I'm learning Haskell and have some problems with list comprehension.
If I define a function to get a list of the divisors of a given number, I get an error.
check n = [x | x <- [1..(floor (n/2))], mod n x == 0]
I don't get why it's causing an error. If I want to generate a list from 1 to n/2 I can do it with [1..(floor (n/2))], but not if I do it in the list comprehension.
I tried another way but I get also an error (in this code I want to get all so called "perfect numbers")
f n = [1..(floor (n/2))]
main = print $ filter (\t -> foldr (+) 0 (f t) == t) [2..100]
Usually it is better to start writing a signature. While signatures are often not required, it makes it easier to debug a single function.
The signature of your check function is:
check :: (RealFrac a, Integral a) => a -> [a]
The type of input (and output) a thus needs to be both a RealFrac and an Integral. While technically speaking we can make such type, it does not make much sense.
The reason this happens is because of the use of mod :: Integral a => a -> a -> a this requires x and n to be both of the same type, and a should be a member of the Integral typeclass.
Another problem is the use of n/2, since (/) :: Fractional a => a -> a -> a requires that n and 2 have the same type as n / 2, and n should also be of a type that is a member of Fractional. To make matters even worse, we use floor :: (RealFrac a, Integral b) => a -> b which enforces that n (and thus x as well) have a type that is a member of the RealFrac typeclass.
We can prevent the Fractional and RealFrac type constaints by making use of div :: Integral a => a -> a -> a instead. Since mod already required n to have a type that is a member of the Integral typeclass, this thus will not restrict the types further:
check n = [x | x <- [1 .. div n 2], mod n x == 0]
This for example prints:
Prelude> print (check 5)
[1]
Prelude> print (check 17)
[1]
Prelude> print (check 18)
[1,2,3,6,9]
Is it possible to remove the duplicates (as in nub) from a list of functions in Haskell?
Basically, is it possible to add an instance for (Eq (Integer -> Integer))
In ghci:
let fs = [(+2), (*2), (^2)]
let cs = concat $ map subsequences $ permutations fs
nub cs
<interactive>:31:1:
No instance for (Eq (Integer -> Integer))
arising from a use of `nub'
Possible fix:
add an instance declaration for (Eq (Integer -> Integer))
In the expression: nub cs
In an equation for `it': it = nub cs
Thanks in advance.
...
Further, based on larsmans' answer, I am now able to do this
> let fs = [AddTwo, Double, Square]
> let css = nub $ concat $ map subsequences $ permutations fs
in order to get this
> css
[[],[AddTwo],[Double],[AddTwo,Double],[Square],[AddTwo,Square],[Double,Square],[AddTwo,Double,Square],[Double,AddTwo],[Double,AddTwo,Square],[Square,Double],[Square,AddTwo],[Square,Double,AddTwo],[Double,Square,AddTwo],[Square,AddTwo,Double],[AddTwo,Square,Double]]
and then this
> map (\cs-> call <$> cs <*> [3,4]) css
[[],[5,6],[6,8],[5,6,6,8],[9,16],[5,6,9,16],[6,8,9,16],[5,6,6,8,9,16],[6,8,5,6],[6,8,5,6,9,16],[9,16,6,8],[9,16,5,6],[9,16,6,8,5,6],[6,8,9,16,5,6],[9,16,5,6,6,8],[5,6,9,16,6,8]]
, which was my original intent.
No, this is not possible. Functions cannot be compared for equality.
The reason for this is:
Pointer comparison makes very little sense for Haskell functions, since then the equality of id and \x -> id x would change based on whether the latter form is optimized into id.
Extensional comparison of functions is impossible, since it would require a positive solution to the halting problem (both functions having the same halting behavior is a necessary requirement for equality).
The workaround is to represent functions as data:
data Function = AddTwo | Double | Square deriving Eq
call AddTwo = (+2)
call Double = (*2)
call Square = (^2)
No, it's not possible to do this for Integer -> Integer functions.
However, it is possible if you're also ok with a more general type signature Num a => a -> a, as your example indicates! One naïve way (not safe), would go like
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE NoMonomorphismRestriction #-}
data NumResLog a = NRL { runNumRes :: a, runNumResLog :: String }
deriving (Eq, Show)
instance (Num a) => Num (NumResLog a) where
fromInteger n = NRL (fromInteger n) (show n)
NRL a alog + NRL b blog
= NRL (a+b) ( "("++alog++ ")+(" ++blog++")" )
NRL a alog * NRL b blog
= NRL (a*b) ( "("++alog++ ")*(" ++blog++")" )
...
instance (Num a) => Eq (NumResLog a -> NumResLog a) where
f == g = runNumResLog (f arg) == runNumResLog (g arg)
where arg = NRL 0 "THE ARGUMENT"
unlogNumFn :: (NumResLog a -> NumResLog c) -> (a->c)
unlogNumFn f = runNumRes . f . (`NRL`"")
which works basically by comparing a "normalised" version of the functions' source code. Of course this fails when you compare e.g. (+1) == (1+), which are equivalent numerically but yield "(THE ARGUMENT)+(1)" vs. "(1)+(THE ARGUMENT)" and thus are indicated as non-equal. However, since functions Num a => a->a are essentially constricted to be polynomials (yeah, abs and signum make it a bit more difficult, but it's still doable), you can find a data type that properly handles those equivalencies.
The stuff can be used like this:
> let fs = [(+2), (*2), (^2)]
> let cs = concat $ map subsequences $ permutations fs
> let ncs = map (map unlogNumFn) $ nub cs
> map (map ($ 1)) ncs
[[],[3],[2],[3,2],[1],[3,1],[2,1],[3,2,1],[2,3],[2,3,1],[1,2],[1,3],[1,2,3],[2,1,3],[1,3,2],[3,1,2]]
I wrote my first program in Haskell today. It compiles and runs successfully. And since it is not a typical "Hello World" program, it in fact does much more than that, so please congrats me :D
Anyway, I've few doubts regarding my code, and the syntax in Haskell.
Problem:
My program reads an integer N from the standard input and then, for each integer i in the range [1,N], it prints whether i is a prime number or not. Currently it doesn't check for input error. :-)
Solution: (also doubts/questions)
To solve the problem, I wrote this function to test primality of an integer:
is_prime :: Integer -> Bool
is_prime n = helper n 2
where
helper :: Integer -> Integer -> Bool
helper n i
| n < 2 * i = True
| mod n i > 0 = helper n (i+1)
| otherwise = False
It works great. But my doubt is that the first line is a result of many hit-and-trials, as what I read in this tutorial didn't work, and gave this error (I suppose this is an error, though it doesn't say so):
prime.hs:9:13:
Type constructor `Integer' used as a class
In the type signature for `is_prime':
is_prime :: Integer a => a -> Bool
According to the tutorial (which is a nicely-written tutorial, by the way), the first line should be: (the tutorial says (Integral a) => a -> String, so I thought (Integer a) => a -> Bool should work as well.)
is_prime :: (Integer a) => a -> Bool
which doesn't work, and gives the above posted error (?).
And why does it not work? What is the difference between this line (which doesn't work) and the line (which works)?
Also, what is the idiomatic way to loop through 1 to N? I'm not completely satisfied with the loop in my code. Please suggest improvements. Here is my code:
--read_int function
read_int :: IO Integer
read_int = do
line <- getLine
readIO line
--is_prime function
is_prime :: Integer -> Bool
is_prime n = helper n 2
where
helper :: Integer -> Integer -> Bool
helper n i
| n < 2 * i = True
| mod n i > 0 = helper n (i+1)
| otherwise = False
main = do
n <- read_int
dump 1 n
where
dump i x = do
putStrLn ( show (i) ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (is_prime i) )
if i >= x
then putStrLn ("")
else do
dump (i+1) x
You are misreading the tutorial. It would say the type signature should be
is_prime :: (Integral a) => a -> Bool
-- NOT Integer a
These are different types:
Integer -> Bool
This is a function that takes a value of type Integer and gives back a value of type Bool.
Integral a => a -> Bool
This is a function that takes a value of type a and gives back a value of type Bool.
What is a? It can be any type of the caller's choice that implements the Integral type class, such as Integer or Int.
(And the difference between Int and Integer? The latter can represent an integer of any magnitude, the former wraps around eventually, similar to ints in C/Java/etc.)
The idiomatic way to loop depends on what your loop does: it will either be a map, a fold, or a filter.
Your loop in main is a map, and because you're doing i/o in your loop, you need to use mapM_.
let dump i = putStrLn ( show (i) ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (is_prime i) )
in mapM_ dump [1..n]
Meanwhile, your loop in is_prime is a fold (specifically all in this case):
is_prime :: Integer -> Bool
is_prime n = all nondivisor [2 .. n `div` 2]
where
nondivisor :: Integer -> Bool
nondivisor i = mod n i > 0
(And on a minor point of style, it's conventional in Haskell to use names like isPrime instead of names like is_prime.)
Part 1: If you look at the tutorial again, you'll notice that it actually gives type signatures in the following forms:
isPrime :: Integer -> Bool
-- or
isPrime :: Integral a => a -> Bool
isPrime :: (Integral a) => a -> Bool -- equivalent
Here, Integer is the name of a concrete type (has an actual representation) and Integral is the name of a class of types. The Integer type is a member of the Integral class.
The constraint Integral a means that whatever type a happens to be, a has to be a member of the Integral class.
Part 2: There are plenty of ways to write such a function. Your recursive definition looks fine (although you might want to use n < i * i instead of n < 2 * i, since it's faster).
If you're learning Haskell, you'll probably want to try writing it using higher-order functions or list comprehensions. Something like:
module Main (main) where
import Control.Monad (forM_)
isPrime :: Integer -> Bool
isPrime n = all (\i -> (n `rem` i) /= 0) $ takeWhile (\i -> i^2 <= n) [2..]
main :: IO ()
main = do n <- readLn
forM_ [1..n] $ \i ->
putStrLn (show (i) ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (isPrime i))
It is Integral a, not Integer a. See http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Converting_numbers.
map and friends is how you loop in Haskell. This is how I would re-write the loop:
main :: IO ()
main = do
n <- read_int
mapM_ tell_prime [1..n]
where tell_prime i = putStrLn (show i ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (is_prime i))
How can I return values of multiple types from a single function?
I want to do something like:
take x y | x == [] = "error : empty list"
| x == y = True
| otherwise = False
I have a background in imperative languages.
There is a type constructor called Either that lets you create a type that could be one of two types. It is often used for handling errors, just like in your example. You would use it like this:
take x y | x == [] = Left "error : empty list"
| x == y = Right True
| otherwise = Right False
The type of take would then be something like Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> Either String Bool. The convention with Either for error handling is that Left represents the error and Right represents the normal return type.
When you have an Either type, you can pattern match against it to see which value it contains:
case take x y of
Left errorMessage -> ... -- handle error here
Right result -> ... -- do what you normally would
There is several solutions to your problem, depending on your intention : do you want to make manifest in your type that your function can fail (and in this case do you want to return the cause of the failure, which may be unnecessary if there is only one mode of failure like here) or do you estimate that getting an empty list in this function shouldn't happen at all, and so want to fail immediately and by throwing an exception ?
So if you want to make explicit the possibility of failure in your type, you can use Maybe, to just indicate failure without explanation (eventually in your documentation) :
take :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a] -> Maybe Bool
take [] _ = Nothing
take x y = x == y
Or Either to register the reason of the failure (note that Either would be the answer to "returning two types from one function" in general, though your code is more specific) :
take :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a] -> Either String Bool
take [] _ = Left "Empty list"
take x y = Right $ x == y
Finally you can signal that this failure is completely abnormal and can't be handled locally :
take :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a] -> Bool
take [] _ = error "Empty list"
take x y = x == y
Note that with this last way, the call site don't have to immediately handle the failure, in fact it can't, since exceptions can only be caught in the IO monad. With the first two ways, the call site have to be modified to handle the case of failure (and can), if only to itself call "error".
There is one final solution that allows the calling code to choose which mode of failure you want (using the failure package http://hackage.haskell.org/package/failure ) :
take :: (Failure String m, Eq a) => [a] -> [a] -> m Bool
take [] _ = failure "Empty list"
take x y = return $ x == y
This can mimics the Maybe and the Either solution, or you can use take as an IO Bool which will throw an exception if it fails. It can even works in a [Bool] context (returns an empty list in case of failure, which is sometimes useful).
You can use the error functions for exceptions:
take :: Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> Bool
take [] _ = error "empty list"
take x y = x == y
The three answers you've gotten so far (from Tikhon Jelvis, Jedai and Philipp) cover the three conventional ways of handling this sort of situation:
Use the error function signal an error. This is often frowned upon, however, because it makes it hard for programs that use your function to recover from the error.
Use Maybe to indicate the case where no Boolean answer can be produced.
Use Either, which is often used to do the same thing as Maybe, but can additionally include more information about the failure (Left "error : empty list").
I'd second the Maybe and Either approach, and add one tidbit (which is slightly more advanced, but you might want to get to eventually): both Maybe and Either a can be made into monads, and this can be used to write code that is neutral between the choice between those two. This blog post discusses eight different ways to tackle your problem, which includes the three mentioned above, a fourth one that uses the Monad type class to abstract the difference between Maybe and Either, and yet four others.
The blog entry is from 2007 so it looks a bit dated, but I managed to get #4 working this way:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
take :: (Monad m, Eq a) => [a] -> [a] -> m Bool
take x y | x == [] = fail "error : empty list"
| x == y = return True
| otherwise = return False
instance Monad (Either String) where
return = Right
(Left err) >>= _ = Left err
(Right x) >>= f = f x
fail err = Left err
Now this take function works with both cases:
*Main> Main.take [1..3] [1..3] :: Maybe Bool
Just True
*Main> Main.take [1] [1..3] :: Maybe Bool
Just False
*Main> Main.take [] [1..3] :: Maybe Bool
Nothing
*Main> Main.take [1..3] [1..3] :: Either String Bool
Right True
*Main> Main.take [1] [1..3] :: Either String Bool
Right False
*Main> Main.take [] [1..3] :: Either String Bool
Left "error : empty list"
Though it's important to note that fail is controversial, so I anticipate reasonable objections to this approach. The use of fail here is not essential, though—it could be replaced with any function f :: (Monad m, ErrorClass m) => String -> m a such that f err is Nothing in Maybe and Left err in Either.
I have an assignment and am currently caught in one section of what I'm trying to do. Without going in to specific detail here is the basic layout:
I'm given a data element, f, that holds four different types inside (each with their own purpose):
data F = F Float Int, Int
a function:
func :: F -> F-> Q
Which takes two data elements and (by simple calculations) returns a type that is now an updated version of one of the types in the first f.
I now have an entire list of these elements and need to run the given function using one data element and return the type's value (not the data element). My first analysis was to use a foldl function:
myfunc :: F -> [F] -> Q
myfunc y [] = func y y -- func deals with the same data element calls
myfunc y (x:xs) = foldl func y (x:xs)
however I keep getting the same error:
"Couldn't match expected type 'F' against inferred type 'Q'.
In the first argument of 'foldl', namely 'myfunc'
In the expression: foldl func y (x:xs)
I apologise for such an abstract analysis on my problem but could anyone give me an idea as to what I should do? Should I even use a fold function or is there recursion I'm not thinking about?
The type of foldl is
foldl :: (a -> b -> a) -> a -> [b] -> a
but the type of func is
-- # a -> b -> a
func :: F -> F -> Q
The type variable a cannot be simultaneously F and Q, thus the error.
If the Q can be converted to and from F, you could use
myfunc y xs = foldl (func . fromQ) (toQ y) xs
where
func . fromQ :: Q -> F -> Q
toQ y :: Q
xs :: [F]
so this satisfies all the type requirements, and will return the final Q.
maybe you need map?
map :: (f -> q) -> [f] -> [q]
it evaluates a function on each element in a list and gives a list of the results. I'm not sure why your function takes two Fs though, possibly to work with foldl?