I have a tree of type type T<'a> = N of 'a * T<'a> list
An example declaration could be like these:
let td = N("g", [])
let tc = N("c", [N("d", []); N("e", [td])])
What I'd like to do is to declare a method to apply a function which returns the tree with the result of applying the function to each value in the nodes of the tree. I've done is using fold below, but is it possible to do without?
let rec foldTree f e (N(x,t)) =
List.fold (mapFold f) (f e x) t
Example usage for reverting the output list order:
foldTree (fun a x -> x::a) [] tc |> (printf "%A")
which FSI outputs as
["c"; "d"; "e"; "g"]val it : unit = ()
If you haven't gone through the excellent Recursive types and folds series, you might want to read through it; that will show you a set of good approaches for handling self-recursive data structures like your tree type. The general rule for working through trees is "do what I need to do on this level, then recursively call the current function on the child nodes". Here, that would look like this:
let rec treeMap f tree =
match tree with
| N (data, children) ->
N (f data, children |> List.map (treeMap f))
Note how this actually gives you back the same tree structure that you started with, rather than flattening the structure the way your List.fold example did.
I hope this is simple enough to be clear without a long explanation, but if you're having any trouble understanding how this code works, let me know and I'll try to explain further.
Related
I've created a function that gets all integers from 1 to n and then combines with the same sequence to create a sequence of tuples of all combinations. So passing it the integer 2 would give you [(1,1);(1,2);(2,1);(2,2)]:
let allTuplesUntil x =
let primary = seq { 1 .. x }
let secondary = seq { 1 .. x }
[for x in primary do
for y in secondary do
yield (x,y)]
This implementations works, but it uses an inner and outer for loop, similar to what I would do in c#.
Could this be achieved in a more idiomatic functional way? Would a more functional way typically be more desirable or is this acceptable in a functional language because of its brevity and clarity?
I'm relatively new to f# and looking for some feedback.
These loops are part of what's called computation expression, which is quite idiomatic to F#. It's just made to look like familiar loops. I can't see any problem with your code being written in this way. If what you want is to get rid of the loops, you could hide them in functions:
let cartesianProduct xs ys =
xs |> Seq.collect (fun x -> ys |> Seq.map (fun y -> x, y))
cartesianProduct [1;2;3] ['a';'b';'c']
val it : seq<int * char> = seq [(1, 'a'); (1, 'b'); (1, 'c'); (2, 'a'); ...]
First, just because there is a for doesn't mean its not functional. In this example you go over each element and yield a new element that will turn into a new element of a new immutable list. Such feature is also named "List Comprehension" and part of languages like Haskell. Imperative would be to loop over a list and mutate the list.
Second, remember that other functions like map, fold, filter also just loop over each element, like a for expression. They are just less powerful than a for loop.
Third, even if it would be "not 100% functional". Who cares? Code should be easily readable and understandable. The intention of two for loops is easy to understand.
Fourth, the equivalent function of the for expression is usually the bind or in this case the Seq.collect function. You also could write, this code.
[for x in primary do
for y in secondary do
yield (x,y)]
Like this:
primary |> Seq.collect (fun x ->
secondary |> Seq.collect (fun y ->
[x,y]
))
I prefer the for loops for readability!
I was trying to write a generic mapFoldWhile function, which is just mapFold but requires the state to be an option and stops as soon as it encounters a None state.
I don't want to use mapFold because it will transform the entire list, but I want it to stop as soon as an invalid state (i.e. None) is found.
This was myfirst attempt:
let mapFoldWhile (f : 'State option -> 'T -> 'Result * 'State option) (state : 'State option) (list : 'T list) =
let rec mapRec f state list results =
match list with
| [] -> (List.rev results, state)
| item :: tail ->
let (result, newState) = f state item
match newState with
| Some x -> mapRec f newState tail (result :: results)
| None -> ([], None)
mapRec f state list []
The List.rev irked me, since the point of the exercise was to exit early and constructing a new list ought to be even slower.
So I looked up what F#'s very own map does, which was:
let map f list = Microsoft.FSharp.Primitives.Basics.List.map f list
The ominous Microsoft.FSharp.Primitives.Basics.List.map can be found here and looks like this:
let map f x =
match x with
| [] -> []
| [h] -> [f h]
| (h::t) ->
let cons = freshConsNoTail (f h)
mapToFreshConsTail cons f t
cons
The consNoTail stuff is also in this file:
// optimized mutation-based implementation. This code is only valid in fslib, where mutation of private
// tail cons cells is permitted in carefully written library code.
let inline setFreshConsTail cons t = cons.(::).1 <- t
let inline freshConsNoTail h = h :: (# "ldnull" : 'T list #)
So I guess it turns out that F#'s immutable lists are actually mutable because performance? I'm a bit worried about this, having used the prepend-then-reverse list approach as I thought it was the "way to go" in F#.
I'm not very experienced with F# or functional programming in general, so maybe (probably) the whole idea of creating a new mapFoldWhile function is the wrong thing to do, but then what am I to do instead?
I often find myself in situations where I need to "exit early" because a collection item is "invalid" and I know that I don't have to look at the rest. I'm using List.pick or Seq.takeWhile in some cases, but in other instances I need to do more (mapFold).
Is there an efficient solution to this kind of problem (mapFoldWhile in particular and "exit early" in general) with functional programming concepts, or do I have to switch to an imperative solution / use a Collections.Generics.List?
In most cases, using List.rev is a perfectly sufficient solution.
You are right that the F# core library uses mutation and other dirty hacks to squeeze some more performance out of the F# list operations, but I think the micro-optimizations done there are not particularly good example. F# list functions are used almost everywhere so it might be a good trade-off, but I would not follow it in most situations.
Running your function with the following:
let l = [ 1 .. 1000000 ]
#time
mapFoldWhile (fun s v -> 0, s) (Some 1) l
I get ~240ms on the second line when I run the function without changes. When I just drop List.rev (so that it returns the data in the other order), I get around ~190ms. If you are really calling the function frequently enough that this matters, then you'd have to use mutation (actually, your own mutable list type), but I think that is rarely worth it.
For general "exit early" problems, you can often write the code as a composition of Seq.scan and Seq.takeWhile. For example, say you want to sum numbers from a sequence until you reach 1000. You can write:
input
|> Seq.scan (fun sum v -> v + sum) 0
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun sum -> sum < 1000)
Using Seq.scan generates a sequence of sums that is over the whole input, but since this is lazily generated, using Seq.takeWhile stops the computation as soon as the exit condition happens.
Is there some form of built-in / term I don't know that kinda-but-its-different 'composes' two 'a -> unit functions to yield a single one; e.g.:
let project event =
event |> logDirections
event |> stashDirections
let dispatch (batch:EncodedEventBatch) =
batch.chooseOfUnion () |> Seq.iter project
might become:
let project = logDirections FOLLOWEDBY stashDirections
let dispatch (batch:EncodedEventBatch) =
batch.chooseOfUnion () |> Seq.iter project
and then:
let dispatch (batch:EncodedEventBatch) =
batch.chooseOfUnion () |> Seq.iter (logDirections FOLLOWEDBY stashDirections)
I guess one might compare it to tee (as alluded to in FSFFAP's Railway Oriented Programming series).
(it needs to pass the same arg to both and I'm seeking to run them sequentially without any exception handling trickery concerns etc.)
(I know I can do let project fs arg = fs |> Seq.iter (fun f -> f arg) but am wondering if there is something built-in and/or some form of composition lib I'm not aware of)
The apply function from Klark is the most straightforward way to solve the problem.
If you want to dig deeper and understand the concept more generally, then you can say that you are lifting the sequential composition operation from working on values to work on functions.
First of all, the ; construct in F# can be viewed as sequential composition operator. Sadly, you cannot quite use it as one, e.g. (;) (because it is special and lazy in the second argument) but we can define our own operator instead to explore the idea:
let ($) a b = a; b
So, printfn "hi" $ 1 is now a sequential composition of a side-effecting operation and some expression that evaluates to 1 and it does the same thing as printfn "hi"; 1.
The next step is to define a lifting operation that turns a binary operator working on values to a binary operator working on functions:
let lift op g h = (fun a -> op (g a) (h a))
Rather than writing e.g. fun x -> foo x + bar x, you can now write lift (+) foo bar. So you have a point-free way of writing the same thing - just using operation that works on functions.
Now you can achieve what you want using the lift function and the sequential composition operator:
let seq2 a b = lift ($) a b
let seq3 a b c = lift ($) (lift ($) a b) c
let seqN l = Seq.reduce (lift ($)) l
The seq2 and seq3 functions compose just two operations, while seqN does the same thing as Klark's apply function.
It should be said that I'm writing this answer not because I think it is useful to implement things in F# in this way, but as you mentioned railway oriented programming and asked for deeper concepts behind this, it is interesting to see how things can be composed in functional languages.
Can you just apply an array of functions to a given data?
E.g. you can define:
let apply (arg:'a) (fs:(('a->unit) seq)) = fs |> Seq.iter (fun f -> f arg)
Then you will be able to do something like this:
apply 1 [(fun x -> printfn "%d" (x + 1)); (fun y -> printfn "%d" (y + 2))]
I was reading this post While or Tail Recursion in F#, what to use when? were several people say that the 'functional way' of doing things is by using maps/folds and higher order functions instead of recursing and looping.
I have this function that returns the item at position x in a list:
let rec getPos l c = if c = 0 then List.head l else getPos (List.tail l) (c - 1)
how can it be converted to be more functional?
This is a primitive list function (also known as List.nth).
It is okay to use recursion, especially when creating the basic building blocks. Although it would be nicer with pattern matching instead of if-else, like this:
let rec getPos l c =
match l with
| h::_ when c = 0 -> h
| _::t -> getPos t (c-1)
| [] -> failwith "list too short"
It is possible to express this function with List.fold, however the result is less clear than the recursive version.
I'm not sure what you mean by more functional.
Are you rolling this yourself as a learning exercise?
If not, you could just try this:
> let mylist = [1;2;3;4];;
> let n = 2;;
> mylist.[n];;
Your definition is already pretty functional since it uses a tail-recursive function instead of an imperative loop construct. However, it also looks like something a Scheme programmer might have written because you're using head and tail.
I suspect you're really asking how to write it in a more idiomatic ML style. The answer is to use pattern matching:
let rec getPos list n =
match list with
| hd::tl ->
if n = 0 then hd
else getPos tl (n - 1)
| [] -> failWith "Index out of range."
The recursion on the structure of the list is now revealed in the code. You also get a warning if the pattern matching is non-exhaustive so you're forced to deal with the index too big error.
You're right that functional programming also encourages the use of combinators like map or fold (so called points-free style). But too much of it just leads to unreadable code. I don't think it's warranted in this case.
Of course, Benjol is right, in practice you would just write mylist.[n].
If you'd like to use high-order functions for this, you could do:
let nth n = Seq.take (n+1) >> Seq.fold (fun _ x -> Some x) None
let nth n = Seq.take (n+1) >> Seq.reduce (fun _ x -> x)
But the idea is really to have basic constructions and combine them build whatever you want. Getting the nth element of a sequence is clearly a basic block that you should use. If you want the nth item, as Benjol mentioned, do myList.[n].
For building basic constructions, there's nothing wrong to use recursion or mutable loops (and often, you have to do it this way).
Not as a practical solution, but as an exercise, here is one of the ways to express nth via foldr or, in F# terms, List.foldBack:
let myNth n xs =
let step e f = function |0 -> e |n -> f (n-1)
let error _ = failwith "List is too short"
List.foldBack step xs error n
The :: operator in F# always prepends elements to the list. Is there an operator that appends to the list? I'm guessing that using # operator
[1; 2; 3] # [4]
would be less efficient, than appending one element.
As others said, there is no such operator, because it wouldn't make much sense. I actually think that this is a good thing, because it makes it easier to realize that the operation will not be efficient. In practice, you shouldn't need the operator - there is usually a better way to write the same thing.
Typical scenario: I think that the typical scenario where you could think that you need to append elements to the end is so common that it may be useful to describe it.
Adding elements to the end seems necessary when you're writing a tail-recursive version of a function using the accumulator parameter. For example a (inefficient) implementation of filter function for lists would look like this:
let filter f l =
let rec filterUtil acc l =
match l with
| [] -> acc
| x::xs when f x -> filterUtil (acc # [x]) xs
| x::xs -> filterUtil acc xs
filterUtil [] l
In each step, we need to append one element to the accumulator (which stores elements to be returned as the result). This code can be easily modified to use the :: operator instead of appending elements to the end of the acc list:
let filter f l =
let rec filterUtil acc l =
match l with
| [] -> List.rev acc // (1)
| x::xs when f x -> filterUtil (x::acc) xs // (2)
| x::xs -> filterUtil acc xs
filterUtil [] l
In (2), we're now adding elements to the front of the accumulator and when the function is about to return the result, we reverse the list (1), which is a lot more efficient than appending elements one by one.
Lists in F# are singly-linked and immutable. This means consing onto the front is O(1) (create an element and have it point to an existing list), whereas snocing onto the back is O(N) (as the entire list must be replicated; you can't change the existing final pointer, you must create a whole new list).
If you do need to "append one element to the back", then e.g.
l # [42]
is the way to do it, but this is a code smell.
The cost of appending two standard lists is proportional to the length of the list on the left. In particular, the cost of
xs # [x]
is proportional to the length of xs—it is not a constant cost.
If you want a list-like abstraction with a constant-time append, you can use John Hughes's function representation, which I'll call hlist. I'll try to use OCaml syntax, which I hope is close enough to F#:
type 'a hlist = 'a list -> 'a list (* a John Hughes list *)
let empty : 'a hlist = let id xs = xs in id
let append xs ys = fun tail -> xs (ys tail)
let singleton x = fun tail -> x :: tail
let cons x xs = append (singleton x) xs
let snoc xs x = append xs (singleton x)
let to_list : 'a hlist -> 'a list = fun xs -> xs []
The idea is that you represent a list functionally as a function from "the rest of the elements" to "the final list". This works great if you are going to build up the whole list before you look at any of the elements. Otherwise you'll have to deal with the linear cost of append or use another data structure entirely.
I'm guessing that using # operator [...] would be less efficient, than appending one element.
If it is, it will be a negligible difference. Both appending a single item and concatenating a list to the end are O(n) operations. As a matter of fact I can't think of a single thing that # has to do, which a single-item append function wouldn't.
Maybe you want to use another data structure. We have double-ended queues (or short "Deques") in fsharpx. You can read more about them at http://jackfoxy.com/double-ended-queues-for-fsharp
The efficiency (or lack of) comes from iterating through the list to find the final element. So declaring a new list with [4] is going to be negligible for all but the most trivial scenarios.
Try using a double-ended queue instead of list. I recently added 4 versions of deques (Okasaki's spelling) to FSharpx.Core (Available through NuGet. Source code at FSharpx.Core.Datastructures). See my article about using dequeus Double-ended queues for F#
I've suggested to the F# team the cons operator, ::, and the active pattern discriminator be made available for other data structures with a head/tail signature.3