I'm following this introduction to Haskell, and this particular place (user defined types 2.2) I'm finding particularly obscure. To the point, I don't even understand what part of it is code, and what part is the thoughts of the author. (What is Pt - it is never defined anywhere?). Needless to say, I can't execute / compile it.
As an example that would make it easier for me to understand, I wanted to define a type, which is a pair of an Integer and a String, or a String and an Integer, but nothing else.
The theoretical function that would use it would look like so:
combine :: StringIntPair -> String
combine a b = (show a) ++ b
combine a b = a ++ (show b)
If you need a working code, that does the same, here's CL code for doing it:
(defgeneric combine (a b)
(:documentation "Combines strings and integers"))
(defmethod combine ((a string) (b integer))
(concatenate 'string a (write-to-string b)))
(defmethod combine ((a integer) (b string))
(concatenate 'string (write-to-string a) b))
(combine 100 "500")
Here's one way to define the datatype:
data StringIntPair = StringInt String Int |
IntString Int String
deriving (Show, Eq, Ord)
Note that I've defined two constructors for type StringIntPair, and they are StringInt and IntString.
Now in the definition of combine:
combine :: StringIntPair -> String
combine (StringInt s i) = s ++ (show i)
combine (IntString i s) = (show i) ++ s
I'm using pattern matching to match the constructors and select the correct behavior.
Here are some examples of usage:
*Main> let y = StringInt "abc" 123
*Main> let z = IntString 789 "a string"
*Main> combine y
"abc123"
*Main> combine z
"789a string"
*Main> :t y
y :: StringIntPair
*Main> :t z
z :: StringIntPair
A few things to note about the examples:
StringIntPair is a type; doing :t <expression> in the interpreter shows the type of an expression
StringInt and IntString are constructors of the same type
the vertical bar (|) separates constructors
a well-written function should match each constructor of its argument's types; that's why I've written combine with two patterns, one for each constructor
data StringIntPair = StringInt String Int
| IntString Int String
combine :: StringIntPair -> String
combine (StringInt s i) = s ++ (show i)
combine (IntString i s) = (show i) ++ s
So it can be used like that:
> combine $ StringInt "asdf" 3
"asdf3"
> combine $ IntString 4 "fasdf"
"4fasdf"
Since Haskell is strongly typed, you always know what type a variable has. Additionally, you will never know more. For instance, consider the function length that calculates the length of a list. It has the type:
length :: [a] -> Int
That is, it takes a list of arbitrary a (although all elements have the same type) and returns and Int. The function may never look inside one of the lists node and inspect what is stored in there, since it hasn't and can't get any informations about what type that stuff stored has. This makes Haskell pretty efficient, since, as opposed to typical OOP languages such as Java, no type information has to be stored at runtime.
To make it possible to have different types of variables in one parameter, one can use an Algebraic Data Type (ADT). One, that stores either a String and an Int or an Int and a String can be defined as:
data StringIntPair = StringInt String Int
| IntString Int String
You can find out about which of the two is taken by pattern matching on the parameter. (Notice that you have only one, since both the string and the in are encapsulated in an ADT):
combine :: StringIntPair -> String
combine (StringInt str int) = str ++ show int
combine (IntString int str) = show int ++ str
Related
I have declared a type:
type Foo = (Char, Char, Char)
And want to be able to parse a 3 letter string "ABC" to produce an output Foo with each of ABC as the three attributes of the type.
My current attempt is;
parseFoo :: String → Maybe Foo
parseFoo str = f where
f (a, _, _) = str[0]
f (_, b, _) = str[1]
f (_, _, c) = str[2]
This is returning an error:
Illegal operator ‘→’ in type ‘String → Maybe Foo’
Use TypeOperators to allow operators in types
My question is:
How do I prevent this error on compilation?
Am I even on the right track?
If I understand it the correct way, you want to store the first three characters of a string into a type Foo (which is an alias for a 3-tuple that contains three Chars).
The signature seems correct (it is good practice to return a Maybe if something can go wrong, and here it is possible that the string contains less than three characters). A problem hwever is that you write an arrow character → whereas signatures in Haskell usse -> (two ASCII characters, a dash and a greater than symbol).
So we can define the signature as:
parseFoo :: String -> Maybe Foo
Now the second problem is that you here define a function f that maps Foos to Strings, so the reverse. You also make use of a syntax that is frequently used for indexing in languages of the C/C++/C#/Java programming language family, but indexing in Haskell is done with the (!!) operator, and since you define the function in reverse, it will not help.
A string is a list of Chars, so:
type String = [Char]
We can thus define two patterns:
a list with three (or more) characters; and
a list with less than three characters.
For the former, we return a 3-tuple with these characters (wrapped in a Just), for the latter we return Nothing:
parseFoo :: String -> Maybe Foo
parseFoo (a:b:c:_) = Just (a, b, c)
parseFoo _ = Nothing
Or if we do not want to parse strings with more than three characters successfully:
parseFoo :: String -> Maybe Foo
parseFoo [a, b, c] = Just (a, b, c)
parseFoo _ = Nothing
Support I have a list of type [Char], and the values enclosed are values of a different type if I remove their quotations which describe them as characters. e.g. ['2','3','4'] represents a list of integers given we change their type.
I have a similar but more complicated requirement, I need to change a [Char] to [SomeType] where SomeType is some arbitrary type corresponding to the values without the character quotations.
Assuming you have some function foo :: Char -> SomeType, you just need to map this function over your list of Char.
bar :: [Char] -> [SomeType]
bar cs = map foo cs
I hope I get this correctly and there is a way (if the data-constructors are just one-letters too) - you use the auto-deriving for Read:
data X = A | B | Y
deriving (Show, Read)
parse :: String -> [X]
parse = map (read . return)
(the return will just wrap a single character back into a singleton-list making it a String)
example
λ> parse "BAY"
[B,A,Y]
The data and type keywords always confuse me.
I want to know what is the difference between data and type and how to use them.
type declares a type synonym. A type synonym is a new name for an existing type. For example, this is how String is defined in the standard library:
type String = [Char]
String is another name for a list of Chars. GHC will replace all usages of String in your program with [Char] at compile-time.
To be clear, a String literally is a list of Chars. It's just an alias. You can use all the standard list functions on String values:
-- length :: [a] -> Int
ghci> length "haskell"
7
-- reverse :: [a] -> [a]
ghci> reverse "functional"
"lanoitcnuf"
data declares a new data type, which, unlike a type synonym, is different from any other type. Data types have a number of constructors defining the possible cases of your type. For example, this is how Bool is defined in the standard library:
data Bool = False | True
A Bool value can be either True or False. Data types support pattern matching, allowing you to perform a runtime case-analysis on a value of a data type.
yesno :: Bool -> String
yesno True = "yes"
yesno False = "no"
data types can have multiple constructors (as with Bool), can be parameterised by other types, can contain other types inside them, and can recursively refer to themselves. Here's a model of exceptions which demonstrates this; an Error a contains an error message of type a, and possibly the error which caused it.
data Error a = Error { value :: a, cause :: Maybe (Error a) }
type ErrorWithMessage = Error String
myError1, myError2 :: ErrorWithMessage
myError1 = Error "woops" Nothing
myError2 = Error "myError1 was thrown" (Just myError1)
It's important to realise that data declares a new type which is apart from any other type in the system. If String had been declared as a data type containing a list of Chars (rather than a type synonym), you wouldn't be able to use any list functions on it.
data String = MkString [Char]
myString = MkString ['h', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o']
myReversedString = reverse myString -- type error
There's one more variety of type declaration: newtype. This works rather like a data declaration - it introduces a new data type separate from any other type, and can be pattern matched - except you are restricted to a single constructor with a single field. In other words, a newtype is a data type which wraps up an existing type.
The important difference is the cost of a newtype: the compiler promises that a newtype is represented in the same way as the type it wraps. There's no runtime cost to packing or unpacking a newtype. This makes newtypes useful for making administrative (rather than structural) distinctions between values.
newtypes interact well with type classes. For example, consider Monoid, the class of types with a way to combine elements (mappend) and a special 'empty' element (mempty). Int can be made into a Monoid in many ways, including addition with 0 and multiplication with 1. How can we choose which one to use for a possible Monoid instance of Int? It's better not to express a preference, and use newtypes to enable either usage with no runtime cost. Paraphrasing the standard library:
-- introduce a type Sum with a constructor Sum which wraps an Int, and an extractor getSum which gives you back the Int
newtype Sum = Sum { getSum :: Int }
instance Monoid Sum where
(Sum x) `mappend` (Sum y) = Sum (x + y)
mempty = Sum 0
newtype Product = Product { getProduct :: Int }
instance Monoid Product where
(Product x) `mappend` (Product y) = Product (x * y)
mempty = Product 1
With data you create new datatype and declare a constructor for it:
data NewData = NewDataConstructor
With type you define just an alias:
type MyChar = Char
In the type case you can pass value of MyChar type to function expecting a Char and vice versa, but you can't do this for data MyChar = MyChar Char.
type works just like let: it allows you to give a re-usable name to something, but that something will always work just as if you had inlined the definition. So
type ℝ = Double
f :: ℝ -> ℝ -> ℝ
f x y = let x2 = x^2
in x2 + y
behaves exactly the same way as
f' :: Double -> Double -> Double
f' x y = x^2 + y
as in: you can anywhere in your code replace f with f' and vice versa; nothing would change.
OTOH, both data and newtype create an opaque abstraction. They are more like a class constructor in OO: even though some value is implemented simply in terms of a single number, it doesn't necessarily behave like such a number. For instance,
newtype Logscaledℝ = LogScaledℝ { getLogscaled :: Double }
instance Num LogScaledℝ where
LogScaledℝ a + LogScaledℝ b = LogScaledℝ $ a*b
LogScaledℝ a - LogScaledℝ b = LogScaledℝ $ a/b
LogScaledℝ a * LogScaledℝ b = LogScaledℝ $ a**b
Here, although Logscaledℝ is data-wise still just a Double number, it clearly behaves different from Double.
I was coding with with the lens package. Everything was going fine until I tried to access a certain field on an algebraic type:
import Control.Lens
data Type = A { _a :: Char } | B
makeLenses ''Type
test1 = _a (A 'a')
test2 = (A 'a') ^. a
No instance for (Data.Monoid.Monoid Char)
arising from a use of `a'
Possible fix:
add an instance declaration for (Data.Monoid.Monoid Char)
In the second argument of `(^.)', namely `a'
In the expression: (A 'a') ^. a
In an equation for `test2': test2 = (A 'a') ^. a
I could just go with _a, but the datatype in my real program is much deeper and I kind of intended on using lens to lower the amount of work I have to do. I have been looking over the lens library but there's so much there, and I'm not sure if he's dealt with this scenario or it is just something the lens library doesn't support.
As a side note, if I actually use a monoid like String for the datatype instead of Char, it then compiles and gives the right answer, I have no idea why.
Edit: After reading hammar's comment, I tried this and this works:
test2 = (A 'a') ^? a
test3 = B ^? a
But it is kind of weird to get a maybe out of that for something that has to exist.
Just so that this is answered, my problem was that I had an algebraic type where some fields were in common between the different constructors but there was a couple fields that weren't shared would die in runtime if I tried to use them.
data Exercise =
BarbellExercise {
name :: String,
weight :: Int,
reps :: Int
} |
BodyWeightExercise {
name :: String,
reps :: Int
}
exer1 = BarbellExercise "Squats" 235 15
exer2 = BarbellExercise "Deadlifts" 265 15
exer3 = BodyWeightExercise "Pullups" 12
exer4 = BarbellExercise "Overhead Press" 85 15
workout = [exer1, exer2, exer3, exer4]
test = do
mapM_ displayExercise workout
where
displayExercise x = putStrLn $ "Exercise: " ++ (name x) ++ " You must perform " ++ (show $ reps x) ++ "#" ++ (show $ weight x)
This compiles but dies runtime if I make the mistake of using the weight function. Understandable mistake. When lenses uses template haskell to generate instances it notices this and changes its behavior to prevent a mistake. You could remove the field accessors but in my case most of the fields were the same between datatypes. Here's how I should have written the data type once I noticed the fields did not match up:
data Exercise =
BarbellExercise
String -- ^ name
Int -- ^ reps
Int -- ^ weight
|
BodyWeightExercise
String -- ^ name
Int -- reps
name :: Exercise -> String
name (BarbellExercise n _ _) = n
name (BodyWeightExercise n _) = n
reps :: Exercise -> Int
reps (BarbellExercise _ r _) = r
reps (BodyWeightExercise _ r) = r
By doing it this way, while it is a little less clean, the error are caught at compile time. By forcing me to write the functions myself I would notice any partial functions as I was writing them.
I do kind of wish ghc would have warned me. It seems like it would be really easy for it to detect such a thing.
Suppose I have
data Foo = A String Int | B Int
I want to take an xs :: [Foo] and sort it such that all the As are at the beginning, sorted by their strings, but with the ints in the order they appeared in the list, and then have all the Bs at the end, in the same order they appeared.
In particular, I want to create a new list containg the first A of each string and the first B.
I did this by defining a function taking Foos to (Int, String)s and using sortBy and groupBy.
Is there a cleaner way to do this? Preferably one that generalizes to at least 10 constructors.
Typeable, maybe? Something else that's nicer?
EDIT: This is used for processing a list of Foos that is used elsewhere. There is already an Ord instance which is the normal ordering.
You can use
sortBy (comparing foo)
where foo is a function that extracts the interesting parts into something comparable (e.g. Ints).
In the example, since you want the As sorted by their Strings, a mapping to Int with the desired properties would be too complicated, so we use a compound target type.
foo (A s _) = (0,s)
foo (B _) = (1,"")
would be a possible helper. This is more or less equivalent to Tikhon Jelvis' suggestion, but it leaves space for the natural Ord instance.
To make it easier to build comparison function for ADTs with large number of constructors, you can map values to their constructor index with SYB:
{-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-}
import Data.Generics
data Foo = A String Int | B Int deriving (Show, Eq, Typeable, Data)
cIndex :: Data a => a -> Int
cIndex = constrIndex . toConstr
Example:
*Main Data.Generics> cIndex $ A "foo" 42
1
*Main Data.Generics> cIndex $ B 0
2
Edit:After re-reading your question, I think the best option is to make Foo an instance of Ord. I do not think there is any way to do this automatically that will act the way you want (just using deriving will create different behavior).
Once Foo is an instance of Ord, you can just use sort from Data.List.
In your exact example, you can do something like this:
data Foo = A String Int | B Int deriving (Eq)
instance Ord Foo where
(A _ _) <= (B _) = True
(A s _) <= (A s' _) = s <= s'
(B _) <= (B _) = True
When something is an instance of Ord, it means the data type has some ordering. Once we know how to order something, we can use a bunch of existing functions (like sort) on it and it will behave how you want. Anything in Ord has to be part of Eq, which is what the deriving (Eq) bit does automatically.
You can also derive Ord. However, the behavior will not be exactly what you want--it will order by all of the fields if it has to (e.g. it will put As with the same string in order by their integers).
Further edit: I was thinking about it some more and realized my solution is probably semantically wrong.
An Ord instance is a statement about your whole data type. For example, I'm saying that Bs are always equal with each other when the derived Eq instance says otherwise.
If the data your representing always behaves like this (that is, Bs are all equal and As with the same string are all equal) then an Ord instance makes sense. Otherwise, you should not actually do this.
However, you can do something almost exactly like this: write your own special compare function (Foo -> Foo -> Ordering) that encapsulates exactly what you want to do then use sortBy. This properly codifies that your particular sorting is special rather than the natural ordering of the data type.
You could use some template haskell to fill in the missing transitive cases. The mkTransitiveLt creates the transitive closure of the given cases (if you order them least to greatest). This gives you a working less-than, which can be turned into a function that returns an Ordering.
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import MkTransitiveLt
import Data.List (sortBy)
data Foo = A String Int | B Int | C | D | E deriving(Show)
cmp a b = $(mkTransitiveLt [|
case (a, b) of
(A _ _, B _) -> True
(B _, C) -> True
(C, D) -> True
(D, E) -> True
(A s _, A s' _) -> s < s'
otherwise -> False|])
lt2Ord f a b =
case (f a b, f b a) of
(True, _) -> LT
(_, True) -> GT
otherwise -> EQ
main = print $ sortBy (lt2Ord cmp) [A "Z" 1, A "A" 1, B 1, A "A" 0, C]
Generates:
[A "A" 1,A "A" 0,A "Z" 1,B 1,C]
mkTransitiveLt must be defined in a separate module:
module MkTransitiveLt (mkTransitiveLt)
where
import Language.Haskell.TH
mkTransitiveLt :: ExpQ -> ExpQ
mkTransitiveLt eq = do
CaseE e ms <- eq
return . CaseE e . reverse . foldl go [] $ ms
where
go ms m#(Match (TupP [a, b]) body decls) = (m:ms) ++
[Match (TupP [x, b]) body decls | Match (TupP [x, y]) _ _ <- ms, y == a]
go ms m = m:ms