-module(solarSystem).
-export([process_csv/1, is_numeric/1, parseALine/2, parse/1, expandT/1, expandT/2,
parseNames/1]).
parseALine(false, T) ->
T;
parseALine(true, T) ->
T.
parse([Name, Colour, Distance, Angle, AngleVelocity, Radius, "1" | T]) ->
T;%Where T is a list of names of other objects in the solar system
parse([Name, Colour, Distance, Angle, AngleVelocity, Radius | T]) ->
T.
parseNames([H | T]) ->
H.
expandT(T) ->
T.
expandT([], Sep) ->
[];
expandT([H | T], Sep) ->
T.
% https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Determine_if_a_string_is_numeric#Erlang
is_numeric(L) ->
S = trim(L, ""),
Float = (catch erlang:list_to_float(S)),
Int = (catch erlang:list_to_integer(S)),
is_number(Float) orelse is_number(Int).
trim(A) ->
A.
trim([], A) ->
A;
trim([32 | T], A) ->
trim(T, A);
trim([H | T], A) ->
trim(T, A ++ [H]).
process_csv(L) ->
X = parse(L),
expandT(X).
The problem is that it will calls process_csv/1 function in my module in a main, L will be a file like this:
[["name "," col"," dist"," a"," angv"," r "," ..."],["apollo11 ","white"," 0.1"," 0"," 77760"," 0.15"]]
Or like this:
["planets ","earth","venus "]
Or like this:
["a","b"]
I need to display it as follows:
apollo11 =["white", 0.1, 0, 77760, 0.15,[]];
Planets =[earth,venus]
a,b
[[59],[97],[44],[98]]
My problem is that no matter how I make changes, it can only show a part, and there are no symbols. The list cannot be divided, so I can't find a way.
In addition, because Erlang is a niche programming language, I can't even find examples online.
So, can anyone help me? Thank you, very much.
In addition, I am restricted from using recursion.
I think the first problem is that it is hard to link what you are trying to achieve with what your code says thus far. Therefore, this feedback maybe is not exactly what you are looking for, but might give some ideas. Let's structure the problem into the common elements: (1) input, (2) process, and (3) output.
Input
You mentioned that L will be a file, but I assume it is a line in a file, where each line can be one of the 3 (three) samples. In this regard, the samples also do not have consistent pattern.For this, we can build a function to convert each line of the file into Erlang term and pass the result to the next step.
Process
The question also do not mention the specific logic in parsing/processing the input. You also seem to care about the data type so we will convert and display the result accordingly. Erlang as a functional language will naturally be handling list, so on most cases we will need to use functions on lists module
Output
You didn't specifically mention where you want to display the result (an output file, screen/erlang shell, etc), so let's assume you just want to display it in the standard output/erlang shell.
Sample file content test1.txt (please note the dot at the end of each line)
[["name "," col"," dist"," a"," angv"," r "],["apollo11 ","white","0.1"," 0"," 77760"," 0.15"]].
["planets ","earth","venus "].
["a","b"].
Howto run: solarSystem:process_file("/Users/macbook/Documents/test1.txt").
Sample Result:
(dev01#Macbooks-MacBook-Pro-3)3> solarSystem:process_file("/Users/macbook/Documents/test1.txt").
apollo11 = ["white",0.1,0,77760,0.15]
planets = ["earth","venus"]
a = ["b"]
Done processing 3 line(s)
ok
Module code:
-module(solarSystem).
-export([process_file/1]).
-export([process_line/2]).
-export([format_item/1]).
%%This is the main function, input is file full path
%%Howto call: solarSystem:process_file("file_full_path").
process_file(Filename) ->
%%Use file:consult to convert the file content into erlang terms
%%File content is a dot (".") separated line
{StatusOpen, Result} = file:consult(Filename),
case StatusOpen of
ok ->
%%Result is a list and therefore each element must be handled using lists function
Ctr = lists:foldl(fun process_line/2, 0, Result),
io:format("Done processing ~p line(s) ~n", [Ctr]);
_ -> %%This is for the case where file not available
io:format("Error converting file ~p due to '~p' ~n", [Filename, Result])
end.
process_line(Term, CtrIn) ->
%%Assume there are few possibilities of element. There are so many ways to process the data as long as the input pattern is clear.
%%We basically need to identify all possibilities and handle them accordingly.
%%Of course there are smarter (dynamic) ways to handle them, but below may give you some ideas.
case Term of
%%1. This is to handle this pattern -> [["name "," col"," dist"," a"," angv"," r "],["apollo11 ","white"," 0.1"," 0"," 77760"," 0.15"]]
[[_, _, _, _, _, _], [Name | OtherParams]] ->
%%At this point, Name = "apollo11", OtherParamsList = ["white"," 0.1"," 0"," 77760"," 0.15"]
OtherParamsFmt = lists:map(fun format_item/1, OtherParams),
%%Display the result to standard output
io:format("~s = ~p ~n", [string:trim(Name), OtherParamsFmt]);
%%2. This is to handle this pattern -> ["planets ","earth","venus "]
[Name | OtherParams] ->
%%At this point, Name = "planets ", OtherParamsList = ["earth","venus "]
OtherParamsFmt = lists:map(fun format_item/1, OtherParams),
%%Display the result to standard output
io:format("~s = ~p ~n", [string:trim(Name), OtherParamsFmt]);
%%3. Other cases
_ ->
%%Display the warning to standard output
io:format("Unknown pattern ~p ~n", [Term])
end,
CtrIn + 1.
%%This is to format the string accordingly
format_item(Str) ->
StrTrim = string:trim(Str), %%first, trim it
format_as_needed(StrTrim).
format_as_needed(Str) ->
Float = (catch erlang:list_to_float(Str)),
case Float of
{'EXIT', _} -> %%It is not a float -> check if it is an integer
Int = (catch erlang:list_to_integer(Str)),
case Int of
{'EXIT', _} -> %%It is not an integer -> return as is (string)
Str;
_ -> %%It is an int
Int
end;
_ -> %%It is a float
Float
end.
I am trying to figure out a nice way to check if a string contains only number. This is the result of my effort but it seems really verbose:
let isDigit c = Char.IsDigit c
let rec strContainsOnlyNumber (s:string)=
let charList = List.ofSeq s
match charList with
| x :: xs ->
if isDigit x then
strContainsOnlyNumber ( String.Concat (Array.ofList xs))
else
false
| [] -> true
for example it seems really ugly that I have to convert a string to char list and then back to a string.
Can you figure out a better solution?
There are a few different options for approaching this.
Given that System.String is a sequence of characters, which you're currently using to turn into a list, you can skip the list conversions and just use Seq.forall to directly test:
let strContainsOnlyNumber (s:string) = s |> Seq.forall Char.IsDigit
If you want to see if it's a valid number, you can parse it into a number directly:
let strContainsOnlyNumber (s:string) = System.Int32.TryParse s |> fst
Note that this will also return true for things like "-342" (which contains -, but is a valid number).
Another approach would be to use a regular expression:
let numberCheck = System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex("^[0-9]+$")
let strContainsOnlyNumbers (s:string) = numberCheck.IsMatch s
This will also handle numeric characters, but could be adapted to include other symbols in numbers if needed.
If the goal is to later use the string as a number, my suggestion would be to just do a conversion, and store in an option:
let tryToInt s =
match System.Int32.TryParse s with
| true, v -> Some v
| false, _ -> None
This will allow you to check to see if the value was a number (via Option.isSome), pattern match to use the results, and more.
Note that conversions to floating point numbers is nearly identical - just change the Int32.TryParse to a Double.TryParse if you want to handle float values.
F# newbie here, and sorry for the bad title, I'm not sure how else to describe it.
Very strange problem I'm having. Here's the relevant code snippet:
let calcRelTime (item :(string * string * string)) =
tSnd item
|>DateTime.Parse
|> fun x -> DateTime.Now - x
|> fun y -> (floor y.TotalMinutes).ToString()
|>makeTriple (tFst item) (tTrd item) //makeTriple switches y & z. How do I avoid having to do that?
let rec getRelativeTime f (l :(string * string * string) list) =
match l with
| [] -> f
| x :: xs -> getRelativeTime (List.append [calcRelTime x] f) xs
I step through it with Visual Studio and it clearly shows that x in getRelativeTime is a 3-tuple with a well-formed datetime string. But when I step to calcRelTime item is null. Everything ends up returning a 3-tuple that has the original datetime string, instead of one with the total minutes past. There's no other errors anywhere, until the that datetime string hits a function that expects it to be an integer string.
Any help would be appreciated! (along with any other F# style tips/suggestions for these functions).
item is null, because it hasn't been constructed yet out of its parts. The F# compiler compiles tupled parameters as separate actual (IL-level) parameters rather than one parameter of type Tuple<...>. If you look at your compiled code in ILSpy, you will see this signature (using C# syntax):
public static Tuple<string, string, string> calcRelTime(string item_0, string item_1, string item_2)
This is done for several reasons, including interoperability with other CLR languages as well as efficiency.
To be sure, the tuple itself is then constructed from these arguments (unless you have optimization turned on), but not right away. If you make one step (hit F11), item will obtain a proper non-null value.
You can also see these compiler-generated parameters if you go to Debug -> Windows -> Locals in Visual Studio.
As for why it's returning the original list instead of modified one, I can't really say: on my setup, everything works as expected:
> getRelativeTime [] [("x","05/01/2015","y")]
val it : (string * string * string) list = [("x", "y", "17305")]
Perhaps if you share your test code, I would be able to tell more.
And finally, what you're doing can be done a lot simpler: you don't need to write a recursive loop yourself, it's already done for you in the many functions in the List module, and you don't need to accept a tuple and then deconstruct it using tFst, tSnd, and tTrd, the compiler can do it for you:
let getRelativeTime lst =
let calcRelTime (x, time, y) =
let parsed = DateTime.Parse time
let since = DateTime.Now - parsed
let asStr = (floor since.TotalMinutes).ToString()
(x, asStr, y)
List.map calRelTime lst
let getRelativeTime' list =
let calc (a, b, c) = (a, c, (floor (DateTime.Now - (DateTime.Parse b)).TotalMinutes).ToString())
list |> List.map calc
Signature of the function is val getRelativeTime : list:('a * string * 'b) list -> ('a * 'b * string) list
You can deconstruct item in the function declaration to (a, b, c), then you don't have to use the functions tFst, tSnd and tTrd.
The List module has a function map that applies a function to each element in a list and returns a new list with the mapped values.
When using union types with quite a few constructors I almost always find myself implementing lots of logic in single function, i.e. handling all cases in one function. Sometimes I would like to extract logic for single case to separate function, but one cannot have a function accepting only one "constructor" as parameter.
Example:
Assume that we have typical "expression" type :
type Formula =
| Operator of OperatorKind * Formula * Formula
| Number of double
| Function of string * Formula list
[...]
Then, we would like to calculate expression :
let rec calculate efValues formula =
match formula with
| Number n -> [...]
| Operator (kind, lFormula, rFormula) -> [...]
| [...]
Such function would be very long and growing with every new Formula constructor.
How can I avoid that and clean up such code? Are long pattern matching constructs inevitable?
You can define the Operator case of the Formula union using an explicit tuple:
type Formula =
| Operator of (string * Formula * Formula)
| Number of double
If you do this, the compiler will let you pattern match using both Operator(name, left, right) and using a single argument Operator args, so you can write something like:
let evalOp (name, l, r) = 0.0
let eval f =
match f with
| Number n -> 0.0
| Operator args -> evalOp args
I would find this a bit confusing, so it might be better to be more explicit in the type definition and use a named tuple (which is equivalent to the above):
type OperatorInfo = string * Formula * Formula
and Formula =
| Operator of OperatorInfo
| Number of double
Or perhaps be even more explicit and use a record:
type OperatorInfo =
{ Name : string
Left : Formula
Right : Formula }
and Formula =
| Operator of OperatorInfo
| Number of double
Then you can pattern match using one of the following:
| Operator args -> (...)
| Operator { Name = n; Left = l; Right = r } -> (...)
I would say you typically want to handle all the cases in a single function. That's the main selling point of unions - they force you to handle all the cases in one way or another. That said, I can see where you're coming from.
If I had a big union and only cared about a single case, I would handle it like this, wrapping the result in an option:
let doSomethingForOneCase (form: Formula) =
match form with
| Formula (op, l, r) ->
let result = (...)
Some result
| _ -> None
And then handle None in whatever way is appropriate at the call site.
Note that this is in line with the signature required by partial active patterns, so if you decide that you need to use this function as a case in another match expression, you can easily wrap it up in an active pattern to get the nice syntax.
I am new to F# and I have this code:
if s.Contains("-") then
let x,y =
match s.Split [|'-'|] with
| [|a;b|] -> int a, int b
| _ -> 0,0
Notice that we validate that there is a '-' in the string before we split the string, so the match is really unnecessary. Can I rewrite this with Options?
I changed this code, it was originally this (but I was getting a warning):
if s.Contains("-") then
let [|a;b|] = s.Split [|'-'|]
let x,y = int a, int b
NOTE: I am splitting a range of numbers (range is expressed in a string) and then creating the integer values that represent the range's minimum and maximum.
The match is not unnecessary, the string might be "1-2-3" and you'll get a three-element array.
Quit trying to get rid of the match, it is your friend, not your enemy. :) Your enemy is the mistaken attempt at pre-validation (the "if contains" logic, which was wrong).
I think you may enjoy this two-part blog series.
http://lorgonblog.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!701679AD17B6D310!180.entry
http://lorgonblog.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!701679AD17B6D310!181.entry
EDIT
Regarding Some/None comment, yes, you can do
let parseRange (s:string) =
match s.Split [|'-'|] with
| [|a;b|] -> Some(int a, int b)
| _ -> None
let Example s =
match parseRange s with
| Some(lo,hi) -> printfn "%d - %d" lo hi
| None -> printfn "range was bad"
Example "1-2"
Example "1-2-3"
Example "1"
where parseRange return value is a Some (success) or None (failure) and rest of program can make a decision later based on that.