I would like to know what is the best solution to create simple menu with functionality described below (pseudo code) just like I'm used to:
while (true) {
x = readLine();
case (x):
x == "1" then do sth1 function
x == "2" then do sth2 function
}
Or maybe any other ideas on how to make a menu not in the pattern described above?
There's a few cool packages for high level ways to construct command line systems in general:
ui-command: A framework for friendly commandline programs
haskeline: A command-line interface for user input, written in Haskell.
HCL: High-level library for building command line interfaces.
I particularly like ui-command, as it is an entire framework for your command line tools: It will dispatch to handler functions that you provide for each command, and also provide command-specific help to the user.
The goal is a polished feeling, rather than a hackish feeling.
Something like
menu :: IO ()
menu = do
putStrLn . unlines $ map concatNums choices
choice <- getLine
case validate choice of
Just n -> execute . read $ choice
Nothing -> putStrLn "Please try again"
menu
where concatNums (i, (s, _)) = show i ++ ".) " ++ s
validate :: String -> Maybe Int
validate s = isValid (reads s)
where isValid [] = Nothing
isValid ((n, _):_)
| outOfBounds n = Nothing
| otherwise = Just n
outOfBounds n = (n < 1) || (n > length choices)
choices :: [(Int, (String, IO ()))]
choices = zip [1.. ] [
("DoSomething", foo)
, ("Quit", bar)
]
execute :: Int -> IO ()
execute n = doExec $ filter (\(i, _) -> i == n) choices
where doExec ((_, (_,f)):_) = f
foo = undefined
bar = undefined
You could probably split the enumerating in "choices" so you only have the descriptions and functions inside it, a little bit of separation, but this works. Evaluating the "menu" function will let you choose what to do!
Here's another example that is a little more menu-like, in that it reads single characters in reacts directly, without requiring the user to press enter.
import System.IO
import System.Exit
import Control.Monad
main = forever (printMenu >> readChoice >>= menuAction)
printMenu = putStr "\np)rint 'Hello, world!'\ne)xit\nyour choice: " >> hFlush stdout
readChoice = hSetBuffering stdin NoBuffering >> hSetEcho stdin False >> getChar
menuAction 'p' = putStrLn "\nHello, world!"
menuAction 'e' = exitSuccess
menuAction _ = hPutStrLn stderr "\nInvalid choice."
Related
I have a function blabla in Haskell which takes an Int and returns a string:
blabla :: Int -> [Char]
I want to run that method repeatedly in a for-loop, something like this:
for i := 1 to 25 do begin
write(i);
write(": ");
writeln(blabla(i));
end;
Does haskell have a for loop feature?
There's a forM_ function in the Control.Monad module which is similar to a for loop in imperative programming languages:
import Control.Monad (forM_)
blabla :: Int -> String
blabla = show
main = forM_ [1..25] $ \i -> do
putStr (show i)
putStr ": "
putStrLn (blabla i)
However, I would advise you to stay away from such imperative style code. For example, the same code can be written more succinctly as:
import Control.Monad (mapM_)
blabla :: Int -> String
blabla = show
main = mapM_ (\i -> putStrLn $ show i ++ ": " ++ blabla i) [1..25]
Hope that helps.
Upon drinking a cup of tea I got the best result, I think:
blablaResults = map (\x -> show x ++ ":" ++ blabla x) [0..25]
main = putStrLn $ unlines blablaResults
You're still thinking in a procedural fashion. Try to think in terms of lists, rather than in terms of loops.
Then what you want is a list like this: [1,f(1),2,f(2),3,f(3)...,n,f(n)]
This is where map enters the picture. If you had a function f and wanted to apply it to a list [1,2,3...,n], you use map f [1..n].
What you want is a function that takes a number i and applies a function f to it,then responds with [i,f(i)] or perhaps a tuple (i,f(i)).
So you create this function and map it to your list.
And, of course, you need to create that initial list to operate on - that list from [1..n].
Another approach is to use a list comprehension:
forloop n = [(x,f x)|x <- [1..n] ]
(Note: I have no Haskell compiler with me right now, so I need to verify that last part later. I believe it should work as presented).
I think, I got it by myself:
blablaOutput :: [Int] -> IO()
blablaOutput (x:xs) = do
putStrLn (blabla x)
blablaOutput xs
blablaOutput _ = putStrLn "That's all, folks!"
main = blablaOutput [0..25]
Certainly not very functional in means of functional programming, but it works.
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 want to write a program in Haskell which will take command line arguments. For example: to print the sum of the first 6 elements of the series (which will be calculated by another function), I will write:
sum 6
and the correct answer should be displayed. I have to do this for another 5-7 different commands by checking the command line. How should I do it? Is switch case a good idea? If so, can anyone tell me how it can be done.
SOLUTION:
main = do
--Get some input
f <- getLine
--Split the input into 2 strings; one is COMMAND field and other is the ARGUMENT field using the condition the there is one space between them
let cmd = takeWhile (/=' ') f
let arg = dropWhile (/=' ') f
let val = tail arg
let p = read val::Int
--Check for the COMMAND
case cmd of
"SUM" -> if (empty arg) then do { putStrLn "ERR"; exitWith ExitSuccess} else if (check val) then print (sum1 p) else do { putStrLn "ERR"; exitWith ExitSuccess}
"NTH" -> if (empty arg) then do { putStrLn "ERR"; exitWith ExitSuccess} else if (check val) then print (fact p) else do { putStrLn "ERR"; exitWith ExitSuccess}
"BOUNDS" -> if (empty arg) then do { putStrLn "ERR"; exitWith ExitSuccess} else if (check val == False) then do { putStrLn "ERR"; exitWith ExitSuccess} else if (p > 1) then do { print c; print d} else do { putStrLn"ERR"; exitWith ExitSuccess}
"QUIT" -> if (empty arg) then exitWith ExitSuccess else do { putStrLn "ERR"; exitWith ExitSuccess}
_ -> do { putStrLn "ERR"; exitWith ExitSuccess}
--Repeat main until QUIT
main
optparse-applicative is one example of a library which supports this kind of sub-command parsing.
Let's say your program has two commands for now, "sum" and "mean". We can represent the command and its arguments using an algebraic data type, here called Command.
import Data.Monoid (mconcat)
import Options.Applicative
data Command = Sum Integer
| Mean Integer
-- et cetera
We can build a parser which accepts all of the commands, by writing parsers for each individual command, and composing them.
parseNumber :: Parser Integer
parseNumber = argument auto (metavar "N")
sumParser :: ParserInfo Command
sumParser = info (Sum <$> parseNumber)
(progDesc "Sum first N elements in series")
meanParser :: ParserInfo Command
meanParser = info (Mean <$> parseNumber)
(progDesc "Mean of first N elements in series")
commandParser :: ParserInfo Command
commandParser = info commands $ progDesc "My program" where
commands = subparser $ mconcat [
command "sum" sumParser
, command "mean" meanParser
]
If you are wondering what Parser and ParserInfo are about: Usually we build a Parser, then put it into a ParserInfo, using the info combinator to decorate it with additional information about how it should be run (for example, with progDesc). Parsers may be composed with other Parsers, typically using the applicative combinators, but a ParserInfo is only a Functor, as it represents the entry point to the program.
Since each command is like a little sub-program, we need a ParserInfo for each one. The command and subparser combinators let us take some ParserInfos and wrap them up in a Parser, turning multiple entry points into one.
Once we have a result from the parser, we can dispatch to the appropriate routine by pattern matching on the result.
main :: IO ()
main = do
cmd <- execParser commandParser
case cmd of
Sum n -> return () -- TODO perform sum command
Mean n -> return () -- TODO perform mean command
Of course, if you have the time and the need, is much better to use a command line parser library than a switch case. A proper parser gives you the ability to have flags in any order, automatic documenation etc ... Although if you don't need any of this now, you might need it later.
However, pattern matching allows you check value(s) within a list, but although the size of the list, and this at the same time. This makes writing poor man command line parsing dead-easy in Haskell.
Example
main = do
args <- getArg
case args of
["command1", a, b] -> command1 a b -- 2 argument
["command2", a ] -> command2 a -- 1 argument
"command3":as -> command3 as -- n arguments
otherwise -> putStrLn "Please read the code to see which arguments are acceptable :-)"
So even though I would propably recommend using a parsing library, if you only need a couple of options without flags , and don't have time to learn/choose one, a simple case ... of is pretty neat and much quicker/simpler to write.
You can write your own simple applicative-style parser in just a few lines. The idea is: accept a list of string pairs, where the first string is an option name and the second string is an option value, lookup for a current option name, and if it's found, treat the associated value somehow and delete the pair from the list. If it's not found, return Nothing. So Parser is defined like this:
type Parser = StateT [(String, String)] Maybe
And here is the main function:
option :: (String -> Maybe a) -> String -> Parser a
option f str = StateT $ \xs -> do
(v, xs') <- lookupDelete str xs
v' <- f v
return (v', xs')
where lookupDelete does what it says. Actual option parsers are:
sopt :: String -> Parser String
sopt = option Just
opt :: Read a => String -> Parser a
opt = option $ reads >>> listToMaybe >=> finish
finish (x, []) = Just x
finish _ = Nothing
The opt parser tries to read a string, and it succeeds if the string is read fully.
optPairs [] = Just []
optPairs (('-':'-':name):opt:xs) = ((name, opt) :) <$> optPairs xs
optPairs _ = Nothing
This function splits input into pairs. And lastly
parse :: Parser a -> String -> Maybe a
parse p = words >>> optPairs >=> runStateT p >=> finish
Here is an example:
data SubCommand = SubCommand String (Double, Double)
deriving (Show)
data Command = Sum [Integer]
| Sub SubCommand
deriving (Show)
subcommandParser :: Parser SubCommand
subcommandParser = SubCommand <$> sopt "str" <*> opt "dbls"
commandParser :: Parser Command
commandParser = Sum <$> opt "sum" <|> Sub <$> subcommandParser
main = mapM_ (print . parse commandParser)
[ "--sum [1,2,3,4]"
, "--str option --dbls (2.2,0)"
, "--dbls (2.2,0) --str option"
, "--smth smth"
]
Results in
Just (Sum [1,2,3,4])
Just (Sub (SubCommand "option" (2.2,0.0)))
Just (Sub (SubCommand "option" (2.2,0.0)))
Nothing
The whole code: http://lpaste.net/114365
I would like to know what is the best solution to create simple menu with functionality described below (pseudo code) just like I'm used to:
while (true) {
x = readLine();
case (x):
x == "1" then do sth1 function
x == "2" then do sth2 function
}
Or maybe any other ideas on how to make a menu not in the pattern described above?
There's a few cool packages for high level ways to construct command line systems in general:
ui-command: A framework for friendly commandline programs
haskeline: A command-line interface for user input, written in Haskell.
HCL: High-level library for building command line interfaces.
I particularly like ui-command, as it is an entire framework for your command line tools: It will dispatch to handler functions that you provide for each command, and also provide command-specific help to the user.
The goal is a polished feeling, rather than a hackish feeling.
Something like
menu :: IO ()
menu = do
putStrLn . unlines $ map concatNums choices
choice <- getLine
case validate choice of
Just n -> execute . read $ choice
Nothing -> putStrLn "Please try again"
menu
where concatNums (i, (s, _)) = show i ++ ".) " ++ s
validate :: String -> Maybe Int
validate s = isValid (reads s)
where isValid [] = Nothing
isValid ((n, _):_)
| outOfBounds n = Nothing
| otherwise = Just n
outOfBounds n = (n < 1) || (n > length choices)
choices :: [(Int, (String, IO ()))]
choices = zip [1.. ] [
("DoSomething", foo)
, ("Quit", bar)
]
execute :: Int -> IO ()
execute n = doExec $ filter (\(i, _) -> i == n) choices
where doExec ((_, (_,f)):_) = f
foo = undefined
bar = undefined
You could probably split the enumerating in "choices" so you only have the descriptions and functions inside it, a little bit of separation, but this works. Evaluating the "menu" function will let you choose what to do!
Here's another example that is a little more menu-like, in that it reads single characters in reacts directly, without requiring the user to press enter.
import System.IO
import System.Exit
import Control.Monad
main = forever (printMenu >> readChoice >>= menuAction)
printMenu = putStr "\np)rint 'Hello, world!'\ne)xit\nyour choice: " >> hFlush stdout
readChoice = hSetBuffering stdin NoBuffering >> hSetEcho stdin False >> getChar
menuAction 'p' = putStrLn "\nHello, world!"
menuAction 'e' = exitSuccess
menuAction _ = hPutStrLn stderr "\nInvalid choice."
This code reads the number of lines to process from the first line of stdin, then it loops number_of_lines_to_process times doing some calculations and prints the result.
I want it to print the line number in "Line #" after "#" but I don't know how to obtain it
import IO
import Control.Monad (replicateM)
main :: IO ()
main = do
hSetBuffering stdin LineBuffering
s <- getLine
let number_of_lines_to_process = read s :: Integer
lines <- replicateM (fromIntegral(number_of_lines_to_process)) $ do
line <- getLine
let number = read line :: Integer
result = number*2 --example
putStrLn ("Line #"++": "++(show result)) --I want to print the number of the iteration and the result
return ()
I guess that the solution to this problem is really easy, but I'm not familiar with Haskell (coding in it for the first time) and I didn't find any way of doing this. Can anyone help?
You could use forM_ instead of replicateM:
import IO
import Control.Monad
main :: IO ()
main = do
hSetBuffering stdin LineBuffering
s <- getLine
let number_of_lines_to_process = read s :: Integer
forM_ [1..number_of_lines_to_process] (\i -> do
line <- getLine
let number = read line :: Integer
result = number * 2
putStrLn $ "Line #" ++ show i ++ ": " ++ show result)
Note that because you use forM_ (which discards the results of each iteration) you don't need the additional return () at the end - the do block returns the value of the last statement, which in this case is the () which is returned by forM_.
The trick is to first create a list of all the line numbers you want to print, and to then loop through that list, printing each number in turn. So, like this:
import Control.Monad
import System.IO
main :: IO ()
main = do
hSetBuffering stdin LineBuffering
s <- getLine
let lineCount = read s :: Int
-- Create a list of the line numbers
lineNumbers = [1..lineCount]
-- `forM_` is like a "for-loop"; it takes each element in a list and performs
-- an action function that takes the element as a parameter
forM_ lineNumbers $ \ lineNumber -> do
line <- getLine
let number = read line :: Integer
result = number*2 --example
putStrLn $ "Line #" ++ show lineNumber ++ ": " ++ show result
return ()
Read the definition of forM_.
By the way, I wouldn't recommend using the old Haskell98 IO library. Use System.IO instead.
You could calculate the results, enumerate them, and then print them:
import IO
import Control.Monad (replicateM)
-- I'm assuming you start counting from zero
enumerate xs = zip [0..] xs
main :: IO ()
main = do
hSetBuffering stdin LineBuffering
s <- getLine
let number_of_lines_to_process = read s :: Integer
lines <- replicateM (fromIntegral(number_of_lines_to_process)) $ do
line <- getLine
let number = read line :: Integer
result = number*2 --example
return result
mapM_ putStrLn [ "Line "++show i++": "++show l | (i,l) <- enumerate lines ]
I'm still new at Haskell, so there could be problems with the program below (it does work). This program is a tail recursive implementation. The doLine helper function carries around the line number. The processing step is factored into process, which you can change according to the problem you are presented.
import System.IO
import Text.Printf
main = do
hSetBuffering stdin LineBuffering
s <- getLine
let number_of_lines_to_process = read s :: Integer
processLines number_of_lines_to_process
return ()
-- This reads "max" lines from stdin, processing each line and
-- printing the result.
processLines :: Integer -> IO ()
processLines max = doLine 0
where doLine i
| i == max = return ()
| otherwise =
do
line <- getLine
let result = process line
Text.Printf.printf "Line #%d: %d\n" (i + 1) result
doLine (i + 1)
-- Just an example. (This doubles the input.)
process :: [Char] -> Integer
process line = let number = read line :: Integer
in
number * 2
I'm a haskell rookie, so any critiques of the above are welcome.
Just as an alternative, I thought that you might enjoy an answer with minimal monad mucking and no do notation. We zip a lazy list of the user's data with an infinite list of the line number using the enumerate function to give us our desired output.
import System.IO
import Control.Monad (liftM)
--Here's the function that does what you really want with the data
example = (* 2)
--Enumerate takes a function, a line number, and a line of input and returns
--an ennumerated line number of the function performed on the data
enumerate :: (Show a, Show b, Read a) => (a->b) -> Integer -> String -> String
enumerate f i x = "Line #" ++
show i ++
": " ++
(show . f . read $ x) -- show . f . read handles our string conversion
-- Runover takes a list of lines and runs
-- an enumerated version of the sample over those lines.
-- The first line is the number of lines to process.
runOver :: [String] -> [String]
runOver (line:lines) = take (read line) $ --We only want to process the number of lines given in the first line
zipWith (enumerate example) [1..] lines -- run the enumerated example
-- over the list of numbers and the list of lines
-- In our main, we'll use liftM to lift our functions into the IO Monad
main = liftM (runOver . lines) getContents