import Data.Foldable (for_)
import Data.Map (Map,toList)
m :: Map String String
m = [("a","1"),("b","2")]
main =
for_ (toList m) $ \(q,a) ->
do putStrLn q
x <- getLine
putStrLn (if x == a
then "Yes"
else "No: " ++ a)
I get the error:-
foo.hs:5:5: error:
* Couldn't match expected type `Map String String'
with actual type `[([Char], [Char])]'
* In the expression: [("a", "1"), ("b", "2")]
In an equation for `m': m = [("a", "1"), ("b", "2")]
Failed, modules loaded: none.
Thanks for your help. I was interested in the for_i solution , but I cannot load Control.Lens
You have taken the code from this answer to a previous question, but omitted the first line:
{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedLists #-}
Don't omit the first line.
Map String String is not just an alias for lists of tuples; it is a distinct data type, and so your assignment does not type-check. You need to use the function Data.Map.fromList to convert your list to a proper Map k v value.
m = Data.Map.fromList [("a","1"),("b","2")]
Related
I'm a newbie at F#,
I've got a List that contains arrays, each arrays contains 7 Strings.
I want to loop through the Arrays and do some kind of Array.map later on,
However my problem is that I can't send individual arrays to some other function.
I don't want to use for-loops but focus on the functional way using pipelines and mapping only.
let stockArray =
[[|"2012-03-30"; "32.40"; "32.41"; "32.04"; "32.26"; "31749400"; "32.26"|];
[|"2012-03-29"; "32.06"; "32.19"; "31.81"; "32.12"; "37038500"; "32.12"|];
[|"2012-03-28"; "32.52"; "32.70"; "32.04"; "32.19"; "41344800"; "32.19"|];
[|"2012-03-27"; "32.65"; "32.70"; "32.40"; "32.52"; "36274900"; "32.52"|];]
let tryout =
stockArray
|> List.iter;;
Output complains about List.iter:
error FS0001: Type mismatch. Expecting a
'string [] list -> 'a' but given a
'('b -> unit) -> 'b list -> unit'
The type 'string [] list' does not match the type ''a -> unit'
When trying Array.iter, same difference:
error FS0001: Type mismatch. Expecting a
'string [] list -> 'a' but given a
'('b -> unit) -> 'b [] -> unit'
The type 'string [] list' does not match the type ''a -> unit'
In C# I would simply go about it with a foreach to start treating my arrays one at a time, but with F# I feel real stuck.
Thank you for your help
The question is not clear, even with the extra comments. Anyway, I think you will finally be able to figure out your needs from this answer.
I have implemented parseDate and parseFloat in such a way that I expect it to work on any machine, whatever locale, with the given data. You may want something else for your production application. Also, how theInt is calculated is perhaps not what you want.
List.iter, as you already discovered, converts data to unit, effectively throwing away data. So what's the point in that? It is usually placed last when used in a pipe sequence, often doing some work that involves side effects (e.g. printing out data) or mutable data operations (e.g. filling a mutable list with items). I suggest you study functions in the List, Array, Seq and Option modules, to see how they're used to transform data.
open System
open System.Globalization
let stockArray =
[
[| "2012-03-30"; "32.40"; "32.41"; "32.04"; "32.26"; "31749400"; "32.26" |]
[| "2012-03-29"; "32.06"; "32.19"; "31.81"; "32.12"; "37038500"; "32.12" |]
[| "2012-03-28"; "32.52"; "32.70"; "32.04"; "32.19"; "41344800"; "32.19" |]
[| "2012-03-27"; "32.65"; "32.70"; "32.40"; "32.52"; "36274900"; "32.52" |]
]
type OutData = { TheDate: DateTime; TheInt: int }
let parseDate s = DateTime.ParseExact (s, "yyyy-MM-dd", CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)
let parseFloat s = Double.Parse (s, CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)
let myFirstMap (inArray: string[]) : OutData =
if inArray.Length <> 7 then
failwith "Expected array with seven strings."
else
let theDate = parseDate inArray.[0]
let f2 = parseFloat inArray.[2]
let f3 = parseFloat inArray.[3]
let f = f2 - f3
let theInt = int f
{ TheDate = theDate; TheInt = theInt }
let tryout =
stockArray
|> List.map myFirstMap
The following is an alternative implementation of myFirstMap. I guess some would say it's more idiomatic, but I would just say that what you prefer to use depends on what you might expect from a possible future development.
let myFirstMap inArray =
match inArray with
| [| sDate; _; s2; s3; _; _; _ |] ->
let theDate = parseDate sDate
let f2 = parseFloat s2
let f3 = parseFloat s3
let f = f2 - f3
let theInt = int f
{ TheDate = theDate; TheInt = theInt }
| _ -> failwith "Expected array with seven strings."
The pipe operator |> is used to write an f x as x |> f.
The signature of List.iter is:
action: ('a -> unit) -> list: ('a list) -> unit
You give it an action, then a list, and it gives you a void.
You can read it thus: when you give List.iter an action, its type will be
list: ('a list) -> unit
a function to which you can pass a list.
So when you write stockArray |> List.iter, what you're actually trying to give it in place of an action is your list - that's the error. So pass in an action:
let tryout = List.iter (fun arr -> printfn "%A" arr) stockArray
which can be rewritten as:
let tryout = stockArray |> List.iter (fun arr -> printfn "%A" arr)
However my problem is that I can't send individual arrays to some other function
List.map and similar functions allow you to do precisely this - you don't need to iterate the list yourself.
For example, this will return just the first element of each array in your list:
stockArray
|> List.map (fun x -> x.[0])
You can replace the function passed to List.map with any function that operates on one array and returns some value.
I have a 2D list [[Int]] in Haskell and I want to check two things:
whether the list has the sam number of rows as columns
whether the rows have the sam number of elements
For instance:
[[1,2,3], [1,55,9]] has the same number of rows as columns - here 2 - and each row has the same number of elements namely 3.
But
[[1,2], [1,55], [4,7]] has the same number of elements in each row though it has unequal number of rows and columns namely 3r 2c.
yet another example:
[[1,2], [1,55], [4,7,8]] has neither the same number of rows as columns nor each row has the same number of elements.
Actually step 1 includes step 2, am I right??
My attempt:
So what I attempted so far, is this:
listIsEqual :: [[Int]] -> Bool
listIsEqual myList = (all (\x -> length x == (length myList)) )
Right now I get the following error mesage:
Couldn't match expected type `Bool' with actual type `[a0] -> Bool'
In the return type of a call of `all'
Probable cause: `all' is applied to too few arguments
In the expression: (all (\ x -> length x == (length myList)))
In an equation for `listIsEqual':
listIsEqual myList = (all (\ x -> length x == (length myList)))
Could anyone tell me where the problem is?
Is there also any other ways to solve this problem?
GHC's error messages aren't always the most helpful, but in this case it got it right.
Probable cause: `all' is applied to too few arguments
And indeed, you forgot the second argument to all:
listIsEqual myList = all (\x -> length x == length myList) myList
^^^^^^
For the second task, you can map the length of every row (the number of columns in that row) defining a function
let columnLengths rows = map length rows
Prelude> columnLengths [[1,2], [1,55], [4,7,8]]
[2,2,3]
Now that we have a list containing the lengths of the columns, we have to check whether they are all equal. The function nub in Data.List removes duplicates from a list.
let columnsLengthEqual = (==) 1 . length . nub . columnLengths
Or all together
let columnsLengthEqual = (==) 1 . length . nub . map length
Matrix respecting your criteria, are squared matrix then checking if the square of first 's row's length is equal to the number of element should be ok.
isSquaredMatrix xs#(h:_) = ((^2) . length $ h) == (length . concat $ xs)
isSquaredMatrix _ = True
But as it has been pointed out by hammar, this is incorrect since we can have positive outcome using wrong input.
# isSquaredMatrix [[1,2,3],[4,5],[6,7,8,9]]
True -- But this is false
#John,
we use # into pattern matching when we want to refer to the whole type at the same time we have break it down. An example should give you more insight,
Usually we can define an exhaustive function working on list using pattern matching as follow.
actOnList [] = -- do something when we encounter an empty list
actOnList (x:xs) = -- do something with h, and do another stuff with xs
For example,
actOnList [] = []
actOnList (x:xs) =
if (pred x)
then x:xs
else actOnList xs
Here my function consumme the list until a predicate is satisfied.
We can imagine skipUntilMeetAChar
skipUntilMeetAChar :: [Char] -> Char -> [Char]
skipUntilMeetAChar [] c = []
skipUntilMeetAChar (x:xs) c =
if (x==c)
then x:xs
else actOnList xs c
As you see when the char is met we'd like to return the list as it, not only the tail, then to do so we need to reconstruct our list using the head x and the tail xs. This can be overcome using #.
skipUntilMeetAChar :: String -> Char -> String
skipUntilMeetAChar [] c = []
skipUntilMeetAChar l#(x:xs) c =
if (x==c)
then l
else actOnList xs c
Now, regarding ($) operator, this is again some syntactic sugar.
As function application are left associative, this lead us to extensively use bracket to reorder the application of our function, as in the example below.
# f3 (f2 (f1 (f0 x)))
Then to avoid the pain of managing closing parentheses, dollars operator $ have been introduce and then our previous expression become.
# f3 $ f2 $ f1 $ f0 x
Which is definitely more readable and easiest to write.
Note that this operator is defined as follow.
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
f $ x = f x
And I advise you to learn more about it consulting the following introduction material.
I have an array like this,
[|{Name = "000016.SZ";
turnover = 3191591006.0;
MV = 34462194.8;};
{Name = "000019.SZ";
turnover = 2316868899.0;
MV = 18438461.48;};
{Name = "000020.SZ";
turnover = 1268882399.0;
MV = 7392964.366;};
.......
|]
How do I sort this array according to "turnover"? Thanks
(does not have much context to explain the code section? how much context should I write)
Assuming that the array is in arr you can just do
arr |> Array.sortBy (fun t -> t.turnover)
I know this has already been answered beautifully; however, I am finding that, like Haskell, F# matches the way I think and thought I'd add this for other novices :)
let rec sortData =
function
| [] -> []
| x :: xs ->
let smaller = List.filter (fun e -> e <= x) >> sortData
let larger = List.filter (fun e -> e > x) >> sortData
smaller xs # [ x ] # larger xs
Note 1: "a >> b" is function composition and means "create a function, f, such that f x = b(a(x))" as in "apply a then apply b" and so on if it continues: a >> b >> c >>...
Note 2: "#" is list concatenation, as in [1..100] = [1..12] # [13..50] # [51..89] # [90..100]. This is more powerful but less efficient than cons, "::", which can only add one element at a time and only to the head of a list, a::[b;c;d] = [a;b;c;d]
Note 3: the List.filter (fun e ->...) expressions produces a "curried function" version holding the provided filtering lambda.
Note 4: I could have made "smaller" and "larger" lists instead of functions (as in "xs |> filter |> sort"). My choice to make them functions was arbitrary.
Note 5: The type signature of the sortData function states that it requires and returns a list whose elements support comparison:
_arg1:'a list -> 'a list when 'a : comparison
Note 6: There is clarity in brevity (despite this particular post :) )
As a testament to the algorithmic clarity of functional languages, the following optimization of the above filter sort is three times faster (as reported by VS Test Explorer). In this case, the list is traversed only once per pivot (the first element) to produce the sub-lists of smaller and larger items. Also, an equivalence list is introduced which collects matching elements away from further comparisons.
let rec sort3 =
function
| [] -> []
| x::xs ->
let accum tot y =
match tot with
| (a,b,c) when y < x -> (y::a,b,c)
| (a,b,c) when y = x -> (a,y::b,c)
| (a,b,c) -> (a,b,y::c)
let (a,b,c) = List.fold accum ([],[x],[]) xs
(sort3 a) # b # (sort3 c)
I have an array of arrays P, which represents a Matrix, as an array of row vectors (that representation is more convenient for my purposes), and I want to extract the column-vector j of that array. My first pass was:
let column (M: float[][]) (j: int) =
Array.map(fun v -> v.[j]) M
This fails to compile, telling me that v.[j] is using operator expr.[idx] on an object of indeterminate type. This is puzzling to me, because hovering over v recognizes v as a float[], which I believe is a row vector.
Furthermore, the following code works:
let column (M: float[][]) (j: int) =
Array.map(fun v -> v) M
|> Array.map (fun v -> v.[j])
I fail to understand how the second example is different from the first one. The first map in the second example looks redundant: I am mapping an array to itself, and yet this seems to resolve the type determination problem.
Any help understanding what I am doing wrong or not seeing would be much appreciated!
The problem is that F# type inference is strictly left to right so that the compiler sees
let column (M: float[][]) (j: int) =
Array.map(fun v -> v.[j])
At this point, it knows absolutely nothing about v so it throws an error. This is why the forward pipe operator |> is so common - rewriting your code as
let column (M: float[][]) (j: int) =
M |> Array.map(fun v -> v.[j])
Is fine. This is also why your second example works
Since the type checker works from left to right, type of v is unspecified although type of M is available at some point later. Therefore:
let column (M: float[][]) (j: int) =
M |> Array.map (fun v -> v.[j])
or
let column M (j: int) =
Array.map (fun (v: float []) -> v.[j]) M
works.
In the second example, fun v -> v is ok on any type. So there is no problem with type of array elements. The second part with |> works as expected and demonstrates one more point why we should use pipe operators.
let me call the function accumrArray.
accumrArray ::
(e' -> e -> e) An accumulating function
-> e A default element
-> (i, i) The bounds of the array
-> [(i, e')] List of associations
-> a i e The array
accumrArray (:) [] (1,2) [(1,1),(2,2),(2,3)] === array [(1,[1]), (2,[2,3])]
head $ (accumrArray (:) [] (1,1) [(1,x)|x<-[4..]]) ! 1 === 4
How strange... I wrote this function a few days ago for someone else. The function first appeared in LML (I believe), but never made it into the Haskell array library.
Here you go:
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
import Data.Array
import System.IO.Unsafe
import Data.IORef
import Data.Array.MArray
import Data.Array.Base
import Control.Monad
import Data.Array.IO
accumArrayR :: forall a e i. Ix i => (a -> e -> e) -> e -> (i,i) -> [(i,a)] -> Array i e
accumArrayR f e bounds#(l,u) assocs = unsafePerformIO $ do
ref <- newIORef assocs
arr <- newArray_ bounds
let _ = arr :: IOArray i e
let n = safeRangeSize (l,u)
let elem x = unsafePerformIO $ do
ass <- readIORef ref
let loop [] = writeIORef ref [] >> return e
loop ((y,a):rest) = do
let ix = safeIndex bounds n y
let r = f a (elem x)
unsafeWrite arr ix r
if (ix == x)
then writeIORef ref rest >> return r
else loop rest
loop ass
forM_ [0..n] $ \ix -> unsafeWrite arr ix (elem ix)
unsafeFreeze arr
A challenge for the reader: use accumArrayR to implement linear-time depth-first-search of a graph.
Edit I should mention that the function isn't thread-safe as written. Turning the IORef into an MVar would fix it, but there might be better ways.
Not the most efficient, but...
accumrArray f x b l = accumArray (flip f) x b (reverse l)
I would argue that
accumrArray f x b l = accumArray (flip f) x b (reverse l)
is indeed the best solution (credits to sclv's answer).
Its supposed "inefficiency" comes from fact that foldr applies the function f from right to left.
However, since accumArray is strict, l can never be infinite, otherwise the program would be incorrect. It would never terminate.
Therefore, foldl (flip f) is just as good as a foldr.