I have the following code:
import System.Environment
import System.Directory
import System.IO
import Data.List
dispatch :: [(String, [String] -> IO ())]
dispatch = [ ("add", add)
, ("view", view)
, ("remove", remove)
, ("bump", bump)
]
main = do
(command:args) <- getArgs
let result = lookup command dispatch
if result == Nothing then
errorExit
else do
let (Just action) = result
action args
errorExit :: IO ()
errorExit = do
putStrLn "Incorrect command"
add :: [String] -> IO ()
add [fileName, todoItem] = appendFile fileName (todoItem ++ "\n")
view :: [String] -> IO ()
view [fileName] = do
contents <- readFile fileName
let todoTasks = lines contents
numberedTasks = zipWith (\n line -> show n ++ " - " ++ line) [0..] todoTasks
putStr $ unlines numberedTasks
remove :: [String] -> IO ()
remove [fileName, numberString] = do
handle <- openFile fileName ReadMode
(tempName, tempHandle) <- openTempFile "." "temp"
contents <- hGetContents handle
let number = read numberString
todoTasks = lines contents
newTodoItems = delete (todoTasks !! number) todoTasks
hPutStr tempHandle $ unlines newTodoItems
hClose handle
hClose tempHandle
removeFile fileName
renameFile tempName fileName
bump :: [String] -> IO ()
bump [fileName, numberString] = do
handle <- openFile fileName ReadMode
(tempName, tempHandle) <- openTempFile "." "temp"
contents <- hGetContents handle
let number = read numberString
todoTasks = lines contents
bumpedItem = todoTasks !! number
newTodoItems = [bumpedItem] ++ delete bumpedItem todoTasks
hPutStr tempHandle $ unlines newTodoItems
hClose handle
hClose tempHandle
removeFile fileName
renameFile tempName fileName
Trying to compile it gives me the following error:
$ ghc --make todo
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( todo.hs, todo.o )
todo.hs:16:15:
No instance for (Eq ([[Char]] -> IO ()))
arising from a use of `=='
Possible fix:
add an instance declaration for (Eq ([[Char]] -> IO ()))
In the expression: result == Nothing
In a stmt of a 'do' block:
if result == Nothing then
errorExit
else
do { let (Just action) = ...;
action args }
In the expression:
do { (command : args) <- getArgs;
let result = lookup command dispatch;
if result == Nothing then
errorExit
else
do { let ...;
.... } }
I don't get why is that since lookup returns Maybe a, which I'm surely can compare to Nothing.
The type of the (==) operator is Eq a => a -> a -> Bool. What this means is that you can only compare objects for equality if they're of a type which is an instance of Eq. And functions aren't comparable for equality: how would you write (==) :: (a -> b) -> (a -> b) -> Bool? There's no way to do it.1 And while clearly Nothing == Nothing and Just x /= Nothing, it's the case that Just x == Just y if and only if x == y; thus, there's no way to write (==) for Maybe a unless you can write (==) for a.
There best solution here is to use pattern matching. In general, I don't find myself using that many if statements in my Haskell code. You can instead write:
main = do (command:args) <- getArgs
case lookup command dispatch of
Just action -> action args
Nothing -> errorExit
This is better code for a couple of reasons. First, it's shorter, which is always nice. Second, while you simply can't use (==) here, suppose that dispatch instead held lists. The case statement remains just as efficient (constant time), but comparing Just x and Just y becomes very expensive. Second, you don't have to rebind result with let (Just action) = result; this makes the code shorter and doesn't introduce a potential pattern-match failure (which is bad, although you do know it can't fail here).
1:: In fact, it's impossible to write (==) while preserving referential transparency. In Haskell, f = (\x -> x + x) :: Integer -> Integer and g = (* 2) :: Integer -> Integer ought to be considered equal because f x = g x for all x :: Integer; however, proving that two functions are equal in this way is in general undecidable (since it requires enumerating an infinite number of inputs). And you can't just say that \x -> x + x only equals syntactically identical functions, because then you could distinguish f and g even though they do the same thing.
The Maybe a type has an Eq instance only if a has one - that's why you get No instance for (Eq ([[Char]] -> IO ())) (a function can't be compared to another function).
Maybe the maybe function is what you're looking for. I can't test this at the moment, but it should be something like this:
maybe errorExit (\action -> action args) result
That is, if result is Nothing, return errorExit, but if result is Just action, apply the lambda function on action.
Related
Assume i have something like this
main = do
input_line <- getLine
let n = read input_line :: Int
replicateM n $ do
input_line <- getLine
let x = read input_line :: Int
return ()
***putStrLn $ show -- Can i access my replicateM here?
return ()
Can i access the result of my replicateM such as if it was a returned value, and for example print it out. Or do i have to work with the replicateM inside the actual do-block?
Specialized to IO
replicateM :: Int -> IO a -> IO [a]
which means that it returns a list. So in your example you could do:
results <- replicateM n $ do
input_line <- getLine
let x = read input_line :: Int
return x -- <- we have to return it if we want to access it
print results
replicateM n a returns a list of the values returned by a. In your case that'd just be a list of units because you have the return () at the end, but if you replace that with return x, you'll get a list of the read integers. You can then just use <- to get it out of the IO.
You can also simplify your code by using readLine instead of getLine and read. Similarly putStrLn . show can be replaced with print.
main = do
n <- readLn
ints <- replicateM n readLn :: IO [Int]
print ints
Of course. Its type is replicateM :: Monad m => Int -> m a -> m [a]. It means it can appear to the right of <- in a do block:
do
....
xs <- replicateM n $ do { ... }
....
xs will be of type [a], as usual for binding the results from Monad m => m [a].
With your code though, where you show return () in that nested do, you'll get ()s replicated n times in your xs. Presumably in the real code you will return something useful there.
So I'm writing a program that checks for every line of a .txt file whether it is a palindrome or not,
import System.IO
main :: IO()
main = do {
content <- readFile "palindrom.txt";
print content;
print (lines content);
singleWord (head (lines content));
return ();
}
palindrom :: [Char] -> Bool
palindrom a = a == reverse a
singleWord :: [Char] -> IO()
singleWord a = do {
print (length a);
print (show (palindrom a));
}
But instead of singleWord (head (lines content)) I need to run the singleWord through the entire list.
The problem is that with map or normal list comprehension I always get a ton of varying errors all to do with lines content (which should be an array of Strings or IO Strings) apparently always being the type I don't want (I've tried messing around with type declarations on that forever, but it keeps being the wrong type, or the right one but in an extra array-layer or whatever).
My last attempt is to walk through the array with recursion, with this little extra code:
walkthrough [] = []
walkthrough x = do { singleWord head x; walkthrough (tail x) }
which I can't typecast correctly no matter what.
It's supposed to replace the singleWord (head (lines content)) in main, and if I try anything with typeclassing, like
walkthrough :: [[Char]] -> [[Char]]
walkthrough [] = ["Hi"]
walkthrough x = do { singleWord head x; walkthrough (tail x) }
I get
Couldn't match type `IO' with `[]'
Expected type: [()]
Actual type: IO ()
or some other stuff that won't fit together.
You're looking for a function called mapM_.
main :: IO ()
main = do {
content <- readFile "palindrom.txt";
mapM_ singleWord (lines content);
};
palindrome :: [Char] -> Bool
palindrome a = (a == reverse a)
singleWord :: [Char] -> IO()
singleWord a = do {
let {
adverb = (if palindrome a then " " else " not ");
};
putStrLn (a ++ " is" ++ adverb ++ "a palindrome.");
};
That should've been
walkthrough [] = return () -- this is the final action
walkthrough x = do { singleWord (head x) -- here you missed the parens
; walkthrough (tail x) }
or better yet,
walkthrough [] = return ()
walkthrough (x:xs) = do { singleWord x -- can't make that mistake now!
; walkthrough xs}
and call it as walkthrough (lines content) in your main do block.
As others have pointed out, walkthrough is the same as mapM_ singleWord.
You could also write it with a list comprehension,
walkthrough xs = sequence_ [ singleWord x | x <- xs]
sequence_ :: Monad m => [m a] -> m () turns a list of actions into a sequence of actions discarding their results and producing the () in the end: sequence_ = foldr (>>) (return ()). And sequence_ (map f xs) === mapM_ f xs, so it all ties up in the end.
Use mapM_ singleWord (lines content). For the sake of simplicity, think of mapM_ as.
mapM_ :: (a -> IO ()) -> [a] -> IO ()
I'm new to Haskell and trying to write simple program to find maximal element and it's index from intput. I receive values to compare one by one. Maximal element I'm holding in maxi variable, it's index - in maxIdx. Here's my program:
loop = do
let maxi = 0
let maxIdx = 0
let idx = 0
let idxN = 0
replicateM 5 $ do
input_line <- getLine
let element = read input_line :: Int
if maxi < element
then do
let maxi = element
let maxIdx = idx
hPutStrLn stderr "INNER CHECK"
else
hPutStrLn stderr "OUTER CHECK"
let idx = idxN + 1
let idxN = idx
print maxIdx
loop
Even though I know elements coming are starting from bigger to smaller (5, 4, 3, 2, 1) program enters INNER CHECK all the time (it should happen only for the first element!) and maxIdx is always 0.
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance.
Anyway, let's have fun.
loop = do
let maxi = 0
let maxIdx = 0
let idx = 0
let idxN = 0
replicateM 5 $ do
input_line <- getLine
let element = read input_line :: Int
if maxi < element
then do
let maxi = element
let maxIdx = idx
hPutStrLn stderr "INNER CHECK"
else
hPutStrLn stderr "OUTER CHECK"
let idx = idxN + 1
let idxN = idx
print maxIdx
loop
is not a particularly Haskelly code (and as you know is not particularly correct).
Let's make if Haskellier.
What do we do here? We've an infinite loop, which is reading a line 5 times, does something to it, and then calls itself again for no particular reason.
Let's split it:
import Control.Monad
readFiveLines :: IO [Int]
readFiveLines = replicateM 5 readLn
addIndex :: [Int] -> [(Int, Int)]
addIndex xs = zip xs [0..]
findMaxIndex :: [Int] -> Int
findMaxIndex xs = snd (maximum (addIndex xs))
loop :: ()
loop = loop
main :: IO ()
main = do xs <- readFiveLines
putStrLn (show (findMaxIndex xs))
snd returns the second element from a tuple; readLn is essentially read . getLine; zip takes two lists and returns a list of pairs; maximum finds a maximum value.
I left loop intact in its original beauty.
You can be even Haskellier if you remember that something (huge expression) can be replaced with something $ huge expression ($ simply applies its left operand to its right operand), and the functions can be combined with .: f (g x) is the same as (f . g) x, or f . g $ x (see? it's working for the left side as well!). Additionally, zip x y can be rewritten as x `zip` y
import Control.Monad
readFiveLines :: IO [Int]
readFiveLines = replicateM 5 readLn
addIndex :: [Int] -> [(Int, Int)]
addIndex = (`zip` [0..])
findMaxIndex :: [Int] -> Int
findMaxIndex = snd . maximum . addIndex
main :: IO ()
main = do xs <- readFiveLines
putStrLn . show . findMaxIndex $ xs
As for debug print, there's a package called Debug.Trace and a function traceShow which prints its first argument (formatted with show, hence the name) to stderr, and returns its second argument:
findMaxIndex :: [Int] -> Int
findMaxIndex = snd . (\xs -> traceShow xs (maximum xs)) . addIndex
That allows you to tap onto any expression and see what's coming in (and what are the values around — you can show tuples, lists, etc.)
I think alf's answer is very good, but for what it's worth, here's how I would interpret your intention.
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
module Main where
import System.IO
import Control.Monad.State
data S = S { maximum :: Int
, maximumIndex :: Int
, currentIndex :: Int }
update :: Int -> Int -> S -> S
update m mi (S _ _ ci) = S m mi ci
increment :: S -> S
increment (S m mi ci) = S m mi (ci+1)
next :: (MonadIO m, MonadState S m) => m ()
next = do
S maxi maxIdx currIdx <- get
input <- liftIO $ getLine
let element = read input :: Int
if maxi < element
then do
modify (update element currIdx)
liftIO $ hPutStrLn stderr "INNER CHECK"
else
liftIO $ hPutStrLn stderr "OUTER CHECK"
modify increment
run :: Int -> IO S
run n = execStateT (replicateM_ n next) (S 0 0 0)
main :: IO ()
main = do
S maxi maxIdx _ <- run 5
putStrLn $ "maxi: " ++ (show maxi) ++ " | maxIdx: " ++ (show maxIdx)
This uses a monad transformer to combine a stateful computation with IO. The get function retrieves the current state, and the modify function lets you change the state.
Basically I would like to find a way so that a user can enter the number of test cases and then input their test cases. The program can then run those test cases and print out the results in the order that the test cases appear.
So basically I have main which reads in the number of test cases and inputs it into a function that will read from IO that many times. It looks like this:
main = getLine >>= \tst -> w (read :: String -> Int) tst [[]]
This is the method signature of w: w :: Int -> [[Int]]-> IO ()
So my plan is to read in the number of test cases and have w run a function which takes in each test case and store the result into the [[]] variable. So each list in the list will be an output. w will just run recursively until it reaches 0 and print out each list on a separate line. I'd like to know if there is a better way of doing this since I have to pass in an empty list into w, which seems extraneous.
As #bheklilr mentioned you can't update a value like [[]]. The standard functional approach is to pass an accumulator through a a set of recursive calls. In the following example the acc parameter to the loop function is this accumulator - it consists of all of the output collected so far. At the end of the loop we return it.
myTest :: Int -> [String]
myTest n = [ "output line " ++ show k ++ " for n = " ++ show n | k <- [1..n] ]
main = do
putStr "Enter number of test cases: "
ntests <- fmap read getLine :: IO Int
let loop k acc | k > ntests = return $ reverse acc
loop k acc = do
-- we're on the kth-iteration
putStr $ "Enter parameter for test case " ++ show k ++ ": "
a <- fmap read getLine :: IO Int
let output = myTest a -- run the test
loop (k+1) (output:acc)
allOutput <- loop 1 []
print allOutput
As you get more comfortable with this kind of pattern you'll recognize it as a fold (indeed a monadic fold since we're doing IO) and you can implement it with foldM.
Update: To help explain how fmap works, here are equivalent expressions written without using fmap:
With fmap: Without fmap:
n <- fmap read getLine :: IO [Int] line <- getLine
let n = read line :: Int
vals <- fmap (map read . words) getLine line <- getLine
:: IO [Int] let vals = (map read . words) line :: [Int]
Using fmap allows us to eliminate the intermediate variable line which we never reference again anyway. We still need to provide a type signature so read knows what to do.
The idiomatic way is to use replicateM:
runAllTests :: [[Int]] -> IO ()
runAllTests = {- ... -}
main = do
numTests <- readLn
tests <- replicateM numTests readLn
runAllTests tests
-- or:
-- main = readLn >>= flip replicateM readLn >>= runAllTests
I am getting Non-exhaustive patterns in lambda. I am not sure of the cause yet. Please anyone how to fix it. The code is below:
import Control.Monad
import Data.List
time_spent h1 h2 = max (abs (fst h1 - fst h2)) (abs (snd h1 - snd h2))
meeting_point xs = foldl' (find_min_time) maxBound xs
where
time_to_point p = foldl' (\tacc p' -> tacc + (time_spent p p')) 0 xs
find_min_time min_time p = let x = time_to_point p in if x < min_time then x else min_time
main = do
n <- readLn :: IO Int
points <- fmap (map (\[x,y] -> (x,y)) . map (map (read :: String->Int)) . map words . lines) getContents
putStrLn $ show $ meeting_point points
This is the lambda with the non-exhaustive patterns: \[x,y] -> (x,y).
The non-exhaustive pattern is because the argument you've specified, [x,y] doesn't match any possible list - it only matches lists with precisely two elements.
I would suggest replacing it with a separate function with an error case to print out the unexpected data in an error message so you can debug further, e.g.:
f [x,y] = (x, y)
f l = error $ "Unexpected list: " ++ show l
...
points <- fmap (map f . map ...)
As an addition to #GaneshSittampalam's answer, you could also do this with more graceful error handling using the Maybe monad, the mapM function from Control.Monad, and readMaybe from Text.Read. I would also recommend refactoring your code so that the parsing is its own function, it makes your main function much cleaner and easier to debug.
import Control.Monad (mapM)
import Text.Read (readMaybe)
toPoint :: [a] -> Maybe (a, a)
toPoint [x, y] = Just (x, y)
toPoint _ = Nothing
This is just a simple pattern matching function that returns Nothing if it gets a list with length not 2. Otherwise it turns it into a 2-tuple and wraps it in Just.
parseData :: String -> Maybe [(Int, Int)]
parseData text = do
-- returns Nothing if a non-Int is encountered
values <- mapM (mapM readMaybe . words) . lines $ text
-- returns Nothing if a line doesn't have exactly 2 values
mapM toPoint values
Your parsing can actually be simplified significantly by using mapM and readMaybe. The type of readMaybe is Read a => String -> Maybe a, and in this case since we've specified the type of parseData to return Maybe [(Int, Int)], the compiler can infer that readMaybe should have the local type of String -> Maybe Int. We still use lines and words in the same way, but now since we use mapM the type of the right hand side of the <- is Maybe [[Int]], so the type of values is [[Int]]. What mapM also does for us is if any of those actions fails, the overall computation exits early with Nothing. Then we simply use mapM toPoint to convert values into a list of points, but also with the failure mechanism built in. We actually could use the more general signature of parseData :: Read a => String -> Maybe [(a, a)], but it isn't necessary.
main = do
n <- readLn :: IO Int
points <- fmap parseData getContents
case points of
Just ps -> print $ meeting_point ps
Nothing -> putStrLn "Invalid data!"
Now we just use fmap parseData on getContents, making points have the type Maybe [(Int, Int)]. Finally, we pattern match on points to print out the result of the meeting_point computation or print a helpful message if something went wrong.
If you wanted even better error handling, you could leverage the Either monad in a similar fashion:
toPoint :: [a] -> Either String (a, a)
toPoint [x, y] = Right (x, y)
toPoint _ = Left "Invalid number of points"
readEither :: Read a => String -> Either String a
readEither text = maybe (Left $ "Invalid parse: " ++ text) Right $ readMaybe text
-- default value ^ Wraps output on success ^
-- Same definition with different type signature and `readEither`
parseData :: String -> Either String [(Int, Int)]
parseData text = do
values <- mapM (mapM readEither . words) . lines $ text
mapM toPoint values
main = do
points <- fmap parseData getContents
case points of
Right ps -> print $ meeting_point ps
Left err -> putStrLn $ "Error: " ++ err