Suppose I have a list xs. How do I write the following style of loop in ATS:
foreach x in xs do process(x)
You can use the old DIY-style (also: the classical ATS style), that is to say, using a tail-recursive function. Here's an example:
extern
fun
process (x: int): void
fun
loop {n:int} (xs: list(int, n)): void =
case+ xs of
| list_nil () => ()
| list_cons (x, xs1) => let
val () = process (x)
in
loop (xs1)
end
// end of [loop]
You can run the full code online
I think that this approach is preferable if none of the combinators or template functions provided in the libraries such as ATSLIB is suitable for your case.
A combinator-based solution (for a list0-value):
(xs).foreach()(lam x => process(x))
In ATS, foreach is overloaded with many functions that do some form of sequence traversal.
There is also iforeach if the position of each element is needed:
(xs).iforeach()(lam (i, x) => process(i, x))
This is a POOR solution one needs to avoid!
A beginner of functional programming often does list traversal using the list_get_at function (which overloads the symbol []). For instance, it is fairly common to see code that does more or less what the following line does:
(length(xs)).foreach()(lam i => process(xs[i])) // O(n^2)-time
This is EXTREMELY inefficient. Calling list_get_at inside a loop is almost always a bad idea!
Related
I am trying to study SML (for full transparency this is in preparation for an exam (exam has not started)) and one area that I have been struggling with is higher level functions such as map and foldl/r. I understand that they are used in situations where you would use a for loop in oop languages (I think). What I am struggling with though is what each part in a fold or map function is doing. Here are some examples that if someone could break them down I would be very appreciative
fun cubiclist L = map (fn x=> x*x*x) L;
fun min (x::xs) = foldr (fn (a,b) => if (a < b) then a else b) x xs;
So if I could break down the parts I see and high light the parts I'm struggling with I believe that would be helpful.
Obviously right off the bat you have the name of the functions and the parameters that are being passed in but one question I have on that part is why are we just passing in a variable to cubiclist but for min we pass in (x::xs)? Is it because the map function is automatically applying the function to each part in the map? Also along with that will the fold functions typically take the x::xs parameters while map will just take a variable?
Then we have the higher order function along with the anonymous functions with the logic/operations that we want to apply to each element in the list. But the parameters being passed in for the foldr anonymous function I'm not quite sure about. I understand we are trying to capture the lowest element in the list and the then a else b is returning either a or b to be compared with the other elements in the list. I'm pretty sure that they are rutnred and treated as a in future comparisons but where do we get the following b's from? Where do we say b is the next element in the list?
Then the part that I really don't understand and have no clue is the L; and x xs; at the end of the respective functions. Why are they there? What are they doing? what is their purpose? is it just syntax or is there actually a purpose for them being there, not saying that syntax isn't a purpose or a valid reason, but does they actually do something? Are those variables that can be changed out with something else that would provide a different answer?
Any help/explanation is much appreciated.
In addition to what #molbdnilo has already stated, it can be helpful to a newcomer to functional programming to think about what we're actually doing when we crate a loop: we're specifying a piece of code to run repeatedly. We need an initial state, a condition for the loop to terminate, and an update between each iteration.
Let's look at simple implementation of map.
fun map f [] = []
| map f (x :: xs) = f x :: map f xs
The initial state of the contents of the list.
The termination condition is the list is empty.
The update is that we tack f x onto the front of the result of mapping f to the rest of the list.
The usefulness of map is that we abstract away f. It can be anything, and we don't have to worry about writing the loop boilerplate.
Fold functions are both more complex and more instructive when comparing to loops in procedural languages.
A simple implementation of fold.
fun foldl f init [] = init
| foldl f init (x :: xs) = foldl f (f init x) xs
We explicitly provide an initial value, and a list to operate on.
The termination condition is the list being empty. If it is, we return the initial value provided.
The update is to call the function again. This time the initial value is updated, and the list is the tail of the original.
Consider summing a list of integers.
foldl op+ 0 [1,2,3,4]
foldl op+ 1 [2,3,4]
foldl op+ 3 [3,4]
foldl op+ 6 [4]
foldl op+ 10 []
10
Folds are important to understand because so many fundamental functions can be implemented in terms of foldl or foldr. Think of folding as a means of reducing (many programming languages refer to these functions as "reduce") a list to another value of some type.
map takes a function and a list and produces a new list.
In map (fn x=> x*x*x) L, the function is fn x=> x*x*x, and L is the list.
This list is the same list as cubiclist's parameter.
foldr takes a function, an initial value, and a list and produces some kind of value.
In foldr (fn (a,b) => if (a < b) then a else b) x xs, the function is fn (a,b) => if (a < b) then a else b, the initial value is x, and the list is xs.
x and xs are given to the function by pattern-matching; x is the argument's head and xs is its tail.
(It follows from this that min will fail if it is given an empty list.)
I've to adapt an existing code in Standard ML and I'm facing a problem right now.
I've got a function which is returning me a list of elements (let's call them Nodes (or Worlds))
val worlds = listNodes()
And for each world I've got a function fun listSuccessors w r which is returning the number of successors for each world.
My question is : How to obtain the number of successors globally ?
In pseudo code, I would like something like this :
worlds <-- listNodes ()
solution <-- 0
foreach w in worlds do
solution <-- solution + (length (listSuccessors w))
end foreach
return solution
But I unfortunately have no idea how to do this :/
Here are the existing functions :
fun listSuccessors w r =
let
val succs =
case Dynarraydict.get (nodes, Node.getId w)
of ROOT (_, _, succs) => succs
| _ => Exn.unexpArg "Nodestore.listSuccessors.succs"
in
List.mapPartial (fn (n, r', _) => if r = r' then SOME (getNode n) else NONE) succs
end
fun listNodes () = Dynarraydict.foldr (fn (_, ROOT item, ys) => (#1 item)::ys | (_, _, ys) => ys) nil nodes
Thanks in advance for your help :/ I'm a total beginner in Standard ML unfortunately, so it's quite complicated to understand how to manipulate list of lists. :/
Some hints : sum the size of the lists using List.fold and List.length.
In 1 single line you should be able to implement your pseudocode.
It should be some thing like :
List.fold (fun acc x -> acc+List.length x) 0 your_list_of_list.
Hmm, this looks like homework in spite of the comment, because it is a typical exercise, and a FP idiom.
A standard solution in ML (sic) is a recursive function where the parameters act as storage to sum something up or to collect some list. Other parameter(s) (the input data) diminish at every step and when empty cause the termination of the recursion.
This idiom serves the purpose to minimize the use of mutable state in the program.
Hope this helps.
So I have a couple of questions, as a newbie trying to learn O'Caml.
In functions, I often times see a | what does that mean? Also, why are functions some times defined as:
let rec a = function
Why does it specifically equal to function and then the code?
My main question however is, I was trying to write a function that would count the number of times an element exists in a list, so if I had 1, 5,5,6,9 with the target val as 5, then I'd return 2, if target val was 9, then I'd return 1, since it repeats once.
here is my attempt, please tell me what I'm doing wrong:
let rec track (x, l)= let rec helper(x,l, count)
in counthelper
match l with [] --> count
| (a::as) -> if(x = a)
then helper(as,l, count+1)
else count( as, l, count);;
The match and function keywords take a list of patterns to be matched. The | symbol is used to separate the different patterns. That's why it shows up so frequently in OCaml code.
The function keyword is like an abbreviation for fun and match. It lets you define a function as a set of patterns to be matched against an argument.
Your code has let rec helper (x, l, count) in .... This isn't a proper let expression. You want something like this: let helper (x, l, count) = def in expr.
More generally your code might look like this:
let track (x, l) =
let rec helper (x, l, count) =
... definition of helper ...
in
helper (x, l, 0)
As a side comment, you're using tuples for function parameters. It's more idiomatic in OCaml to use currying, i.e., to have separate parameters more like this:
let track x l =
...
This lets you do partial application (specify only some of the parameters), and also is cleaner syntactically.
Update
Your latest code doesn't return a value because it has infinite recursion.
Usually | means pattern matching.
let rec means that function can be recursive (call itself). Tutorial.
This is my solution where some useful symbols are changed to _ symbols. Let it be an exercise for you:
let rec count y xs =
let rec inner n = function
| __ -> n
| ______________ -> inner (n+1) xs
| ____ -> inner n xs
in
inner 0 xs;;
Your implementation has some issues.
The most obvious one is that you are using as in pattern matching. You can't us keyword in pattern matching this way.
You need to reread chapter about function declarations. It seems that you are mixing it with function invocation.
You are using not curried functions. You did some in C before, don't you?
You are using if when using using when is nicer. This construction is called guard.
I am solving the Programming assinment for Harvard CS 51 programming course in ocaml.
The problem is to define a function that can compress a list of chars to list of pairs where each pair contains a number of consequent occurencies of the character in the list and the character itself, i.e. after applying this function to the list ['a';'a';'a';'a';'a';'b';'b';'b';'c';'d';'d';'d';'d'] we should get the list of [(5,'a');(3,'b');(1,'c');(4,'d')].
I came up with the function that uses auxiliary function go to solve this problem:
let to_run_length (lst : char list) : (int*char) list =
let rec go i s lst1 =
match lst1 with
| [] -> [(i,s)]
| (x::xs) when s <> x -> (i,s) :: go 0 x lst1
| (x::xs) -> go (i + 1) s xs
in match lst with
| x :: xs -> go 0 x lst
| [] -> []
My question is: Is it possible to define recursive function to_run_length with nested pattern matching without defining an auxiliary function go. How in this case we can store a state of counter of already passed elements?
The way you have implemented to_run_length is correct, readable and efficient. It is a good solution. (only nitpick: the indentation after in is wrong)
If you want to avoid the intermediary function, you must use the information present in the return from the recursive call instead. This can be described in a slightly more abstract way:
the run length encoding of the empty list is the empty list
the run length encoding of the list x::xs is,
if the run length encoding of xs start with x, then ...
if it doesn't, then (x,1) ::run length encoding of xs
(I intentionally do not provide source code to let you work the detail out, but unfortunately there is not much to hide with such relatively simple functions.)
Food for thought: You usually encounter this kind of techniques when considering tail-recursive and non-tail-recursive functions (what I've done resembles turning a tail-rec function in non-tail-rec form). In this particular case, your original function was not tail recursive. A function is tail-recursive when the flows of arguments/results only goes "down" the recursive calls (you return them, rather than reusing them to build a larger result). In my function, the flow of arguments/results only goes "up" the recursive calls (the calls have the least information possible, and all the code logic is done by inspecting the results). In your implementation, flows goes both "down" (the integer counter) and "up" (the encoded result).
Edit: upon request of the original poster, here is my solution:
let rec run_length = function
| [] -> []
| x::xs ->
match run_length xs with
| (n,y)::ys when x = y -> (n+1,x)::ys
| res -> (1,x)::res
I don't think it is a good idea to write this function. Current solution is OK.
But if you still want to do it you can use one of two approaches.
1) Without changing arguments of your function. You can define some toplevel mutable values which will contain accumulators which are used in your auxilary function now.
2) You can add argument to your function to store some data. You can find some examples when googling for continuation-passing style.
Happy hacking!
P.S. I still want to underline that your current solution is OK and you don't need to improve it!
Consider splatter in this Python code:
def splatter(fn):
return lambda (args): fn(*args)
def add(a, b):
return a + b
list1 = [1, 2, 3]
list2 = [4, 5, 6]
print map(splatter(add), zip(list1, list2))
Mapping an n-ary function over n zipped sequences seems like a common enough operation that there might be a name for this already, but I have no idea where I'd find that. It vaguely evokes currying, and it seems like there are probably other related argument-centric HOFs that I've never heard of. Does anyone know if this is a "well-known" function? When discussing it I am currently stuck with the type of awkward language used in the question title.
Edit
Wow, Python's map does this automatically. You can write:
map(add, list1, list2)
And it will do the right thing, saving you the trouble of splattering your function. The only difference is that zip returns a list whose length is the the length of its shortest argument, whereas map extends shorter lists with None.
I think zipWith is the function that you are searching (this name is at least used in Haskell). It is even a bit more general. In Haskell zipWith is defined as follows (where the first line is just the type):
zipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
zipWith f (a:as) (b:bs) = f a b : zipWith f as bs
zipWith _ _ _ = []
And your example would be something like
zipWith (+) [1, 2, 3] [4, 5, 6]
Since I do not know python very well I can only point to "zipWith analogue in Python?".
I randomly saw this in my list of "Questions asked," and was surprised that I now know the answer.
There are two interpretations of the function that I asked.
The first was my intent: to take a function that takes a fixed number of arguments and convert it into a function that takes those arguments as a fixed-size list or tuple. In Haskell, the function that does this operation is called uncurry.
uncurry :: (a -> b -> c) -> ((a, b) -> c)
(Extra parens for clarity.)
It's easy to imagine extending this to functions of more than two arguments, though it can't be expressed in Haskell. But uncurry3, uncurry4, etc. would not be out of place.
So I was right that it "vaguely evokes currying," as it is really the opposite.
The second interpretation is to take a function that takes an intentionally variable number of arguments and return a function that takes a single list.
Because splat is so weird as a syntactic construct in Python, this is hard to reason about.
But if we imagine, say, JavaScript, which has a first-class named function for "splatting:"
varFn.apply(null, args)
var splatter = function(f) {
return function(arg) {
return f.apply(null, arg);
};
};
Then we could rephrase that as merely a partial application of the "apply" function:
var splatter = function(f) {
return Function.prototype.apply.bind(f, null);
};
Or using, Underscore's partial, we can come up with the point-free definition:
var splatter = _.partial(Function.prototype.bind.bind(Function.prototype.apply), _, null)
Yes, that is a nightmare.
(The alternative to _.partial requires defining some sort of swap helper and would come out even less readable, I think.)
So I think that the name of this operation is just "a partial application of apply", or in the Python case it's almost like a section of the splat operator -- if splat were an "actual" operator.
But the particular combination of uncurry, zip, and map in the original question is exactly zipWith, as chris pointed out. In fact, HLint by default includes a rule to replace this complex construct with a single call to zipWith.
I hope that clears things up, past Ian.