I’m doing the deep dive into f# finally. Long time c-style imperative guy - but lover of all languages. I’m attempting the Bjorklund algorithm for Euclidean Rhythms. Bjorklund: Most equal spacing of 1’s in a binary string up to rotation, e.g. 1111100000000 -> 1001010010100.
https://erikdemaine.org/papers/DeepRhythms_CGTA/paper.pdf
I initially based my attempt off a nice js/lodash implementation. I tried from scratch but got all tied up in old concepts.
https://codepen.io/teropa/details/zPEYbY
Here's my 1:1 translation
let mutable pat = "1111100000000" // more 0 than 1
//let mutable pat = "1111111100000" // more 1 than 0
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17101329/f-sequence-comparison
let compareSequences = Seq.compareWith Operators.compare
let mutable apat = Array.map (fun a -> [a]) ( Seq.toArray pat )
let mutable cond = true
while cond do
let (head, rem) = Array.partition (fun v -> (compareSequences v apat.[0]) = 0) apat
cond <- rem.Length > 1
match cond with
| false -> ()
| true ->
for i=0 to (min head.Length rem.Length)-1 do
apat.[i] <-apat.[i] # apat.[^0]
apat <- apat.[.. ^1]
let tostring (ac : char list) = (System.String.Concat(Array.ofList(ac)))
let oned = (Array.map (fun a -> tostring a) apat )
let res = Array.reduce (fun a b -> a+b) oned
printfn "%A" res
That seems to work. But since I want to (learn) be as functional, not necc. idiomatic, as possible, I wanted to lose the while and recurse the main algorithm.
Now I have this:
let apat = Array.map (fun a -> [a]) ( Seq.toArray pat )
let rec bjork bpat:list<char> array =
let (head, rem) = Array.partition (fun v -> (compareSequences v bpat.[0]) = 0) bpat
match rem.Length > 1 with
| false -> bpat
| true ->
for i=0 to (min head.Length rem.Length)-1 do
bpat.[i] <-bpat.[i] # bpat.[^0]
bjork bpat.[.. ^1]
let ppat = bjork apat
The issue is the second argument to compareSequences: bpat.[0] I am getting the error:
The operator 'expr.[idx]' has been used on an object of indeterminate type based on information prior to this program point. Consider adding further type constraints
I'm a bit confused since this seems so similar to the while-loop version. I can see that the signature of compareSequences is different but don't know why. apat has the same type in each version save the mutability. bpat in 2nd version is same type as apat.
while-loop: char list -> char list -> int
rec-funct : char list -> seq<char> -> int
I will say I've had some weird errors learning f# that ended up having to do with issues elsewhere in the code so hopefully this is not a lark.
Also, there may be other ways to do this, including Bresenham's line algorithm, but I'm on the learning track and this seemed a good algorithm for several functional concepts.
Can anyone see what I am missing here? Also, if someone who is well versed in the functional/f# paradigm has a nice way of approaching this, I'd like to see that.
Thanks
Ted
EDIT:
The recursive as above does not work. Just couldn't test. This works, but still has a mutable.
let rec bjork (bbpat:list<char> array) =
let mutable bpat = bbpat
let (head, rem) = Array.partition (fun v -> (compareSequences v bpat.[0]) = 0) bpat
match rem.Length > 1 with
| false -> bpat
| true ->
for i=0 to (min head.Length rem.Length)-1 do
bpat.[i] <-bpat.[i] # bpat.[^0]
bpat <- bpat.[.. ^1]
bjork bpat
You need to put parentheses around (bpat:list<char> array). Otherwise the type annotation applies to bjork, not to bbpat:
let rec bjork (bbpat:list<char> array) =
...
Also note that calculating length and indexing are both O(n) operations on an F# linked lists. Consider pattern matching instead.
Related
I'd like to implement something akin to imaginary Array.multipick:
Array.multipick : choosers:('a -> bool) [] -> array:'a [] -> 'a []
Internally, we test each array's element with all choosers, the first chooser to return true is removed from choosers array, and we add that chooser's argument to the result. After that, we continue interation while choosers array has elements left.
The last part is important, because without early exit requirement this could be solved with just Array.fold.
This could be easily implemented with something like:
let rec impl currentIndex currentChoosers results
But it's too procedural for my taste. Maybe there's more elegant solution?
It's quite difficult to write elegant code using arrays of changing size. Here is some code that works on lists instead and does not mutate any values.
let rec pick accum elem tried = function
| [] -> (accum, List.rev tried)
| chooser :: rest ->
if chooser elem then (elem :: accum, List.rev_append tried rest)
else pick accum elem (chooser :: tried) rest
let rec multipick_l accum choosers list =
match choosers, list with
| [], _
| _, [] -> List.rev accum
| _, elem :: elems ->
let (accum', choosers') = pick accum elem [] choosers in
multipick_l accum' choosers' elems
let multipick choosers array =
Array.of_list
(multipick_l [] (Array.to_list choosers) (Array.to_list array))
If you think that Array.fold_left is usable except for the early exit requirement, you can use an exception to exit early.
A fold with an early exit is a good idea, however a production-worthy one specifically targeting arrays would need to be written in a fairly imperative manner. For simplicity, I'll grab the more general sequence one from this answer.
let multipick (choosers: ('a -> bool) array) (arr: 'a array) : 'a array =
let indexed =
choosers
|> Seq.indexed
|> Map.ofSeq
((indexed, []), arr)
||> foldWhile (fun (cs, res) e ->
if Map.isEmpty cs then
None
else
match cs |> Seq.tryFind (fun kvp -> kvp.Value e) with
| Some kvp -> Some (Map.remove kvp.Key cs, e :: res)
| None -> Some (cs, res))
|> snd
|> List.rev
|> Array.ofList
I'm using a Map keyed by array index to keep track of remaining functions - this allows for easy removal of elements, but still retains their order (since map key-value pairs are ordered by keys when iterating).
F# Set wouldn't work with functions due to comparison constraint. System.Collections.Generic.HashSet would work, but it's mutable, and I'm not sure if it would retain ordering.
From an unordered list of int, I want to have the smallest difference between two elements. I have a code that is working but way to slow. Can anyone sugest some change to improve the performance? Please explain why you did the change and what will be the performance gain.
let allInt = [ 5; 8; 9 ]
let sortedList = allInt |> List.sort;
let differenceList = [ for a in 0 .. N-2 do yield sortedList.Item a - sortedList.Item a + 1 ]
printfn "%i" (List.min differenceList) // print 1 (because 9-8 smallest difference)
I think I'm doing to much list creation or iteration but I don't know how to write it differently in F#...yet.
Edit: I'm testing this code on list with 100 000 items or more.
Edit 2: I believe that if I can calculte the difference and have the min in one go it should improve the perf a lot, but I don't know how to do that, anay idea?
Thanks in advance
The List.Item performs in O(n) time and is probably the main performance bottle neck in your code. The evaluation of differenceList iterates the elements of sortedList by index, which means the performance is around O((N-2)(2(N-2))), which simplifies to O(N^2), where N is the number of elements in sortedList. For long lists, this will eventually perform badly.
What I would do is to eliminate calls to Item and instead use the List.pairwise operation
let data =
[ let rnd = System.Random()
for i in 1..100000 do yield rnd.Next() ]
#time
let result =
data
|> List.sort
|> List.pairwise // convert list from [a;b;c;...] to [(a,b); (b,c); ...]
|> List.map (fun (a,b) -> a - b |> abs) // Calculates the absolute difference
|> List.min
#time
The #time directives lets me measure execution time in F# Interactive and the output I get when running this code is:
--> Timing now on
Real: 00:00:00.029, CPU: 00:00:00.031, GC gen0: 1, gen1: 1, gen2: 0
val result : int = 0
--> Timing now off
F#'s built-in list type is implemented as a linked list, which means accessing elements by index has to enumerate the list all the way to the index each time. In your case you have two index accesses repeated N-2 times, getting slower and slower with each iteration, as the index grows and each access needs to go through longer part of the list.
First way out of this would be using an array instead of a list, which is a trivial change, but grants you faster index access.
(*
[| and |] let you define an array literal,
alternatively use List.toArray allInt
*)
let allInt = [| 5; 8; 9 |]
let sortedArray = allInt |> Array.sort;
let differenceList = [ for a in 0 .. N-2 do yield sortedArray.[a] - sortedArray.[a + 1] ]
Another approach might be pairing up the neighbours in the list, subtracting them and then finding a min.
let differenceList =
sortedList
|> List.pairwise
|> List.map (fun (x,y) -> x - y)
List.pairwise takes a list of elements and returns a list of the neighbouring pairs. E.g. in your example List.pairwise [ 5; 8; 9 ] = [ (5, 8); (8, 9) ], so that you can easily work with the pairs in the next step, the subtraction mapping.
This way is better, but these functions from List module take a list as input and produce a new list as the output, having to pass through the list 3 times (1 for pairwise, 1 for map, 1 for min at the end). To solve this, you can use functions from the Seq module, which work with .NETs IEnumerable<'a> interface allowing lazy evaluation resulting usually in fewer passes.
Fortunately in this case Seq defines alternatives for all the functions we use here, so the next step is trivial:
let differenceSeq =
sortedList
|> Seq.pairwise
|> Seq.map (fun (x,y) -> x - y)
let minDiff = Seq.min differenceSeq
This should need only one enumeration of the list (excluding the sorting phase of course).
But I cannot guarantee you which approach will be fastest. My bet would be on simply using an array instead of the list, but to find out, you will have to try it out and measure for yourself, on your data and your hardware. BehchmarkDotNet library can help you with that.
The rest of your question is adequately covered by the other answers, so I won't duplicate them. But nobody has yet addressed the question you asked in your Edit 2. To answer that question, if you're doing a calculation and then want the minimum result of that calculation, you want List.minBy. One clue that you want List.minBy is when you find yourself doing a map followed by a min operation (as both the other answers are doing): that's a classic sign that you want minBy, which does that in one operation instead of two.
There's one gotcha to watch out for when using List.minBy: It returns the original value, not the result of the calculation. I.e., if you do ints |> List.pairwise |> List.minBy (fun (a,b) -> abs (a - b)), then what List.minBy is going to return is a pair of items, not the difference. It's written that way because if it gives you the original value but you really wanted the result, you can always recalculate the result; but if it gave you the result and you really wanted the original value, you might not be able to get it. (Was that difference of 1 the difference between 8 and 9, or between 4 and 5?)
So in your case, you could do:
let allInt = [5; 8; 9]
let minPair =
allInt
|> List.pairwise
|> List.minBy (fun (x,y) -> abs (x - y))
let a, b = minPair
let minDifference = abs (a - b)
printfn "The difference between %d and %d was %d" a b minDifference
The List.minBy operation also exists on sequences, so if your list is large enough that you want to avoid creating an intermediate list of pairs, then use Seq.pairwise and Seq.minBy instead:
let allInt = [5; 8; 9]
let minPair =
allInt
|> Seq.pairwise
|> Seq.minBy (fun (x,y) -> abs (x - y))
let a, b = minPair
let minDifference = abs (a - b)
printfn "The difference between %d and %d was %d" a b minDifference
EDIT: Yes, I see that you've got a list of 100,000 items. So you definitely want the Seq version of this. The F# seq type is just IEnumerable, so if you're used to C#, think of the Seq functions as LINQ expressions and you'll have the right idea.
P.S. One thing to note here: see how I'm doing let a, b = minPair? That's called destructuring assignment, and it's really useful. I could also have done this:
let a, b =
allInt
|> Seq.pairwise
|> Seq.minBy (fun (x,y) -> abs (x - y))
and it would have given me the same result. Seq.minBy returns a tuple of two integers, and the let a, b = (tuple of two integers) expression takes that tuple, matches it against the pattern a, b, and thus assigns a to have the value of that tuple's first item, and b to have the value of that tuple's second item. Notice how I used the phrase "matches it against the pattern": this is the exact same thing as when you use a match expression. Explaining match expressions would make this answer too long, so I'll just point you to an excellent reference on them if you haven't already read it:
https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/match-expression/
Here is my solution:
let minPair xs =
let foo (x, y) = abs (x - y)
xs
|> List.allPairs xs
|> List.filter (fun (x, y) -> x <> y)
|> List.minBy foo
|> foo
I'm new to F# and I'm trying to figure out how to return a random string value from a list/array of strings.
I have a list like this:
["win8FF40", "win10Chrome45", "win7IE11"]
How can I randomly select and return one item from the list above?
Here is my first try:
let combos = ["win8FF40";"win10Chrome45";"win7IE11"]
let getrandomitem () =
let rnd = System.Random()
fun (combos : string[]) -> combos.[rnd.Next(combos.Length)]
Both the answers given here by latkin and mydogisbox are good, but I still want to add a third approach that I sometimes use. This approach isn't faster, but it's more flexible and more composable, and fast enough for small sequences. Depending on your needs, you can use one of higher performance options given here, or you can use the following.
Single-argument function using Random
Instead of directly enabling you to select a single element, I often define a shuffleR function like this:
open System
let shuffleR (r : Random) xs = xs |> Seq.sortBy (fun _ -> r.Next())
This function has the type System.Random -> seq<'a> -> seq<'a>, so it works with any sort of sequence: lists, arrays, collections, and lazily evaluated sequences (although not with infinite sequences).
If you want a single random element from a list, you can still do that:
> [1..100] |> shuffleR (Random ()) |> Seq.head;;
val it : int = 85
but you can also take, say, three randomly picked elements:
> [1..100] |> shuffleR (Random ()) |> Seq.take 3;;
val it : seq<int> = seq [95; 92; 12]
No-argument function
Sometimes, I don't care about having to pass in that Random value, so I instead define this alternative version:
let shuffleG xs = xs |> Seq.sortBy (fun _ -> Guid.NewGuid())
It works in the same way:
> [1..100] |> shuffleG |> Seq.head;;
val it : int = 11
> [1..100] |> shuffleG |> Seq.take 3;;
val it : seq<int> = seq [69; 61; 42]
Although the purpose of Guid.NewGuid() isn't to provide random numbers, it's often random enough for my purposes - random, in the sense of being unpredictable.
Generalised function
Neither shuffleR nor shuffleG are truly random. Due to the ways Random and Guid.NewGuid() work, both functions may result in slightly skewed distributions. If this is a concern, you can define an even more general-purpose shuffle function:
let shuffle next xs = xs |> Seq.sortBy (fun _ -> next())
This function has the type (unit -> 'a) -> seq<'b> -> seq<'b> when 'a : comparison. It can still be used with Random:
> let r = Random();;
val r : Random
> [1..100] |> shuffle (fun _ -> r.Next()) |> Seq.take 3;;
val it : seq<int> = seq [68; 99; 54]
> [1..100] |> shuffle (fun _ -> r.Next()) |> Seq.take 3;;
val it : seq<int> = seq [99; 63; 11]
but you can also use it with some of the cryptographically secure random number generators provided by the Base Class Library:
open System.Security.Cryptography
open System.Collections.Generic
let rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider ()
let bytes = Array.zeroCreate<byte> 100
rng.GetBytes bytes
let q = bytes |> Queue
FSI:
> [1..100] |> shuffle (fun _ -> q.Dequeue()) |> Seq.take 3;;
val it : seq<int> = seq [74; 82; 61]
Unfortunately, as you can see from this code, it's quite cumbersome and brittle. You have to know the length of the sequence up front; RNGCryptoServiceProvider implements IDisposable, so you should make sure to dispose of rng after use; and items will be removed from q after use, which means it's not reusable.
Cryptographically random sort or selection
Instead, if you really need a cryptographically correct sort or selection, it'd be easier to do it like this:
let shuffleCrypto xs =
let a = xs |> Seq.toArray
use rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider ()
let bytes = Array.zeroCreate a.Length
rng.GetBytes bytes
Array.zip bytes a |> Array.sortBy fst |> Array.map snd
Usage:
> [1..100] |> shuffleCrypto |> Array.head;;
val it : int = 37
> [1..100] |> shuffleCrypto |> Array.take 3;;
val it : int [] = [|35; 67; 36|]
This isn't something I've ever had to do, though, but I thought I'd include it here for the sake of completeness. While I haven't measured it, it's most likely not the fastest implementation, but it should be cryptographically random.
Your problem is that you are mixing Arrays and F# Lists (*type*[] is a type notation for Array). You could modify it like this to use lists:
let getrandomitem () =
let rnd = System.Random()
fun (combos : string list) -> List.nth combos (rnd.Next(combos.Length))
That being said, indexing into a List is usually a bad idea since it has O(n) performance since an F# list is basically a linked-list. You would be better off making combos into an array if possible like this:
let combos = [|"win8FF40";"win10Chrome45";"win7IE11"|]
I wrote a blog post on exactly this topic a while ago: http://latkin.org/blog/2013/11/16/selecting-a-random-element-from-a-linked-list-3-approaches-in-f/
3 approaches are given there, with discussion of performance and tradeoffs of each.
To summarize:
// pro: simple, fast in practice
// con: 2-pass (once to get length, once to select nth element)
let method1 lst (rng : Random) =
List.nth lst (rng.Next(List.length lst))
// pro: ~1 pass, list length is not bound by int32
// con: more complex, slower in practice
let method2 lst (rng : Random) =
let rec step remaining picks top =
match (remaining, picks) with
| ([], []) -> failwith "Don't pass empty list"
// if only 1 element is picked, this is the result
| ([], [p]) -> p
// if multiple elements are picked, select randomly from them
| ([], ps) -> step ps [] -1
| (h :: t, ps) ->
match rng.Next() with
// if RNG makes new top number, picks list is reset
| n when n > top -> step t [h] n
// if RNG ties top number, add current element to picks list
| n when n = top -> step t (h::ps) top
// otherwise ignore and move to next element
| _ -> step t ps top
step lst [] -1
// pro: exactly 1 pass
// con: more complex, slowest in practice due to tuple allocations
let method3 lst (rng : Random) =
snd <| List.fold (fun (i, pick) elem ->
if rng.Next(i) = 0 then (i + 1, elem)
else (i + 1, pick)
) (0, List.head lst) lst
Edit: I should clarify that above shows a few ways to get a random element from a list, assuming you must use a list. If it fits with the rest of your program's design, it is definitely more efficient to take a random element from an array.
Ok, so for most LINQ operations there is a F# equivalent.
(Generally in the Seq module, since Seq= IEnumerable)
I can't find the equiv of IEmumerable.Single, I prefer Single over First (which is Seq.find), because it is more defensive - it asserts for me the state is what I expect.
So I see a couple of solutions (other than than using Seq.find).
(These could be written as extension methods)
The type signature for this function, which I'm calling only, is
('a->bool) -> seq<'a> -> 'a
let only = fun predicate src -> System.Linq.Enumerable.Single<'a>(src, predicate)
let only2 = Seq.filter >> Seq.exactlyOne
only2 is preferred, however it won't compile (any clues on that?).
In F# 2.0, this is a solution works without enumerating the whole sequence (close to your 2nd approach):
module Seq =
let exactlyOne seq =
match seq |> Seq.truncate 2 with
| s when Seq.length s = 1 -> s |> Seq.head |> Some
| _ -> None
let single predicate =
Seq.filter predicate >> exactlyOne
I choose to return option type since raising exception is quite unusual in F# high-order functions.
EDIT:
In F# 3.0, as #Oxinabox mentioned in his comment, Seq.exactlyOne exists in Seq module.
What about
let Single source f =
let worked = ref false
let newf = fun a ->
match f a with
|true ->
if !worked = true then failwith "not single"
worked := true
Some(a)
|false -> None
let r = source |> Seq.choose newf
Seq.nth 0 r
Very unidiomatic but probably close to optimal
EDIT:
Solution with exactlyOne
let only2 f s= (Seq.filter f s) |> exactlyOne
I need a very efficient way to find duplicates in an unsorted sequence. This is what I came up with, but it has a few shortcomings, namely it
unnecessarily counts occurrences beyond 2
consumes the entire sequence before yielding duplicates
creates several intermediate sequences
module Seq =
let duplicates items =
items
|> Seq.countBy id
|> Seq.filter (snd >> ((<) 1))
|> Seq.map fst
Regardless of the shortcomings, I don't see a reason to replace this with twice the code. Is it possible to improve this with comparably concise code?
A more elegant functional solution:
let duplicates xs =
Seq.scan (fun xs x -> Set.add x xs) Set.empty xs
|> Seq.zip xs
|> Seq.choose (fun (x, xs) -> if Set.contains x xs then Some x else None)
Uses scan to accumulate sets of all elements seen so far. Then uses zip to combine each element with the set of elements before it. Finally, uses choose to filter out the elements that are in the set of previously-seen elements, i.e. the duplicates.
EDIT
Actually my original answer was completely wrong. Firstly, you don't want duplicates in your outputs. Secondly, you want performance.
Here is a purely functional solution that implements the algorithm you're after:
let duplicates xs =
(Map.empty, xs)
||> Seq.scan (fun xs x ->
match Map.tryFind x xs with
| None -> Map.add x false xs
| Some false -> Map.add x true xs
| Some true -> xs)
|> Seq.zip xs
|> Seq.choose (fun (x, xs) ->
match Map.tryFind x xs with
| Some false -> Some x
| None | Some true -> None)
This uses a map to track whether each element has been seen before once or many times and then emits the element if it is seen having only been seen once before, i.e. the first time it is duplicated.
Here is a faster imperative version:
let duplicates (xs: _ seq) =
seq { let d = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary(HashIdentity.Structural)
let e = xs.GetEnumerator()
while e.MoveNext() do
let x = e.Current
let mutable seen = false
if d.TryGetValue(x, &seen) then
if not seen then
d.[x] <- true
yield x
else
d.[x] <- false }
This is around 2× faster than any of your other answers (at the time of writing).
Using a for x in xs do loop to enumerate the elements in a sequence is substantially slower than using GetEnumerator directly but generating your own Enumerator is not significantly faster than using a computation expression with yield.
Note that the TryGetValue member of Dictionary allows me to avoid allocation in the inner loop by mutating a stack allocated value whereas the TryGetValue extension member offered by F# (and used by kvb in his/her answer) allocates its return tuple.
Here's an imperative solution (which is admittedly slightly longer):
let duplicates items =
seq {
let d = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary()
for i in items do
match d.TryGetValue(i) with
| false,_ -> d.[i] <- false // first observance
| true,false -> d.[i] <- true; yield i // second observance
| true,true -> () // already seen at least twice
}
This is the best "functional" solution I could come up with that doesn't consume the entire sequence up front.
let duplicates =
Seq.scan (fun (out, yielded:Set<_>, seen:Set<_>) item ->
if yielded.Contains item then
(None, yielded, seen)
else
if seen.Contains item then
(Some(item), yielded.Add item, seen.Remove item)
else
(None, yielded, seen.Add item)
) (None, Set.empty, Set.empty)
>> Seq.Choose (fun (x,_,_) -> x)
Assuming your sequence is finite, this solution requires one run on the sequence:
open System.Collections.Generic
let duplicates items =
let dict = Dictionary()
items |> Seq.fold (fun acc item ->
match dict.TryGetValue item with
| true, 2 -> acc
| true, 1 -> dict.[item] <- 2; item::acc
| _ -> dict.[item] <- 1; acc) []
|> List.rev
You can provide length of the sequence as the capacity of Dictionary, but it requires to enumerate the whole sequence once more.
EDIT:
To resolve 2nd problem, one could generate duplicates on demand:
open System.Collections.Generic
let duplicates items =
seq {
let dict = Dictionary()
for item in items do
match dict.TryGetValue item with
| true, 2 -> ()
| true, 1 -> dict.[item] <- 2; yield item
| _ -> dict.[item] <- 1
}
Functional solution:
let duplicates items =
let test (unique, result) v =
if not(unique |> Set.contains v) then (unique |> Set.add v ,result)
elif not(result |> Set.contains v) then (unique,result |> Set.add v)
else (unique, result)
items |> Seq.fold test (Set.empty, Set.empty) |> snd |> Set.toSeq