I'm trying to spew out randomly generated dice for every roll that the user plays. The user has 3 rolls per turn and he gets to play 5 turns (I haven't implemented this part yet and I would appreciate suggestions).
I'm also wondering how I can display the colors randomly. I have the list of tuples in place, but I reckon I need some function that uses random and that list to match those colors. I'm struggling as to how.
module Main where
import System.IO
import System.Random
import Data.List
diceColor = [("Black",1),("Green",2),("Purple",3),("Red",4),("White",5),("Yellow",6)]
{-
randomList :: (RandomGen g) -> Int -> g -> [Integer]
random 0 _ = []
randomList n generator = r : randomList (n-1) newGenerator
where (r, newGenerator) = randomR (1, 6) generator
-}
rand :: Int -> [Int] -> IO ()
rand n rlst = do
num <- randomRIO (1::Int, 6)
if n == 0
then doSomething rlst
else rand (n-1) (num:rlst)
doSomething x = putStrLn (show (sort x))
main :: IO ()
main = do
--hSetBuffering stdin LineBuffering
putStrLn "roll, keep, score?"
cmd <- getLine
doYahtzee cmd
--rand (read cmd) []
doYahtzee :: String -> IO ()
doYahtzee cmd = do
if cmd == "roll"
then rand 5 []
else do print "You won"
There's really a lot of errors sprinkled throughout this code, which suggests to me that you tried to build the whole thing at once. This is a recipe for disaster; you should be building very small things and testing them often in ghci.
Lecture aside, you might find the following facts interesting (in order of the associated errors in your code):
List is deprecated; you should use Data.List instead.
No let is needed for top-level definitions.
Variable names must begin with a lower case letter.
Class prerequisites are separated from a type by =>.
The top-level module block should mainly have definitions; you should associate every where clause (especially the one near randomList) with a definition by either indenting it enough not to be a new line in the module block or keeping it on the same line as the definition you want it to be associated with.
do introduces a block; those things in the block should be indented equally and more than their context.
doYahtzee is declared and used as if it has three arguments, but seems to be defined as if it only has one.
The read function is used to parse a String. Unless you know what it does, using read to parse a String from another String is probably not what you want to do -- especially on user input.
putStrLn only takes one argument, not four, and that argument has to be a String. However, making a guess at what you wanted here, you might like the (!!) and print functions.
dieRoll doesn't seem to be defined anywhere.
It's possible that there are other errors, as well. Stylistically, I recommend that you check out replicateM, randomRs, and forever. You can use hoogle to search for their names and read more about them; in the future, you can also use it to search for functions you wish existed by their type.
Related
This question already has answers here:
How to get normal value from IO action in Haskell
(2 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
In many imperative programming languages like Java, C or Python we can easily add a print function which can give us information about the intermediate state of the program.
My goal is to find a way to do something like that in Haskell. I want the function which not only computes value but also prints something. The function below is a simplified version of what I want to do. My actual function is too complicated and incomprehensive without context to show it here.
My idea is to have a "pure" Haskell function that has an auxiliary function inside which has [Int] -> IO () -> Int type signature. An IO parameter is initialized in the where clause as a do block. But unfortunately, the do block is not executed, when I run the function in GHCI. The function is compiled successfuly though
module Tests where
-- Function returns the sum of the list and tries to print some info
-- but no IO actually happens
pureFuncWithIO :: [Int] -> Int
pureFuncWithIO [] = 0
pureFuncWithIO nums = auxIOfunc nums (return ())
where
auxIOfunc [] _ = 0
auxIOfunc (n : ns) _ = n + auxIOfunc ns (sneakyIOaction n)
sneakyIOaction n
= do -- Not executed
putStrLn $ "adding " ++ (show n);
return ()
Output in GHCI test:
*Tests> pureFuncWithIO [1,2,3,4,5]
15
Meanwhile, I expected something like this:
*Tests> pureFuncWithIO [1,2,3,4,5]
adding 1
adding 2
adding 3
adding 4
adding 5
15
Is it possible to come up with a way to have IO inside, keeping the return type of the outer-most function, not an IO a flavor? Thanks!
This type signature
pureFuncWithIO :: [Int] -> Int
is promising to the caller that no side effect (like prints) will be observed. The compiler will reject any attempt to perform IO. Some exceptions exist for debugging (Debug.Trace), but they are not meant to be left in production code. There also are some "forbidden", unsafe low-level functions which should never be used in regular code -- you should pretend these do not exist at all.
If you want to do IO, you need an IO return type.
pureFuncWithIO :: [Int] -> IO Int
Doing so allows to weave side effects with the rest of the code.
pureFuncWithIO [] = return 0
pureFuncWithIO (n : ns) = do
putStrLn $ "adding " ++ show n
res <- pureFuncWithIO ns
return (n + res)
A major point in the design of Haskell is to have a strict separation of functions which can not do IO and those who can. Doing IO in a non-IO context is what the Haskell type system was designed to prevent.
Your sneakyIOaction is not executed because you pass its result as a parameter to auxIOfunc, but never use that parameter, and haskell being lazy bastard it is never execute it.
If you try to use said parameter you find out that you can't. It's type not allow you to do anithing with it except combine with other IO things.
There is a way to do what you want, but it is on dark side. You need unsafePerformIO
unsafePerformIO :: IO a -> a
That stuff basically allow you to execute any IO. Tricky thing you have to consume result, otherwise you may end up with haskell skip it due to its laziness. You may want to look into seq if you really want to use it, but don't actually need result.
I would like to allow a user to build a list from a series of inputs in Haskell.
The getLine function would be called recursively until the stopping case ("Y") is input, at which point the list is returned.
I know the function needs to be in a similar format to below. I am having trouble assigning the correct type signatures - I think I need to include the IO type somewhere.
getList :: [String] -> [String]
getList list = do line <- getLine
if line == "Y"
then return list
else getList (line : list)
So there's a bunch of things that you need to understand. One of them is the IO x type. A value of this type is a computer program that, when later run, will do something and produce a value of type x. So getLine doesn't do anything by itself; it just is a certain sort of program. Same with let p = putStrLn "hello!". I can sequence p into my program multiple times and it will print hello! multiple times, because the IO () is a program, as a value which Haskell happens to be able to talk about and manipulate. If this were TypeScript I would say type IO<x> = { run: () => Promise<x> } and emphatically that type says that the side-effecting action has not been run yet.
So how do we manipulate these values when the value is a program, for example one that fetches the current system time?
The most fundamental way to chain such programs together is to take a program that produces an x (an IO x) and then a Haskell function which takes an x and constructs a program which produces a y (an x -> IO y and combines them together into a resulting program producing a y (an IO y.) This function is called >>= and pronounced "bind". In fact this way is universal, if we add a program which takes any Haskell value of type x and produces a program which does nothing and produces that value (return :: x -> IO x). This allows you to use, for example, the Prelude function fmap f = (>>= return . f) which takes an a -> b and applies it to an IO a to produce an IO b.
So It is so common to say things like getLine >>= \line -> putStrLn (upcase line ++ "!") that we invented do-notation, writing this as
do
line <- getLine
putStrLn (upcase line ++ "!")
Notice that it's the same basic deal; the last line needs to be an IO y for some y.
The last thing you need to know in Haskell is the convention which actually gets these things run. That is that, in your Haskell source code, you are supposed to create an IO () (a program whose value doesn't matter) called Main.main, and the Haskell compiler is supposed to take this program which you described, and give it to you as an executable which you can run whenever you want. As a very special case, the GHCi interpreter will notice if you produce an IO x expression at the top level and will immediately run it for you, but that is very different from how the rest of the language works. For the most part, Haskell says, describe the program and I will give it to you.
Now that you know that Haskell has no magic and the Haskell IO x type just is a static representation of a computer program as a value, rather than something which does side-effecting stuff when you "reduce" it (like it is in other languages), we can turn to your getList. Clearly getList :: IO [String] makes the most sense based on what you said: a program which allows a user to build a list from a series of inputs.
Now to build the internals, you've got the right guess: we've got to start with a getLine and either finish off the list or continue accepting inputs, prepending the line to the list:
getList = do
line <- getLine
if line == 'exit' then return []
else fmap (line:) getList
You've also identified another way to do it, which depends on taking a list of strings and producing a new list:
getList :: IO [String]
getList = fmap reverse (go []) where
go xs = do
x <- getLine
if x == "exit" then return xs
else go (x : xs)
There are probably several other ways to do it.
I want to provide a function that replaces each occurrence of # in a string with a different random number. In a non-pure language, it's trivial. However, how should it be designed in a pure language? I don't want to use unsafePerformIO, as it rather looks like a hack and not a proper design.
Should this function require a random generator as one of its parameters? And if so, would that generator have to be passed through the whole stack of invocations? Are there other possible approaches? Should I use the State monad, here? I would appreciate a toy example demonstrating a viable approach...
You would, in fact, use a variant of the state monad to pass the random generator around behind the scenes. The Rand type in Control.Monad.Random helps with this. The API is a bit confusing, but more because it's polymorphic over the type of random generator you use than because it has to be functional. This extra bit of scaffolding is useful, however, because you can easily reuse your existing code with different random generators which lets you test different algorithms as well as explicitly controlling whether the generator is deterministic (good for testing) or seeded with outside data (in IO).
Here's a simple example of Rand in action. The RandomGen g => in the type signature tells us that we can use any type of random generator for it. We have to explicitly annotate n as an Int because otherwise GHC only knows that it has to be some numeric type that can be generated and turned into a string, which can be one of multiple possible options (like Double).
randomReplace :: RandomGen g => String -> Rand g String
randomReplace = foldM go ""
where go str '#' = do
n :: Int <- getRandomR (0, 10)
return (str ++ show n)
go str chr = return $ str ++ [chr]
To run this, we need to get a random generator from somewhere and pass it into evalRand. The easiest way to do this is to get the global system generator which we can do in IO:
main :: IO ()
main = do gen <- getStdGen
print $ evalRand (randomReplace "ab#c#") gen
This is such a common pattern that the library provides an evalRandIO function which does it for you:
main :: IO ()
main = do res <- evalRandIO $ randomReplace "ab#c#"
print res
In the end, the code is a bit more explicit about having a random generator and passing it around, but it's still reasonably easy to follow. For more involved code, you could also use RandT, which allows you to extend other monads (like IO) with the ability to generate random values, letting you relegate all the plumbing and setup to one part of your code.
It's just a monadic mapping
import Control.Applicative
import Control.Monad.Random
import Data.Char
randomReplace :: RandomGen g => String -> Rand g String
randomReplace = mapM f where
f '#' = intToDigit <$> getRandomR (0, 10)
f c = return c
main = evalRandIO (randomReplace "#abc#def#") >>= print
I am trying to write to file a list of random Integers in a file. There seems to be a problem with writeFile here. When I use my function randomFile it says no instance for (Show (IO a0)). I see writeFile doesn't print anything to screen but IO(), so when I call the function randomFile 1 2 3 it says no Instance for Show (IO a0) but actually I just want to execute the function and not have to print anything but how can I avoid this problem. I might be making a lot of errors here. Any help.
import Control.Monad
import Control.Applicative
import System.Random
randNo mind maxd = randomRIO (mind,maxd)
randomFile mind maxd noe = do
let l=(replicate (fromInteger(noe ^ noe)) ( mind `randNo` maxd))
writeFile "RFile.txt" (show l)
I think you have a misunderstanding of what IO is. If you haven't done it, I strongly recommend going through the Input and Output section of Learn You a Haskell.
IO doesn't necessarily have anything to do with print. In Haskell every entry in memory that was made by your own code is considered "pure" while any entry that touches the rest of the computer lives in IO (with some exceptions you will learn about over time).
We model IO using something called a Monad. Which you will learn more about the longer you do Haskell. To understand this, let's look at an example of some code that does and doesn't use IO:
noIOused :: Int -> Int
noIOused x = x + 5
usesIO :: Int -> IO Int
usesIO x = print x >> return (x + 5)
usesIO2 :: Int -> IO Int
usesIO2 x = do
print x
return (x + 5)
The first function is "pure". The second and third functions have an IO "effect" that comes in the form of printing to the screen. usesIO and usesIO2 are just 2 different ways of doing the same thing (it's the same code but with different syntax). I'll use the second format, called do notation from here.
Here are some other ways you could have had IO effects:
add5WithFile :: Int -> IO Int
add5WithFile x = do
writeFile "someFile.txt" (show x)
return (x + 5)
Notice that in that function we didn't print anything, we wrote a file. But writing a file has a side effect and interacts with the rest of the system. So any value we return has to get wrapped in IO.
addRandom :: Int -> IO Int
addRandom x = do
y <- randomRIO (1,10)
return (x + y)
In addRandom we called randomRIO (1,10). But the problem is that randomRIO doesn't return an Int. It returns an IO Int. Why? Because in order to get true randomness we need to interact with the system in some way. To get around that, we have to temporarily strip away the IO. That's where this line comes in:
y <- randomRIO (1,10)
That <- arrow tells us that we want a y value outside of IO. For as long as we remain inside the do syntax that y value is going to be "pure". Now we can use it just like any other value.
So for example we couldn't do this:
let w = x + (randomRIO (1,10))
Because that would be trying to add Int to IO Int. And unfortunately our + function doesn't know how to do that. So first we have to "bind" the result of randomRIO to y before we can add it to x.
Now let's look at your code:
let l=(replicate (fromInteger(noe ^ noe)) ( mind `randNo` maxd))
writeFile "RFile.txt" (show l)
The type of l is actually IO a0. It's a0 because you haven't told the compiler what kind of number you want. So it doesn't know if you want a fraction, a double, a big integer or whatever.
So the first problem is to let the compiler know a little bit more about what kind of random number you want. We do this by adding a type annotation:
randNo :: Int -> Int -> IO Int
randNo mind maxd = randomRIO (mind,maxd)
Now both you and the compiler knows what kind of value randNo is.
Now we need to "bind" that value inside of the do notation to temporarily escape IO. You might think that would be simple, like this:
randomFile mind maxd noe = do
l <- replicate (fromInteger(noe ^ noe)) ( mind `randNo` maxd)
writeFile "RFile.txt" (show l)
Surely that will "bind" the IO Int to l right? Unfortunately not. The problem here is that replicate is a function of the form Int -> a -> [a]. That is, given a number and a type, it will give you a list of that type.
If you give replicate an IO Int it's going to make [IO Int]. That actually looks more like this: List (IO Int) except we use [] as syntactic sugar for lists. Unfortunately if we want to "bind" an IO value to something with <- it has to be the out-most type.
So what you need is a way to turn an [IO Int] into an IO [Int]. There are two ways to do that. If we put \[IO a\] -> IO \[a\] into Hoogle we get this:
sequence :: Monad m => [m a] -> m [a]
As I mentioned before, we generalise IO to something called a Monad. Which isn't really that big a deal, we could pretend that sequence has this signature: sequence :: [IO a] -> IO [a] and it would be the same thing just specialised to IO.
Now your function would be done like this:
randomFile mind maxd noe = do
l <- sequence (replicate (fromInteger(noe ^ noe)) ( mind `randNo` maxd))
writeFile "RFile.txt" (show l)
But a sequence followed by replicate is something people have to do all the time. So someone went and made a function called replicateM:
replicateM :: Monad m => Int -> m a -> m [a]
Now we can write your function like this:
randomFile mind maxd noe = do
l <- replicateM (fromInteger(noe ^ noe)) ( mind `randNo` maxd)
writeFile "RFile.txt" (show l)
And for some real Haskell magic, you can write all 3 lines of code in a single line, like this:
randomFile mind maxd noe = randomRIO >>= writeFile "RFile.txt" . replicateM (fromInteger(noe ^ noe))
If that looks like gibberish to you, then there's a lot you need to learn. Here is the suggested path:
If you haven't already, start from the beginning with Learn You a Haskell
Then learn about how You could have invented Monads
Then learn more about how to use randomness in Haskell
Finally see if you can complete the 20 intermediate Haskell exercises
Consider the code below taken from a working example I've built to help me learn Haskell. This code parses a CSV file containing stock quotes downloaded from Yahoo into a nice simple list of bars with which I can then work.
My question: how can I write a function that will take a file name as its parameter and return an OHLCBarList so that the first four lines inside main can be properly encapsulated?
In other words, how can I implement (without getting all sorts of errors about IO stuff) the function whose type would be
getBarsFromFile :: Filename -> OHLCBarList
so that the grunt work that was being done in the first four lines of main can be properly encapsulated?
I've tried to do this myself but with my limited Haskell knowledge, I'm failing miserably.
import qualified Data.ByteString as BS
type Filename = String
getContentsOfFile :: Filename -> IO BS.ByteString
barParser :: Parser Bar
barParser = do
time <- timeParser
char ','
open <- double
char ','
high <- double
char ','
low <- double
char ','
close <- double
char ','
volume <- decimal
char ','
return $ Bar Bar1Day time open high low close volume
type OHLCBar = (UTCTime, Double, Double, Double, Double)
type OHLCBarList = [OHLCBar]
barsToBarList :: [Either String Bar] -> OHLCBarList
main :: IO ()
main = do
contents :: C.ByteString <- getContentsOfFile "PriceData/Daily/yhoo1.csv" --PriceData/Daily/Yhoo.csv"
let lineList :: [C.ByteString] = C.lines contents -- Break the contents into a list of lines
let bars :: [Either String Bar] = map (parseOnly barParser) lineList -- Using the attoparsec
let ohlcBarList :: OHLCBarList = barsToBarList bars -- Now I have a nice simple list of tuples with which to work
--- Now I can do simple operations like
print $ ohlcBarList !! 0
If you really want your function to have type Filename -> OHLCBarList, it can't be done.* Reading the contents of a file is an IO operation, and Haskell's IO monad is specifically designed so that values in the IO monad can never leave. If this restriction were broken, it would (in general) mess with a lot of things. Instead of doing this, you have two options: make the type of getBarsFromFile be Filename -> IO OHLCBarList — thus essentially copying the first four lines of main — or write a function with type C.ByteString -> OHLCBarList that the output of getContentsOfFile can be piped through to encapsulate lines 2 through 4 of main.
* Technically, it can be done, but you really, really, really shouldn't even try, especially if you're new to Haskell.
Others have explained that the correct type of your function has to be Filename -> IO OHLCBarList, I'd like to try and give you some insight as to why the compiler imposes this draconian measure on you.
Imperative programming is all about managing state: "do certain operations to certain bits of memory in sequence". When they grow large, procedural programs become brittle; we need a way of limiting the scope of state changes. OO programs encapsulate state in classes but the paradigm is not fundamentally different: you can call the same method twice and get different results. The output of the method depends on the (hidden) state of the object.
Functional programming goes all the way and bans mutable state entirely. A Haskell function, when called with certain inputs, will always produce the same output. Simple examples of
pure functions are mathematical operators like + and *, or most of the list-processing functions like map. Pure functions are all about the inputs and outputs, not managing internal state.
This allows the compiler to be very smart in optimising your program (for example, it can safely collapse duplicated code for you), and helps the programmer not to make mistakes: you can't put the system in an invalid state if there is none! We like pure functions.
The exception to the rule is IO. Code that performs IO is impure by definition: you could call getLine a hundred times and never get the same result, because it depends on what the user typed. Haskell handles this using the type system: all impure functions are marred with the IO type. IO can be thought of as a dependency on the state of the real world, sort of like World -> (NewWorld, a)
To summarise: pure functions are good because they are easy to reason about; this is why Haskell makes functions pure by default. Any impure code has to be labelled as such with an IO type signature; this tells the compiler and the reader to be careful with this function. So your function which reads from a file (a fundamentally impure action) but returns a pure value can't exist.
Addendum in response to your comment
You can still write pure functions to operate on data that was obtained impurely. Consider the following straw-man:
main :: IO ()
main = do
putStrLn "Enter the numbers you want me to process, separated by spaces"
line <- getLine
let numberStrings = words line
let numbers = map read numberStrings
putStrLn $ "The result of the calculation is " ++ (show $ foldr1 (*) numbers + 10)
Lots of code inside IO here. Let's extract some functions:
main :: IO ()
main = do
putStrLn "Enter the numbers you want me to process, separated by spaces"
result <- fmap processLine getLine -- fmap :: (a -> b) -> IO a -> IO b
-- runs an impure result through a pure function
-- without leaving IO
putStrLn $ "The result of the calculation is " ++ result
processLine :: String -> String -- look ma, no IO!
processLine = show . calculate . readNumbers
readNumbers :: String -> [Int]
readNumbers = map read . words
calculate :: [Int] -> Int
calculate numbers = product numbers + 10
product :: [Int] -> Int
product = foldr1 (*)
I've pulled logic out of main into pure functions which are easier to read, easier for the compiler to optimise, and more reusable (and so more testable). The program as a whole still lives inside IO because the data is obtained impurely (see the last part of this answer for a more thorough treatment of this argument). Impure data can be piped through pure functions using fmap and other combinators; you should try to put as little logic in main as possible.
Your code does seem to be most of the way there; as others have suggested you could extract lines 2-4 of your main into another function.
In other words, how can I implement (without getting all sorts of errors about IO stuff) the function whose type would be
getBarsFromFile :: Filename -> OHLCBarList
so that the grunt work that was being done in the first four lines of main can be properly encapsulated?
You cannot do this without getting all sorts of errors about IO stuff because this type for getBarsFromFile misses an IO. Probably that's what the errors about IO stuff are trying to tell you. Did you try understanding and fixing the errors?
In your situation, I would start by abstracting over the second to fourth line of your main in a function:
parseBars :: ByteString -> OHLCBarList
And then I would combine this function with getContentsOfFile to get:
getBarsFromFile :: FilePath -> IO OHLCBarList
This I would call in main.