it out by compiling with +RTS -threaded -RTSand then you can use Thread Scope to profile your performance.
import Control.Parallel.Strategies
import Data.List (maximumBy, subsequences)
import Data.Ord
isPalindrome :: Eq a => [a] -> Bool
isPalindrome xs = xs == reverse xs
-- * note while subsequences is correct, it is asymptotically
-- inefficient due to nested foldr calls
getLongestPalindrome :: Ord a => [a] -> Int
getLongestPalindrome = length . maximum' . filter isPalindrome . subsequences
where maximum' :: Ord a => [[a]] -> [a]
maximum' = maximumBy $ comparing length
--- Do it in parallel, in a monad
-- rpar rpar seems to fit your case, according to Simon Marlow's book
-- http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1230000000929/ch02.html#sec_par-eval-whnf
main :: IO ()
main = do
let shorter = [2,3,4,5,4,3,2]
longer = [1,2,3,4,5,4,3,2,1]
result = runEval $ do
a <- rpar $ getLongestPalindrome shorter
b <- rpar $ getLongestPalindrome longer
if a > b -- 'a > b' will always be false in this case
then return (a,"shorter")
else return (b,"longer")
print result
-- This will print the length of the longest palindrome along w/ the list name
-- Don't forget to compile w/ -threaded and use ThreadScope to check
-- performance and evaluation
I'm totally new to Haskell so apologies if the question is silly.
What I want to do is recursively build a list while at the same time building up an accumulated value based on the recursive calls. This is for a problem I'm doing for a Coursera course, so I won't post the exact problem but something analogous.
Say for example I wanted to take a list of ints and double each one (ignoring for the purpose of the example that I could just use map), but I also wanted to count up how many times the number '5' appears in the list.
So to do the doubling I could do this:
foo [] = []
foo (x:xs) = x * 2 : foo xs
So far so easy. But how can I also maintain a count of how many times x is a five? The best solution I've got is to use an explicit accumulator like this, which I don't like as it reverses the list, so you need to do a reverse at the end:
foo total acc [] = (total, reverse acc)
foo total acc (x:xs) = foo (if x == 5 then total + 1 else total) (x*2 : acc) xs
But I feel like this should be able to be handled nicer by the State monad, which I haven't used before, but when I try to construct a function that will fit the pattern I've seen I get stuck because of the recursive call to foo. Is there a nicer way to do this?
EDIT: I need this to work for very long lists, so any recursive calls need to be tail-recursive too. (The example I have here manages to be tail-recursive thanks to Haskell's 'tail recursion modulo cons').
Using State monad it can be something like:
foo :: [Int] -> State Int [Int]
foo [] = return []
foo (x:xs) = do
i <- get
put $ if x==5 then (i+1) else i
r <- foo xs
return $ (x*2):r
main = do
let (lst,count) = runState (foo [1,2,5,6,5,5]) 0 in
putStr $ show count
This is a simple fold
foo :: [Integer] -> ([Integer], Int)
foo [] = ([], 0)
foo (x : xs) = let (rs, n) = foo xs
in (2 * x : rs, if x == 5 then n + 1 else n)
or expressed using foldr
foo' :: [Integer] -> ([Integer], Int)
foo' = foldr f ([], 0)
where
f x (rs, n) = (2 * x : rs, if x == 5 then n + 1 else n)
The accumulated value is a pair of both the operations.
Notes:
Have a look at Beautiful folding. It shows a nice way how to make such computations composable.
You can use State for the same thing as well, by viewing each element as a stateful computation. This is a bit overkill, but certainly possible. In fact, any fold can be expressed as a sequence of State computations:
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.State
-- I used a slightly non-standard signature for a left fold
-- for simplicity.
foldl' :: (b -> a -> a) -> a -> [b] -> a
foldl' f z xs = execState (mapM_ (modify . f) xs) z
Function mapM_ first maps each element of xs to a stateful computation by modify . f :: b -> State a (). Then it combines a list of such computations into one of type State a () (it discards the results of the monadic computations, just keeps the effects). Finally we run this stateful computation on z.
I'm a C++ Programmer trying to teach myself Haskell and it's proving to be challenging grasping the basics of using functions as a type of loop. I have a large number, 50!, and I need to add the sum of its digits. It's a relatively easy loop in C++ but I want to learn how to do it in Haskell.
I've read some introductory guides and am able to get 50! with
sum50fac.hs::
fac 0 = 1
fac n = n * fac (n-1)
x = fac 50
main = print x
Unfortunately at this point I'm not entirely sure how to approach the problem.
Is it possible to write a function that adds (mod) x 10 to a value and then calls the same function again on x / 10 until x / 10 is less than 10? If that's not possible how should I approach this problem?
Thanks!
sumd 0 = 0
sumd x = (x `mod` 10) + sumd (x `div` 10)
Then run it:
ghci> sumd 2345
14
UPDATE 1:
This one doesn't generate thunks and uses accumulator:
sumd2 0 acc = acc
sumd2 x acc = sumd2 (x `div` 10) (acc + (x `mod` 10))
Test:
ghci> sumd2 2345 0
14
UPDATE 2:
Partially applied version in pointfree style:
sumd2w = (flip sumd2) 0
Test:
ghci> sumd2w 2345
14
I used flip here because function for some reason (probably due to GHC design) didn't work with accumulator as a first parameter.
Why not just
sumd = sum . map Char.digitToInt . show
This is just a variant of #ony's, but how I'd write it:
import Data.List (unfoldr)
digits :: (Integral a) => a -> [a]
digits = unfoldr step . abs
where step n = if n==0 then Nothing else let (q,r)=n`divMod`10 in Just (r,q)
This will product the digits from low to high, which while unnatural for reading, is generally what you want for mathematical problems involving the digits of a number. (Project Euler anyone?) Also note that 0 produces [], and negative numbers are accepted, but produce the digits of the absolute value. (I don't want partial functions!)
If, on the other hand, I need the digits of a number as they are commonly written, then I would use #newacct's method, since the problem is one of essentially orthography, not math:
import Data.Char (digitToInt)
writtenDigits :: (Integral a) => a -> [a]
writtenDigits = map (fromIntegral.digitToInt) . show . abs
Compare output:
> digits 123
[3,2,1]
> writtenDigits 123
[1,2,3]
> digits 12300
[0,0,3,2,1]
> writtenDigits 12300
[1,2,3,0,0]
> digits 0
[]
> writtenDigits 0
[0]
In doing Project Euler, I've actually found that some problems call for one, and some call for the other.
About . and "point-free" style
To make this clear for those not familiar with Haskell's . operator, and "point-free" style, these could be rewritten as:
import Data.Char (digitToInt)
import Data.List (unfoldr)
digits :: (Integral a) => a -> [a]
digits i = unfoldr step (abs i)
where step n = if n==0 then Nothing else let (q,r)=n`divMod`10 in Just (r,q)
writtenDigits :: (Integral a) => a -> [a]
writtenDigits i = map (fromIntegral.digitToInt) (show (abs i))
These are exactly the same as the above. You should learn that these are the same:
f . g
(\a -> f (g a))
And "point-free" means that these are the same:
foo a = bar a
foo = bar
Combining these ideas, these are the same:
foo a = bar (baz a)
foo a = (bar . baz) a
foo = bar . baz
The laster is idiomatic Haskell, since once you get used to reading it, you can see that it is very concise.
To sum up all digits of a number:
digitSum = sum . map (read . return) . show
show transforms a number to a string. map iterates over the single elements of the string (i.e. the digits), turns them into a string (e.g. character '1' becomes the string "1") and read turns them back to an integer. sum finally calculates the sum.
Just to make pool of solutions greater:
miterate :: (a -> Maybe (a, b)) -> a -> [b]
miterate f = go . f where
go Nothing = []
go (Just (x, y)) = y : (go (f x))
sumd = sum . miterate f where
f 0 = Nothing
f x = Just (x `divMod` 10)
Well, one, your Haskell function misses brackets, you need fac (n - 1). (oh, I see you fixed that now)
Two, the real answer, what you want is first make a list:
listdigits n = if n < 10 then [n] else (listdigits (n `div` 10)) ++ (listdigits (n `mod` 10))
This should just compose a list of all the digits (type: Int -> [Int]).
Then we just make a sum as in sum (listdigits n). And we should be done.
Naturally, you can generalize the example above for the list for many different radices, also, you can easily translate this to products too.
Although maybe not as efficient as the other examples, here is a different way of approaching it:
import Data.Char
sumDigits :: Integer -> Int
sumDigits = foldr ((+) . digitToInt) 0 . show
Edit: newacct's method is very similar, and I like it a bit better :-)