I am wondering if there is a way to write this line without piping h to calcVol function twice?
| h :: t when (h |> calcVol) > maxVol -> maxLoop t (h |> calcVol)
Where h is a tuple containing three dimensions, and calcVol returns a float value.
I know that I could explicitly define a vol value as:
| h :: t ->
let vol = calcVol h
if vol > maxVol then...
I am wondering if there is a way to do this nicely in one line?
If all the uses of vol were before the arrow, you could do this:
| h :: t when let vol = (h |> calcVol) in vol > maxVol -> // Something
But let assignments in the when clause left of the arrow do not carry over to the right-hand side. Demonstration:
let f x = x + 5
let l = [1; 2]
match l with
| a :: b when let y = f a in y = 6 -> "Six"
| _ -> "Other"
This works, and returns "Six". But:
let f x = x + 5
let l = [1; 2]
match l with
| a :: b when let y = f a in y = 6 -> sprintf "Six = %d" y
| _ -> "Other"
This does not work, producing the error:
error FS0039: The value or constructor 'y' is not defined.
So unfortunately, you can't have the one-line version you want and you'll have to go with the longer approach (with a let followed by an if, as you demonstrate in the second half of your answer).
Using active patterns a solution could look like this:
let calcVol v = v
let (|MaxVol|) maxVol = function
| [] -> (maxVol, [])
| h :: t -> ((max (calcVol h) maxVol), t)
let rec maxLoop list m =
match list with
| [] -> m
| MaxVol m (c, t) -> maxLoop t c
let vs = [ -1; 42; 3 ]
maxLoop vs System.Int32.MinValue // 42
Another possibility with better readability might be to first calculate the volumes (e.g. by mapping) and then find the maximum. Difficult to tell without the complete code...
Related
I need some help with my hometask: to express one function (sort) through others (smallest, delete, insert). If you know how, please, tell me, how I can do running my recursion cicle? it doing now only one step. maybe something like this: val4 -> head :: tail |> sort tail on line 25 (val4)?
let rec smallest = function
| x :: y :: tail when x <= y -> smallest (x :: tail)
| x :: y :: tail when x > y -> smallest (y :: tail)
| [x] -> Some x
| _ -> None
let rec delete (n, xs) =
match (n, xs) with
| (n, x :: xs) when n <> x -> x :: delete (n, xs)
| (n, x :: xs) when n = x -> xs
| (n, _) -> []
let rec insert (xs, n) =
match (xs, n) with
| ([x], n) when x < n -> [x]#[n]
| (x :: xs, n) when x < n -> x :: insert (xs, n)
| (x :: xs, n) when x >= n -> n :: x :: xs
| (_, _) -> []
let rec sort = function
| xs -> let val1 = smallest xs
let val2 = val1.[0]
let val3 = delete (val2, xs)
let val4 = insert (val3, val2)
val4
let res = sort [5; 4; 3; 2; 1; 1]
printfn "%A" res
This is sort of like insertion sort, but since you're always finding the smallest number in the whole list instead of the next highest number, it will recurse forever unless you skip whatever you've already found to be the smallest.
Furthermore, your insert and delete functions act not on the item index, but on equality to the value, so it won't be able to handle repeated numbers.
Keeping most of your original code the same, usually you have an inner recursive function to help you keep track of state. This is a common FP pattern.
let sort lst =
let size = lst |> List.length
let rec sort' xs = function
| index when index = size -> xs
| index ->
let val1 = smallest (xs |> List.skip index)
let val2 = val1.[0]
let val3 = delete (val2, xs)
let val4 = insert (val3, val2)
sort' val4 (index + 1)
sort' lst 0
let res = sort [5; 3; 2; 4; 1; ]
printfn "%A" res
Needless to say, this isn't correct or performant, and each iteration traverses the list multiple times. It probably runs in cubic time.
But keep learning!
I found it... I only had changed 4 & 5 lines above in the "smallest" on this: | [x] -> Some x
| _ -> None, when there was: | [x] -> [x]
| _ -> []
let rec sort = function
| xs -> match xs with
| head :: tail -> let val1 = smallest xs
match val1 with
| Some x -> let val2 = delete (x, xs)
let val3 = insert (val2, x)
let val4 = (fun list -> match list with head :: tail -> head :: sort tail | _ -> [])
val4 val3
| None -> []
| _ -> []
// let res = sort [5; 4; 3; 2; 1]
// printfn "%A" res
I'm trying to find the maximum element in a list without using List.Max for a school assignment using the below given template.
let findMax l =
let rec helper(l,m) = failwith "Not implemented"
match l with
| [] -> failwith "Error -- empty list"
| (x::xs) -> helper(xs,x)
The only solution to the problem I can think of, atm is
let rec max_value1 l =
match l with
|[] -> failwith "Empty List"
|[x] -> x
|(x::y::xs) -> if x<y then max_value1 (y::xs)
else max_value1 (x::xs)
max_value1 [1; 17; 3; 6; 1; 8; 3; 11; 6; 5; 9];;
Is there any way I can go from the function I built to one that uses the template? Thanks!
Your helper function should do the work, the outer function just validates that the list is not empty and if it's not, calls the helper, which should be something like this:
let rec helper (l,m) =
match (l, m) with
| [] , m -> m
| x::xs, m -> helper (xs, max m x)
Note, that you since you're matching against the last argument of the function you can remove it and use function instead of match with:
let rec helper = function
| [] , m -> m
| x::xs, m -> helper (xs, max m x)
let findMax l =
let rec helper(l,m) =
match l with
| [] -> m
| (x::xs) -> helper(xs, if (Some x > m) then Some x else m)
helper (l,None)
Example:
[-2;-6;-1;-9;-56;-3] |> findMax
val it : int option = Some -1
An empty list will return None.
You could go for a tuple to pass both, or simply apply the helper function in your main match (instead of the empty list guard clause). I'm including the answer for someone who might find this question in the future and not have a clear answer.
let findMax l =
let rec walk maxValue = function
| [] -> maxValue
| (x::xs) -> walk (if x > maxValue then x else maxValue) xs
match l with
| [] -> failwith "Empty list"
| (head::tail) -> walk head tail
findMax [1; 12; 3; ] //12
Using fold:
let findMax l = l |> List.fold (fun maxValue x -> if x > maxValue then x else maxValue) (List.head l)
I am not sure of what the exact rules of your assigment are but the max of a list is really just List.reduce max. So
let listMax : int list -> int = List.reduce max
You need the type annotation to please the typechecker.
let inline listMax xs = List.reduce max xs
also works and is generic so it works with e.g. floats and strings as well.
type Interpreter<'a> =
| RegularInterpreter of (int -> 'a)
| StringInterpreter of (string -> 'a)
let add<'a> (x: 'a) (y: 'a) (in_: Interpreter<'a>): 'a =
match in_ with
| RegularInterpreter r ->
x+y |> r
| StringInterpreter r ->
sprintf "(%s + %s)" x y |> r
The error message of it not being able to resolve 'a at compile time is pretty clear to me. I am guessing that the answer to the question of whether it is possible to make the above work is no, short of adding functions directly into the datatype. But then I might as well use an interface, or get rid of generic parameters entirely.
Edit: Mark's reply does in fact do what I asked, but let me extend the question as I did not explain it adequately. What I am trying to do is do with the technique above is imitate what what was done in this post. The motivation for this is to avoid inlined functions as they have poor composability - they can't be passed as lambdas without having their generic arguments specialized.
I was hoping that I might be able to work around it by passing an union type with a generic argument into a closure, but...
type Interpreter<'a> =
| RegularInterpreter of (int -> 'a)
| StringInterpreter of (string -> 'a)
let val_ x in_ =
match in_ with
| RegularInterpreter r -> r x
| StringInterpreter r -> r (string x)
let inline add x y in_ =
match in_ with
| RegularInterpreter r ->
x in_ + y in_ |> r
| StringInterpreter r ->
sprintf "(%A + %A)" (x in_) (y in_) |> r
let inline mult x y in_ =
match in_ with
| RegularInterpreter r ->
x in_ * y in_ |> r
| StringInterpreter r ->
sprintf "(%A * %A)" (x in_) (y in_) |> r
let inline r2 in_ = add (val_ 1) (val_ 3) in_
r2 (RegularInterpreter id)
r2 (StringInterpreter id) // Type error.
This last line gives a type error. Is there a way around this? Though I'd prefer the functions to not be inlined due to the limits they place on composability.
Remove the type annotations:
let inline add x y in_ =
match in_ with
| RegularInterpreter r ->
x + y |> r
| StringInterpreter r ->
sprintf "(%A + %A)" x y |> r
You'll also need to make a few other changes, which I've also incorporated above:
Change the format specifiers used with sprintf to something more generic. When you use %s, you're saying that the argument for that placeholder must be a string, so the compiler would infer x and y to be string values.
Add the inline keyword.
With these changes, the inferred type of add is now:
x: ^a -> y: ^b -> in_:Interpreter<'c> -> 'c
when ( ^a or ^b) : (static member ( + ) : ^a * ^b -> int)
You'll notice that it works for any type where + is defined as turning the input arguments into int. In practice, that's probably going to mean only int itself, unless you define a custom operator.
FSI smoke tests:
> add 3 2 (RegularInterpreter id);;
val it : int = 5
> add 2 3 (StringInterpreter (fun _ -> 42));;
val it : int = 42
The compiler ends up defaulting to int, and the kind of polymorphism you want is difficult to achieve in F#. This article articulates the point.
Perhaps, you could work the dark arts using FSharp.Interop.Dynamic but you lose compile time checking which sort of defeats the point.
I've come to the conclusion that what I am trying to is impossible. I had a hunch that it was already, but the proof is in the following:
let vale (x,_,_) = x
let adde (_,x,_) = x
let multe (_,_,x) = x
let val_ x d =
let f = vale d
f x
let add x y d =
let f = adde d
f (x d) (y d)
let mult x y d =
let f = multe d
f (x d) (y d)
let in_1 =
let val_ (x: int) = x
let add x y = x+y
let mult x y = x*y
val_,add,mult
let in_2 =
let val_ (x: int) = string x
let add x y = sprintf "(%s + %s)" x y
let mult x y = sprintf "(%s * %s)" x y
val_,add,mult
let r2 d = add (val_ 1) (val_ 3) d
//let test x = x in_1, x in_2 // Type error.
let a2 = r2 in_1 // Works
let b2 = r2 in_2 // Works
The reasoning goes that if it cannot be done with plain functions passed as arguments, then it definitely won't be possible with interfaces, records, discriminated unions or any other scheme. The standard functions are more generic than any of the above, and if they cannot do it then this is a fundamental limitation of the language.
It is not the lack of HKTs that make the code ungeneric, but something as simple as this. In fact, going by the Finally Tagless paper linked to in the Reddit post, Haskell has the same problem with needing to duplicate interpreters without the impredicative types extension - though I've looked around and it seem that impredicative types will be removed in the future as the extension is difficult to maintain.
Nevertheless, I do hope this is only a current limitation of F#. If the language was dynamic, the code segment above would in fact run correctly.
Unfortunately, it's not completely clear to me what you're trying to do. However, it seems likely that it's possible by creating an interface with a generic method. For example, here's how you could get the code from your answer to work:
type I = abstract Apply : ((int -> 'a) * ('a -> 'a -> 'a) * ('a -> 'a -> 'a)) -> 'a
//let test x = x in_1, x in_2 // Type error.
let test (i:I) = i.Apply in_1, i.Apply in_2
let r2' = { new I with member __.Apply d = add (val_ 1) (val_ 3) d }
test r2' // no problem
If you want to use a value (e.g. a function input) generically, then in most cases the cleanest way is to create an interface with a generic method whose signature expresses the required polymorphism.
I am new to F# and writing some simple algorithm to get used to the language, which needs argMax. Does the standard library come with a function for searching for a list element that maximizes a function? That is, if there's an existing function that behaves like this one:
let argMax f xs =
let rec go a fa zs =
match zs with
| [] -> a
| z :: zs' ->
let fz = f z
if fz > fa
then go z fz zs'
else go a fa zs'
match xs with
| [] -> invalidArg "xs" "empty"
| x :: xs' -> go x (f x) xs'
Yes, but it's called List.maxBy.
Here's an example:
let f x = -(x * x) + 100 * x + 1000
List.maxBy f [0..1000]
// val it : int = 50
f 50
// val it : int = 3500
There is also List.minBy and the same functions are available for Seq and Array.
I have two snippets of code that tries to convert a float list to a Vector3 or Vector2 list. The idea is to take 2/3 elements at a time from the list and combine them as a vector. The end result is a sequence of vectors.
let rec vec3Seq floatList =
seq {
match floatList with
| x::y::z::tail -> yield Vector3(x,y,z)
yield! vec3Seq tail
| [] -> ()
| _ -> failwith "float array not multiple of 3?"
}
let rec vec2Seq floatList =
seq {
match floatList with
| x::y::tail -> yield Vector2(x,y)
yield! vec2Seq tail
| [] -> ()
| _ -> failwith "float array not multiple of 2?"
}
The code looks very similiar and yet there seems to be no way to extract a common portion. Any ideas?
Here's one approach. I'm not sure how much simpler this really is, but it does abstract some of the repeated logic out.
let rec mkSeq (|P|_|) x =
seq {
match x with
| P(p,tail) ->
yield p
yield! mkSeq (|P|_|) tail
| [] -> ()
| _ -> failwith "List length mismatch" }
let vec3Seq =
mkSeq (function
| x::y::z::tail -> Some(Vector3(x,y,z), tail)
| _ -> None)
As Rex commented, if you want this only for two cases, then you probably won't have any problem if you leave the code as it is. However, if you want to extract a common pattern, then you can write a function that splits a list into sub-list of a specified length (2 or 3 or any other number). Once you do that, you'll only use map to turn each list of the specified length into Vector.
The function for splitting list isn't available in the F# library (as far as I can tell), so you'll have to implement it yourself. It can be done roughly like this:
let divideList n list =
// 'acc' - accumulates the resulting sub-lists (reversed order)
// 'tmp' - stores values of the current sub-list (reversed order)
// 'c' - the length of 'tmp' so far
// 'list' - the remaining elements to process
let rec divideListAux acc tmp c list =
match list with
| x::xs when c = n - 1 ->
// we're adding last element to 'tmp',
// so we reverse it and add it to accumulator
divideListAux ((List.rev (x::tmp))::acc) [] 0 xs
| x::xs ->
// add one more value to 'tmp'
divideListAux acc (x::tmp) (c+1) xs
| [] when c = 0 -> List.rev acc // no more elements and empty 'tmp'
| _ -> failwithf "not multiple of %d" n // non-empty 'tmp'
divideListAux [] [] 0 list
Now, you can use this function to implement your two conversions like this:
seq { for [x; y] in floatList |> divideList 2 -> Vector2(x,y) }
seq { for [x; y; z] in floatList |> divideList 3 -> Vector3(x,y,z) }
This will give a warning, because we're using an incomplete pattern that expects that the returned lists will be of length 2 or 3 respectively, but that's correct expectation, so the code will work fine. I'm also using a brief version of sequence expression the -> does the same thing as do yield, but it can be used only in simple cases like this one.
This is simular to kvb's solution but doesn't use a partial active pattern.
let rec listToSeq convert (list:list<_>) =
seq {
if not(List.isEmpty list) then
let list, vec = convert list
yield vec
yield! listToSeq convert list
}
let vec2Seq = listToSeq (function
| x::y::tail -> tail, Vector2(x,y)
| _ -> failwith "float array not multiple of 2?")
let vec3Seq = listToSeq (function
| x::y::z::tail -> tail, Vector3(x,y,z)
| _ -> failwith "float array not multiple of 3?")
Honestly, what you have is pretty much as good as it can get, although you might be able to make a little more compact using this:
// take 3 [1 .. 5] returns ([1; 2; 3], [4; 5])
let rec take count l =
match count, l with
| 0, xs -> [], xs
| n, x::xs -> let res, xs' = take (count - 1) xs in x::res, xs'
| n, [] -> failwith "Index out of range"
// split 3 [1 .. 6] returns [[1;2;3]; [4;5;6]]
let rec split count l =
seq { match take count l with
| xs, ys -> yield xs; if ys <> [] then yield! split count ys }
let vec3Seq l = split 3 l |> Seq.map (fun [x;y;z] -> Vector3(x, y, z))
let vec2Seq l = split 2 l |> Seq.map (fun [x;y] -> Vector2(x, y))
Now the process of breaking up your lists is moved into its own generic "take" and "split" functions, its much easier to map it to your desired type.