I want to calculate powerset of a set. Because I don't need the whole powerset at a time, it's better to generate it lazily.
For example:
powerset (set ["a"; "b"; "c"]) =
seq {
set [];
set ["a"];
set ["b"];
set ["c"];
set ["a"; "b"];
set ["a"; "c"];
set ["b"; "c"];
set ["a";"b"; "c"];
}
Since the result is a sequence, I prefer it in the above order. How can I do it in an idomatic way in F#?
EDIT:
This is what I'm going to use (based on BLUEPIXY's answer):
let powerset s =
let rec loop n l =
seq {
match n, l with
| 0, _ -> yield []
| _, [] -> ()
| n, x::xs -> yield! Seq.map (fun l -> x::l) (loop (n-1) xs)
yield! loop n xs
}
let xs = s |> Set.toList
seq {
for i = 0 to List.length xs do
for x in loop i xs -> set x
}
Thanks everyone for excellent input.
let rec comb n l =
match n, l with
| 0, _ -> [[]]
| _, [] -> []
| n, x::xs -> List.map (fun l -> x ::l) (comb (n - 1) xs) # (comb n xs)
let powerset xs = seq {
for i = 0 to List.length xs do
for x in comb i xs -> set x
}
DEMO
> powerset ["a";"b";"c"] |> Seq.iter (printfn "%A");;
set []
set ["a"]
set ["b"]
set ["c"]
set ["a"; "b"]
set ["a"; "c"]
set ["b"; "c"]
set ["a"; "b"; "c"]
val it : unit = ()
From F# for Scientists, slightly modified to be lazy
let rec powerset s =
seq {
match s with
| [] -> yield []
| h::t -> for x in powerset t do yield! [x; h::x]
}
Here's another approach, using maths instead of recursion:
let powerset st =
let lst = Set.toList st
seq [0..(lst.Length |> pown 2)-1]
|> Seq.map (fun i ->
set ([0..lst.Length-1] |> Seq.choose (fun x ->
if i &&& (pown 2 x) = 0 then None else Some lst.[x])))
Related
Given a set with n elements {1, 2, 3, ..., n}, I want to declare a function which returns the set containing the sets with k number of elements such as:
allSubsets 3 2
Would return [[1;2];[1;3];[2;3]] since those are the sets with 2 elements in a set created by 1 .. n
I've made the initial create-a-set-part but I'm a little stuck on how to find out all the subsets with k elements in it.
let allSubsets n k =
Set.ofList [1..n] |>
UPDATE:
I managed to get a working solution using yield:
let allSubsets n k =
let setN = Set.ofList [1..n]
let rec subsets s =
set [
if Set.count s = k then yield s
for e in s do
yield! subsets (Set.remove e s) ]
subsets setN
allSubsets 3 2
val it : Set<Set<int>> = set [set [1; 2]; set [1; 3]; set [2; 3]]
But isn't it possible to do it a little cleaner?
What you have is pretty clean, but it's also pretty inefficient. Try running allSubsets 10 3 and you'll know what I mean.
This is what I came up with:
let input = Set.ofList [ 1 .. 15 ]
let subsets (size:int) (input: Set<'a>) =
let rec inner elems =
match elems with
| [] -> [[]]
| h::t ->
List.fold (fun acc e ->
if List.length e < size then
(h::e)::e::acc
else e::acc) [] (inner t)
inner (Set.toList input)
|> Seq.choose (fun subset ->
if List.length subset = size then
Some <| Set.ofList subset
else None)
|> Set.ofSeq
subsets 3 input
The inner recursive function is a modified power set function from here. My first hunch was to generate the power set and then filter it, which would be pretty elegant, but that proved to be rather inefficient as well.
If this was to be production-quality code, I'd look into generating lists of indices of a given length, and use them to index into the input array. This is how FsCheck generates subsets, for example.
You can calculate the powerset and then filter in order to get only the ones with the specified length":
let powerset n k =
let lst = Set.toList n
seq [0..(lst.Length |> pown 2)-1]
|> Seq.map (fun i ->
set ([0..lst.Length-1] |> Seq.choose (fun x ->
if i &&& (pown 2 x) = 0 then None else Some lst.[x])))
|> Seq.filter (Seq.length >> (=) k)
However this is not efficient for large sets (n) of where k is close to n. But it's easy to optimize, you'll have to filter out early based on the digit count of the binary representation of each number.
This function implements the popular n-choose-k function:
let n_choose_k (arr: 'a []) (k: int) : 'a list list =
let len = Array.length arr
let rec choose lo x =
match x with
| 0 -> [[]]
| i -> [ for j in lo..(len-1) do
for ks in choose (j+1) (i-1) do
yield arr.[j]::ks ]
choose 0 k
> n_choose_k [|1..3|] 2;;
val it : int list list = [[1; 2]; [1; 3]; [2; 3]]
You can use Set.toArray and Set.ofList to convert to and from Set.
You can consider the following approach:
get powerset
let rec powerset xs =
match xs with
| [] -> [ [] ]
| h :: t -> List.fold (fun ys s -> (h :: s) :: s :: ys) [] (powerset t)
filter all subsets with a neccessary number of elements
let filtered xs k = List.filter (fun (x: 'a list) -> x.Length = k) xs
finally get the requested allSubsets
let allSubsets n k = Set.ofList (List.map (fun xs -> Set.ofList xs) (filtered (powerset [ 1 .. n ]) k))
Just to check and play with you can use:
printfn "%A" (allSubsets 3 2) // set [ set [1; 2]; set [1; 3]; set [2; 3] ]
I need to extract the sequence of equal chars in a text.
For example:
The string "aaaBbbcccccccDaBBBzcc11211" should be converted to a list of strings like
["aaa";"B";"bb";"ccccccc";"D";"a";"BBB";"z";"cc";"11";"2";"11"].
That's my solution until now:
let groupSequences (text:string) =
let toString chars =
System.String(chars |> Array.ofList)
let rec groupSequencesRecursive acc chars = seq {
match (acc, chars) with
| [], c :: rest ->
yield! groupSequencesRecursive [c] rest
| _, c :: rest when acc.[0] <> c ->
yield (toString acc)
yield! groupSequencesRecursive [c] rest
| _, c :: rest when acc.[0] = c ->
yield! groupSequencesRecursive (c :: acc) rest
| _, [] ->
yield (toString acc)
| _ ->
yield ""
}
text
|> List.ofSeq
|> groupSequencesRecursive []
groupSequences "aaaBbbcccccccDaBBBzcc11211"
|> Seq.iter (fun x -> printfn "%s" x)
|> ignore
I'm a F# newbie.
This solution can be better?
Here a completely generic implementation:
let group xs =
let folder x = function
| [] -> [[x]]
| (h::t)::ta when h = x -> (x::h::t)::ta
| acc -> [x]::acc
Seq.foldBack folder xs []
This function has the type seq<'a> -> 'a list list when 'a : equality, so works not only on strings, but on any (finite) sequence of elements, as long as the element type supports equality comparison.
Used with the input string in the OP, the return value isn't quite in the expected shape:
> group "aaaBbbcccccccDaBBBzcc11211";;
val it : char list list =
[['a'; 'a'; 'a']; ['B']; ['b'; 'b']; ['c'; 'c'; 'c'; 'c'; 'c'; 'c'; 'c'];
['D']; ['a']; ['B'; 'B'; 'B']; ['z']; ['c'; 'c']; ['1'; '1']; ['2'];
['1'; '1']]
Instead of a string list, the return value is a char list list. You can easily convert it to a list of strings using a map:
> group "aaaBbbcccccccDaBBBzcc11211" |> List.map (List.toArray >> System.String);;
val it : System.String list =
["aaa"; "B"; "bb"; "ccccccc"; "D"; "a"; "BBB"; "z"; "cc"; "11"; "2"; "11"]
This takes advantage of the String constructor overload that takes a char[] as input.
As initially stated, this implementation is generic, so can also be used with other types of lists; e.g. integers:
> group [1;1;2;2;2;3;4;4;3;3;3;0];;
val it : int list list = [[1; 1]; [2; 2; 2]; [3]; [4; 4]; [3; 3; 3]; [0]]
How about with groupby
"aaaBbbcccccccD"
|> Seq.groupBy id
|> Seq.map (snd >> Seq.toArray)
|> Seq.map (fun t -> new string (t))
If you input order matters, here is a method that works
"aaaBbbcccccccDaBBBzcc11211"
|> Seq.pairwise
|> Seq.toArray
|> Array.rev
|> Array.fold (fun (accum::tail) (ca,cb) -> if ca=cb then System.String.Concat(accum,string ca)::tail else string(ca)::accum::tail) (""::[])
This one is also based on recursion though the matching gets away with smaller number of checks.
let chop (txt:string) =
let rec chopInner txtArr (word: char[]) (res: List<string>) =
match txtArr with
| h::t when word.[0] = h -> chopInner t (Array.append word [|h|]) res
| h::t when word.[0] <> h ->
let newWord = word |> (fun s -> System.String s)
chopInner t [|h|] (List.append res [newWord])
| [] ->
let newWord = word |> (fun s -> System.String s)
(List.append res [newWord])
let lst = txt.ToCharArray() |> Array.toList
chopInner lst.Tail [|lst.Head|] []
And the result is as expected:
val text : string = "aaaBbbcccccccDaBBBzcc11211"
> chop text;;
val it : string list =
["aaa"; "B"; "bb"; "ccccccc"; "D"; "a"; "BBB"; "z"; "cc"; "11"; "2"; "11"]
When you're folding, you'll need to carry along both the previous value and the accumulator holding the temporary results. The previous value is wrapped as option to account for the first iteration. Afterwards, the final result is extracted and reversed.
"aaaBbbcccccccDaBBBzcc11211"
|> Seq.map string
|> Seq.fold (fun state ca ->
Some ca,
match state with
| Some cb, x::xs when ca = cb -> x + ca::xs
| _, xss -> ca::xss )
(None, [])
|> snd
|> List.rev
// val it : string list =
// ["aaa"; "B"; "bb"; "ccccccc"; "D"; "a"; "BBB"; "z"; "cc"; "11"; "2"; "11"]
Just interesting why everyone publishing solutions based on match-with? Why not go plain recursion?
let rec groups i (s:string) =
let rec next j = if j = s.Length || s.[i] <> s.[j] then j else next(j+1)
if i = s.Length then []
else let j = next i in s.Substring(i, j - i) :: (groups j s)
"aaaBbbcccccccDaBBBzcc11211" |> groups 0
val it : string list = ["aaa"; "B"; "bb"; "ccccccc"; "D"; "a"; "BBB"; "z"; "cc"; "11"; "2"; "11"]
As someone other here:
Know thy fold ;-)
let someString = "aaaBbbcccccccDaBBBzcc11211"
let addLists state elem =
let (p, ls) = state
elem,
match p = elem, ls with
| _, [] -> [ elem.ToString() ]
| true, h :: t -> (elem.ToString() + h) :: t
| false, h :: t -> elem.ToString() :: ls
someString
|> Seq.fold addLists ((char)0, [])
|> snd
|> List.rev
I have a pretty trivial task but I can't figure out how to make the solution prettier.
The goal is taking a List and returning results, based on whether they passed a predicate. The results should be grouped. Here's a simplified example:
Predicate: isEven
Inp : [2; 4; 3; 7; 6; 10; 4; 5]
Out: [[^^^^]......[^^^^^^^^]..]
Here's the code I have so far:
let f p ls =
List.foldBack
(fun el (xs, ys) -> if p el then (el::xs, ys) else ([], xs::ys))
ls ([], [])
|> List.Cons // (1)
|> List.filter (not << List.isEmpty) // (2)
let even x = x % 2 = 0
let ret =
[2; 4; 3; 7; 6; 10; 4; 5]
|> f even
// expected [[2; 4]; [6; 10; 4]]
This code does not seem to be readable that much. Also, I don't like lines (1) and (2). Is there any better solution?
Here is my take. you need a few helper functions first:
// active pattern to choose between even and odd intengers
let (|Even|Odd|) x = if (x % 2) = 0 then Even x else Odd x
// fold function to generate a state tupple of current values and accumulated values
let folder (current, result) x =
match x, current with
| Even x, _ -> x::current, result // even members a added to current list
| Odd x, [] -> current, result // odd members are ignored when current is empty
| Odd x, _ -> [], current::result // odd members starts a new current
// test on data
[2; 4; 3; 7; 6; 10; 4; 5]
|> List.rev // reverse list since numbers are added to start of current
|> List.fold folder ([], []) // perform fold over list
|> function | [],x -> x | y,x -> y::x // check that current is List.empty, otherwise add to result
How about this one?
let folder p l = function
| h::t when p(l) -> (l::h)::t
| []::_ as a -> a
| _ as a -> []::a
let f p ls =
ls
|> List.rev
|> List.fold (fun a l -> folder p l a) [[]]
|> List.filter ((<>) [])
At least the folder is crystal clear and effective, but then you pay the price for this by list reversing.
Here is a recursive solution based on a recursive List.filter
let rec _f p ls =
match ls with
|h::t -> if p(h) then
match f p t with
|rh::rt -> (h::rh)::rt
|[] -> (h::[])::[]
else []::f p t
|[] -> [[]]
let f p ls = _f p ls |> List.filter (fun t -> t <> [])
Having to filter at the end does seem inelegant though.
Here you go. This function should also have fairly good performance.
let groupedFilter (predicate : 'T -> bool) (list : 'T list) =
(([], []), list)
||> List.fold (fun (currentGroup, finishedGroups) el ->
if predicate el then
(el :: currentGroup), finishedGroups
else
match currentGroup with
| [] ->
[], finishedGroups
| _ ->
// This is the first non-matching element
// following a matching element.
// Finish processing the previous group then
// add it to the finished groups list.
[], ((List.rev currentGroup) :: finishedGroups))
// Need to do a little clean-up after the fold.
|> fun (currentGroup, finishedGroups) ->
// If the current group is non-empty, finish it
// and add it to the list of finished groups.
let finishedGroups =
match currentGroup with
| [] -> finishedGroups
| _ ->
(List.rev currentGroup) :: finishedGroups
// Reverse the finished groups list so the grouped
// elements will be in their original order.
List.rev finishedGroups;;
With the list reversing, I would like to go to #seq instead of list.
This version uses mutation (gasp!) internally for efficiency, but may also be a little slower with the overhead of seq. I think it is quite readable though.
let f p (ls) = seq {
let l = System.Collections.Generic.List<'a>()
for el in ls do
if p el then
l.Add el
else
if l.Count > 0 then yield l |> List.ofSeq
l.Clear()
if l.Count > 0 then yield l |> List.ofSeq
}
I can't think of a way to do this elegantly using higher order functions, but here's a solution using a list comprehension. I think it's fairly straightforward to read.
let f p ls =
let rec loop xs =
[ match xs with
| [] -> ()
| x::xs when p x ->
let group, rest = collectGroup [x] xs
yield group
yield! loop rest
| _::xs -> yield! loop xs ]
and collectGroup acc = function
| x::xs when p x -> collectGroup (x::acc) xs
| xs -> List.rev acc, xs
loop ls
I want to create a function with the signature seq<#seq<'a>> ->seq<seq<'a>> that acts like a Zip method taking a sequence of an arbitrary number of input sequences (instead of 2 or 3 as in Zip2 and Zip3) and returning a sequence of sequences instead of tuples as a result.
That is, given the following input:
[[1;2;3];
[4;5;6];
[7;8;9]]
it will return the result:
[[1;4;7];
[2;5;8];
[3;6;9]]
except with sequences instead of lists.
I am very new to F#, but I have created a function that does what I want, but I know it can be improved. It's not tail recursive and it seems like it could be simpler, but I don't know how yet. I also haven't found a good way to get the signature the way I want (accepting, e.g., an int list list as input) without a second function.
I know this could be implemented using enumerators directly, but I'm interested in doing it in a functional manner.
Here's my code:
let private Tail seq = Seq.skip 1 seq
let private HasLengthNoMoreThan n = Seq.skip n >> Seq.isEmpty
let rec ZipN_core = function
| seqs when seqs |> Seq.isEmpty -> Seq.empty
| seqs when seqs |> Seq.exists Seq.isEmpty -> Seq.empty
| seqs ->
let head = seqs |> Seq.map Seq.head
let tail = seqs |> Seq.map Tail |> ZipN_core
Seq.append (Seq.singleton head) tail
// Required to change the signature of the parameter from seq<seq<'a> to seq<#seq<'a>>
let ZipN seqs = seqs |> Seq.map (fun x -> x |> Seq.map (fun y -> y)) |> ZipN_core
let zipn items = items |> Matrix.Generic.ofSeq |> Matrix.Generic.transpose
Or, if you really want to write it yourself:
let zipn items =
let rec loop items =
seq {
match items with
| [] -> ()
| _ ->
match zipOne ([], []) items with
| Some(xs, rest) ->
yield xs
yield! loop rest
| None -> ()
}
and zipOne (acc, rest) = function
| [] -> Some(List.rev acc, List.rev rest)
| []::_ -> None
| (x::xs)::ys -> zipOne (x::acc, xs::rest) ys
loop items
Since this seems to be the canonical answer for writing a zipn in f#, I wanted to add a "pure" seq solution that preserves laziness and doesn't force us to load our full source sequences in memory at once like the Matrix.transpose function. There are scenarios where this is very important because it's a) faster and b) works with sequences that contain 100s of MBs of data!
This is probably the most un-idiomatic f# code I've written in a while but it gets the job done (and hey, why would there be sequence expressions in f# if you couldn't use them for writing procedural code in a functional language).
let seqdata = seq {
yield Seq.ofList [ 1; 2; 3 ]
yield Seq.ofList [ 4; 5; 6 ]
yield Seq.ofList [ 7; 8; 9 ]
}
let zipnSeq (src:seq<seq<'a>>) = seq {
let enumerators = src |> Seq.map (fun x -> x.GetEnumerator()) |> Seq.toArray
if (enumerators.Length > 0) then
try
while(enumerators |> Array.forall(fun x -> x.MoveNext())) do
yield enumerators |> Array.map( fun x -> x.Current)
finally
enumerators |> Array.iter (fun x -> x.Dispose())
}
zipnSeq seqdata |> Seq.toArray
val it : int [] [] = [|[|1; 4; 7|]; [|2; 5; 8|]; [|3; 6; 9|]|]
By the way, the traditional matrix transpose is much more terse than #Daniel's answer. Though, it requires a list or LazyList that both will eventually have the full sequence in memory.
let rec transpose =
function
| (_ :: _) :: _ as M -> List.map List.head M :: transpose (List.map List.tail M)
| _ -> []
To handle having sub-lists of different lengths, I've used option types to spot if we've run out of elements.
let split = function
| [] -> None, []
| h::t -> Some(h), t
let rec zipN listOfLists =
seq { let splitted = listOfLists |> List.map split
let anyMore = splitted |> Seq.exists (fun (f, _) -> f.IsSome)
if anyMore then
yield splitted |> List.map fst
let rest = splitted |> List.map snd
yield! rest |> zipN }
This would map
let ll = [ [ 1; 2; 3 ];
[ 4; 5; 6 ];
[ 7; 8; 9 ] ]
to
seq
[seq [Some 1; Some 4; Some 7]; seq [Some 2; Some 5; Some 8];
seq [Some 3; Some 6; Some 9]]
and
let ll = [ [ 1; 2; 3 ];
[ 4; 5; 6 ];
[ 7; 8 ] ]
to
seq
[seq [Some 1; Some 4; Some 7]; seq [Some 2; Some 5; Some 8];
seq [Some 3; Some 6; null]]
This takes a different approach to yours, but avoids using some of the operations that you had before (e.g. Seq.skip, Seq.append), which you should be careful with.
I realize that this answer is not very efficient, but I do like its succinctness:
[[1;2;3]; [4;5;6]; [7;8;9]]
|> Seq.collect Seq.indexed
|> Seq.groupBy fst
|> Seq.map (snd >> Seq.map snd);;
Another option:
let zipN ls =
let rec loop (a,b) =
match b with
|l when List.head l = [] -> a
|l ->
let x1,x2 =
(([],[]),l)
||> List.fold (fun acc elem ->
match acc,elem with
|(ah,at),eh::et -> ah#[eh],at#[et]
|_ -> acc)
loop (a#[x1],x2)
loop ([],ls)
For cartesian production there is a good enough function - sequence which defined like that:
let rec sequence = function
| [] -> Seq.singleton []
| (l::ls) -> seq { for x in l do for xs in sequence ls do yield (x::xs) }
but look at its result:
sequence [[1..2];[1..10000]] |> Seq.skip 1000 ;;
val it : seq = seq [[1; 1001]; [1; 1002]; [1; 1003]; [1; 1004]; ...]
As we can see the first "coordinate" of the product alters very slowly and it will change the value when the second list is ended.
I wrote my own sequence as following (comments below):
/// Sum of all producted indeces = n
let rec hyper'plane'indices indexsum maxlengths =
match maxlengths with
| [x] -> if indexsum < x then [[indexsum]] else []
| (i::is) -> [for x in [0 .. min indexsum (i-1)] do for xs in hyper'plane'indices (indexsum-x) is do yield (x::xs)]
| [] -> [[]]
let finite'sequence = function
| [] -> Seq.singleton []
| ns ->
let ars = [ for n in ns -> Seq.toArray n ]
let length'list = List.map Array.length ars
let nmax = List.max length'list
seq {
for n in [0 .. nmax] do
for ixs in hyper'plane'indices n length'list do
yield (List.map2 (fun (a:'a[]) i -> a.[i]) ars ixs)
}
The key idea is to look at (two) lists as at (two) orthogonal dimensions where every element marked by its index in the list. So we can enumerate all elements by enumerating every element in every section of cartesian product by hyper plane (in 2D case this is a line). In another words imagine excel's sheet where first column contains values from [1;1] to [1;10000] and second - from [2;1] to [2;10000]. And "hyper plane" with number 1 is the line that connects cell A2 and cell B1. For the our example
hyper'plane'indices 0 [2;10000];; val it : int list list = [[0; 0]]
hyper'plane'indices 1 [2;10000];; val it : int list list = [[0; 1]; [1; 0]]
hyper'plane'indices 2 [2;10000];; val it : int list list = [[0; 2]; [1; 1]]
hyper'plane'indices 3 [2;10000];; val it : int list list = [[0; 3]; [1; 2]]
hyper'plane'indices 4 [2;10000];; val it : int list list = [[0; 4]; [1; 3]]
Well if we have indeces and arrays that we are producing from the given lists than we can now define sequence as {all elements in plane 0; than all elements in plane 1 ... and so on } and get more volatile function than original sequence.
But finite'sequence turned out very gluttonous function. And now the question. How I can improve it?
With best wishes, Alexander. (and sorry for poor English)
Can you explain what exactly is the problem - time or space complexity or performance? Do you have a specific benchmark in mind? I am not sure how to improve on the time complexity here, but I edited your code a bit to remove the intermediate lists, which might help a bit with memory allocation behavior.
Do not do this:
for n in [0 .. nmax] do
Do this instead:
for n in 0 .. nmax do
Here is the code:
let rec hyper'plane'indices indexsum maxlengths =
match maxlengths with
| [] -> Seq.singleton []
| [x] -> if indexsum < x then Seq.singleton [indexsum] else Seq.empty
| i :: is ->
seq {
for x in 0 .. min indexsum (i - 1) do
for xs in hyper'plane'indices (indexsum - x) is do
yield x :: xs
}
let finite'sequence xs =
match xs with
| [] -> Seq.singleton []
| ns ->
let ars = [ for n in ns -> Seq.toArray n ]
let length'list = List.map Array.length ars
let nmax = List.max length'list
seq {
for n in 0 .. nmax do
for ixs in hyper'plane'indices n length'list do
yield List.map2 Array.get ars ixs
}
Does this fare any better? Beautiful problem by the way.
UPDATE: Perhaps you are more interested to mix the sequences fairly than in maintaining the exact formula in your algorithm. Here is a Haskell code that mixes a finite number of possibly infinite sequences fairly, where fairness means that for every input element there is a finite prefix of the output sequence that contains it. You mention in the comment that you have a 2D incremental solution that is hard to generalize to N dimensions, and the Haskell code does exactly that:
merge :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
merge [] y = y
merge x [] = x
merge (x:xs) (y:ys) = x : y : merge xs ys
prod :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
prod _ [] _ = []
prod _ _ [] = []
prod f (x:xs) (y:ys) = f x y : a `merge` b `merge` prod f xs ys where
a = [f x y | x <- xs]
b = [f x y | y <- ys]
prodN :: [[a]] -> [[a]]
prodN [] = [[]]
prodN (x:xs) = prod (:) x (prodN xs)
I have not ported this to F# yet - it requires some thought as sequences do not match to head/tail very well.
UPDATE 2:
A fairly mechanical translation to F# follows.
type Node<'T> =
| Nil
| Cons of 'T * Stream<'T>
and Stream<'T> = Lazy<Node<'T>>
let ( !! ) (x: Lazy<'T>) = x.Value
let ( !^ ) x = Lazy.CreateFromValue(x)
let rec merge (xs: Stream<'T>) (ys: Stream<'T>) : Stream<'T> =
lazy
match !!xs, !!ys with
| Nil, r | r, Nil -> r
| Cons (x, xs), Cons (y, ys) -> Cons (x, !^ (Cons (y, merge xs ys)))
let rec map (f: 'T1 -> 'T2) (xs: Stream<'T1>) : Stream<'T2> =
lazy
match !!xs with
| Nil -> Nil
| Cons (x, xs) -> Cons (f x, map f xs)
let ( ++ ) = merge
let rec prod f xs ys =
lazy
match !!xs, !!ys with
| Nil, _ | _, Nil -> Nil
| Cons (x, xs), Cons (y, ys) ->
let a = map (fun x -> f x y) xs
let b = map (fun y -> f x y) ys
Cons (f x y, a ++ b ++ prod f xs ys)
let ofSeq (s: seq<'T>) =
lazy
let e = s.GetEnumerator()
let rec loop () =
lazy
if e.MoveNext()
then Cons (e.Current, loop ())
else e.Dispose(); Nil
!! (loop ())
let toSeq stream =
stream
|> Seq.unfold (fun stream ->
match !!stream with
| Nil -> None
| Cons (x, xs) -> Some (x, xs))
let empty<'T> : Stream<'T> = !^ Nil
let cons x xs = !^ (Cons (x, xs))
let singleton x = cons x empty
let rec prodN (xs: Stream<Stream<'T>>) : Stream<Stream<'T>> =
match !!xs with
| Nil -> singleton empty
| Cons (x, xs) -> prod cons x (prodN xs)
let test () =
ofSeq [
ofSeq [1; 2; 3]
ofSeq [4; 5; 6]
ofSeq [7; 8; 9]
]
|> prodN
|> toSeq
|> Seq.iter (fun xs ->
toSeq xs
|> Seq.map string
|> String.concat ", "
|> stdout.WriteLine)