cube (x,y,z) =
filter (pcubes x) cubes
cubes = [(a,b,c) | a <- [1..30],b <- [1..30],c <- [1..30]]
pcubes x (b,n,m) = (floor(sqrt(b*n)) == x)
so this code works, cubes makes a list of tuples,pcubes is used with filter to filter all the cubes in which floor(sqrt(b*n)) == x is satisfied,but the person who has modified my code wrote pcubes x in filter (pcubes x) cubes,how does this work.pcubes x makes a function that will initial the cubes x (b,n,m) that will take in a tuple and output a bool.the bool will be used in the filter function. How does this sort of manipulation happen? how does pcubes x access the (b,n,m) part of the function?
In Haskell, we don't usually use tuples (ie: (a,b,c)) to pass arguments to functions. We use currying.
Here's an example:
add a b = a + b
Here add is a function that takes a number, the returns another function that takes a number, then returns a number. We represent it's type as so:
add :: Int -> (Int -> Int)
Because of the way -> behaves, we can remove the parentheses in this case:
add :: Int -> Int -> Int
It is called like this:
(add 1) 2
but because of the way application works, we can just write:
add 1 2
Doesn't that look like our definition above, of the form add a b...?
Your function pcubes is similar. Here's how I'd write it:
pcubes x (b,n,m) = floor (sqrt (b*n)) == x
And as someone else said, it's type could be represented as:
pcubes :: Float -> (Float, Float, Float) -> Bool
When we write pcubes 1 the type becomes:
pcubes 1 :: (Float, Float, Float) -> Bool
Which, through currying, is legal, and can quite happily be used elsewhere.
I know, this is crazy black functional magic, as it was for me, but before long I guarantee you'll never want to go back: curried functions are useful.
A note on tuples: Expressions like (a,b,c) are data . They are not purely function-argument expressions. The fact that we can pull it into a function is called pattern matching, though it's not my turn to go into that.
Related
Erlang functions can share the same name but have different arity. For example:
name(X) -> X.
name(X,Y) -> X * Y.
I would like to be able to return a fun from a function that behaves in the same way.
In this example I want a way to return fun/1 and fun/2 as one return, so the returned fun can be called in either way, exactly as the function example above.
function() ->
fun(X) -> X end,
fun(X,Y) -> X * Y end.
I could return a tuple {F1, F2} but that's ugly to use.
I could return a fun that takes a list as it's argument, but that's also rather ugly with calls like F([X]) or F([X, Y]).
Here you have 2 different functions with the same name:
name(X) -> X.
name(X,Y) -> X * Y.
These two functions, as anonymous functions, are: fun name/1 and fun name/2 respectively.
If you put any of them in a variable, say… F1 = fun name/1 or F2 = fun name/2, you will not be able to use those vars later interchangeably, since F1(1) will work, but F1(1,2) will fail (and viceversa with F2).
If you don't know the # of arguments you'll receive in runtime (let's say you receive a list of arguments of variable length), then you'll need to use erlang:apply/2 or erlang:apply/3 to dynamically evaluate the function. In that case, I can offer you 2 ways (depending on the version of erlang:apply that you prefer):
With apply/2:
use_name(Args) ->
Fun = function(length(Args)),
erlang:apply(Fun, Args).
function(1) -> fun(X) -> X end;
function(2) -> fun(X, Y) -> X * Y end.
With apply/3:
use_name(Args) ->
erlang:apply(?MODULE, name, Args).
name(X) -> X.
name(X,Y) -> X * Y.
Hope this helps.
I am looking at Haskell elemIndex function:
elemIndex :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Maybe Int
What does Maybe mean in this definition? Sometimes when I call it, the output has a Just or a Nothing What does it mean? How can I interpret this if I were to use folds?
First question:
What does it mean?
This means that the returned value is either an index (Int) or Nothing.
from the docs:
The elemIndex function returns the index of the first element in the given list which is equal (by ==) to the query element, or Nothing if there is no such element.
The second question:
How can I interpret this if I were to use folds?
I'm not sure there is enough context to the "were to use folds" part. But, there are at least 2 ways to use this function:
case analysis, were you state what to return in each case:
case elemIndex xs of
Just x -> f x -- apply function f to x.
Nothing -> undefined -- do something here, e.g. give a default value.
use function maybe:
maybe defaultValue f (elemIndex xs)
Maybe is a sum type.
Sum type is any type that has multiple possible representations.
For example:
data Bool = False | True
Bool can represented as True or False. The same goes with Maybe.
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
The Maybe type encapsulates an optional value. A value of type Maybe a either contains a value of type a (represented as Just a), or it is empty (represented as Nothing)
elemIndex :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Maybe Int
The elemIndex function returns the index of the first element in the given list which is equal (by ==) to the query element, or Nothing if there is no such element.
Lets compare it to the indexOf function
What are the possible values of this method?
The index of the element in the array in case it was found (lets say 2).
-1 in case it was not found.
Another way to represent it:
Return a number in case it was found - Just 2.
Instead of returning magic numbers like -1 we can return a value that represents the
option of a failure - Nothing.
Regarding "How can I interpret this if I were to use folds", I do not have enough information to understand the question.
Maybe is a type constructor.
Int is a type. Maybe Int is a type.
String is a type. Maybe String is a type.
For any type a, Maybe a is a type. Its values come in two varieties: either Nothing or Just x where x is a value of type a (we write: x :: a):
x :: a
----------------- ------------------
Just x :: Maybe a Nothing :: Maybe a
In the first rule, the a in both the type of the value x :: a and the type of the value Just x :: Maybe a is the same. Thus if we know the type of x we know the type of Just x; and vice versa.
In the second rule, nothing in the value Nothing itself determines the a in its type. The determination will be made according to how that value is used, i.e. from the context of its usage, from its call site.
As to the fold implementation of elemIndex, it could be for example
elemIndex_asFold :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Maybe Int
elemIndex_asFold x0 = foldr g Nothing
where
g x r | x == x0 = Just x
| else = r
Imagine I have a custom type and two functions:
type MyType = Int -> Bool
f1 :: MyType -> Int
f3 :: MyType -> MyType -> MyType
I tried to pattern match as follows:
f1 (f3 a b i) = 1
But it failed with error: Parse error in pattern: f1. What is the proper way to do the above?? Basically, I want to know how many f3 is there (as a and b maybe f3 or some other functions).
You can't pattern match on a function. For (almost) any given function, there are an infinite number of ways to define the same function. And it turns out to be mathematically impossible for a computer to always be able to say whether a given definition expresses the same function as another definition. This also means that Haskell would be unable to reliably tell whether a function matches a pattern; so the language simply doesn't allow it.
A pattern must be either a single variable or a constructor applied to some other patterns. Remembering that constructor start with upper case letters and variables start with lower case letters, your pattern f3 a n i is invalid; the "head" of the pattern f3 is a variable, but it's also applied to a, n, and i. That's the error message you're getting.
Since functions don't have constructors, it follows that the only pattern that can match a function is a single variable; that matches all functions (of the right type to be passed to the pattern, anyway). That's how Haskell enforces the "no pattern matching against functions" rule. Basically, in a higher order function there's no way to tell anything at all about the function you've been given except to apply it to something and see what it does.
The function f1 has type MyType -> Int. This is equivalent to (Int -> Bool) -> Int. So it takes a single function argument of type Int -> Bool. I would expect an equation for f1 to look like:
f1 f = ...
You don't need to "check" whether it's an Int -> Bool function by pattern matching; the type guarantees that it will be.
You can't tell which one it is; but that's generally the whole point of taking a function as an argument (so that the caller can pick any function they like knowing that you'll use them all the same way).
I'm not sure what you mean by "I want to know how many f3 is there". f1 always receives a single function, and f3 is not a function of the right type to be passed to f1 at all (it's a MyType -> MyType -> MyType, not a MyType).
Once a function has been applied its syntactic form is lost. There is now way, should I provide you 2 + 3 to distinguish what you get from just 5. It could have arisen from 2 + 3, or 3 + 2, or the mere constant 5.
If you need to capture syntactic structure then you need to work with syntactic structure.
data Exp = I Int | Plus Exp Exp
justFive :: Exp
justFive = I 5
twoPlusThree :: Exp
twoPlusThree = I 2 `Plus` I 3
threePlusTwo :: Exp
threePlusTwo = I 2 `Plus` I 3
Here the data type Exp captures numeric expressions and we can pattern match upon them:
isTwoPlusThree :: Exp -> Bool
isTwoPlusThree (Plus (I 2) (I 3)) = True
isTwoPlusThree _ = False
But wait, why am I distinguishing between "constructors" which I can pattern match on and.... "other syntax" which I cannot?
Essentially, constructors are inert. The behavior of Plus x y is... to do nothing at all, to merely remain as a box with two slots called "Plus _ _" and plug the two slots with the values represented by x and y.
On the other hand, function application is the furthest thing from inert! When you apply an expression to a function that function (\x -> ...) replaces the xes within its body with the applied value. This dynamic reduction behavior means that there is no way to get a hold of "function applications". They vanish into thing air as soon as you look at them.
How many functions are present in this expression? :
'a -> 'a -> ('a*'a)
Also, how would you implement a function to return this type? I've created functions that have for example:
'a -> 'b -> ('a * b)
I created this by doing:
fun function x y = (x,y);
But I've tried using two x inputs and I get an error trying to output the first type expression.
Thanks for the help!
To be able to have two inputs of the same alpha type, I have to specify the type of both inputs to alpha.
E.g
fun function (x:'a) (y:'a) = (x, y);
==>
a' -> 'a -> (a' * 'a)
Assuming this is homework, I don't want to say too much. -> in a type expression represents a function. 'a -> 'a -> ('a * 'a) has two arrows, so 2 might be the answer for your first question, though I find that particular question obscure. An argument could be made that each fun defines exactly one function, which might happen to return a function for its output. Also, you ask "how many functions are present in the expression ... " but then give a string which literally has 0 functions in it (type descriptions describe functions but don't contain functions), so maybe the answer is 0.
If you want a natural example of int -> int -> int * int, you could implement the functiondivmod where divmod x y returns a tuple consisting of the quotient and remainder upon dividing x by y. For example, you would want divmod 17 5 to return (3,2). This is a built-in function in Python but not in SML, but is easily defined in SML using the built-in operators div and mod. The resulting function would have a type of the form 'a -> 'a -> 'a*'a -- but for a specific type (namely int). You would have to do something which is a bit less natural (such as what you did in your answer to your question) to come up with a polymorphic example.
In Haskell, I know that if I define a function like this add x y = x + y
then I call like this add e1 e2. that call is equivalent to (add e1) e2
which means that applying add to one argument e1 yields a new function which is then applied to the second argument e2.
That's what I don't understand in Haskell. in other languages (like Dart), to do the task above, I would do this
add(x) {
return (y) => x + y;
}
I have to explicitly return a function. So does the part "yields a new function which is then applied to the second argument" automatically do underlying in Haskell? If so, what does that "hiding" function look like? Or I just missunderstand Haskell?
In Haskell, everything is a value,
add x y = x + y
is just a syntactic sugar of:
add = \x -> \y -> x + y
For more information: https://wiki.haskell.org/Currying :
In Haskell, all functions are considered curried: That is, all functions > in Haskell take just single arguments.
This is mostly hidden in notation, and so may not be apparent to a new
Haskeller. Let's take the function
div :: Int -> Int -> Int
which performs integer division. The expression div 11 2
unsurprisingly evaluates to 5. But there's more that's going on than
immediately meets the untrained eye. It's a two-part process. First,
div 11
is evaluated and returns a function of type
Int -> Int
Then that resulting function is applied to the value 2, and yields 5.
You'll notice that the notation for types reflects this: you can read
Int -> Int -> Int
incorrectly as "takes two Ints and returns an Int", but what it's
really saying is "takes an Int and returns something of the type Int
-> Int" -- that is, it returns a function that takes an Int and returns an Int. (One can write the type as Int x Int -> Int if you
really mean the former -- but since all functions in Haskell are
curried, that's not legal Haskell. Alternatively, using tuples, you
can write (Int, Int) -> Int, but keep in mind that the tuple
constructor (,) itself can be curried.)