Given a Haskell list, return all sub-lists obtained by removing one element
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
I am trying to write a Haskell function which takes a list ls
and returns all sub-lists obtained by removing one element from ls
. An additional constraint is that the returned list of lists must be in the order of the missing element.
Here is what I have. I know there must be a simpler solution.
subOneLists :: [a] -> [[a]]
subOneLists ls = let helper :: [a] -> [a] -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
helper _ ss = ss
helper ps (x:xs) ss = helper ps' xs ss'
where ps' = ps ++ [x]
ss' = ss ++ [ps ++ xs]
in helper ls
λ> subOneLists [1, 2, 3, 4]
[[2,3,4],[1,3,4],[1,2,4],[1,2,3]]
haskell
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
I am trying to write a Haskell function which takes a list ls
and returns all sub-lists obtained by removing one element from ls
. An additional constraint is that the returned list of lists must be in the order of the missing element.
Here is what I have. I know there must be a simpler solution.
subOneLists :: [a] -> [[a]]
subOneLists ls = let helper :: [a] -> [a] -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
helper _ ss = ss
helper ps (x:xs) ss = helper ps' xs ss'
where ps' = ps ++ [x]
ss' = ss ++ [ps ++ xs]
in helper ls
λ> subOneLists [1, 2, 3, 4]
[[2,3,4],[1,3,4],[1,2,4],[1,2,3]]
haskell
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
I am trying to write a Haskell function which takes a list ls
and returns all sub-lists obtained by removing one element from ls
. An additional constraint is that the returned list of lists must be in the order of the missing element.
Here is what I have. I know there must be a simpler solution.
subOneLists :: [a] -> [[a]]
subOneLists ls = let helper :: [a] -> [a] -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
helper _ ss = ss
helper ps (x:xs) ss = helper ps' xs ss'
where ps' = ps ++ [x]
ss' = ss ++ [ps ++ xs]
in helper ls
λ> subOneLists [1, 2, 3, 4]
[[2,3,4],[1,3,4],[1,2,4],[1,2,3]]
haskell
New contributor
I am trying to write a Haskell function which takes a list ls
and returns all sub-lists obtained by removing one element from ls
. An additional constraint is that the returned list of lists must be in the order of the missing element.
Here is what I have. I know there must be a simpler solution.
subOneLists :: [a] -> [[a]]
subOneLists ls = let helper :: [a] -> [a] -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
helper _ ss = ss
helper ps (x:xs) ss = helper ps' xs ss'
where ps' = ps ++ [x]
ss' = ss ++ [ps ++ xs]
in helper ls
λ> subOneLists [1, 2, 3, 4]
[[2,3,4],[1,3,4],[1,2,4],[1,2,3]]
haskell
haskell
New contributor
New contributor
edited 9 hours ago
200_success
127k15148410
127k15148410
New contributor
asked 11 hours ago
Paul
1434
1434
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
Here's a simpler way to implement it:
subOneLists :: [a] -> [[a]]
subOneLists =
subOneLists (x:xs) = xs : map (x :) (subOneLists xs)
This is really clever
– Paul
10 hours ago
this repeats the oldinits
bug which makes(last $ subOneLists xs !! n)
quadratic inn
. My version as well as the newer, corrected version ofinits
in the library makes it linear.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
List as an abstract concept can have many representations.
In particular, with a list being represented by its "zipper" - a pairing of a reversed prefix and a suffix, it becomes possible to have a linear solution to this problem, as opposed to the quadratic one which is unavoidable with the plain linear representation :
picks :: [a] -> [([a], [a])]
picks =
picks (x:xs) = go [x] xs
where
go pref suff@(x:xs) = (pref,suff) : go (x:pref) xs
go pref = [(pref,)]
Using this, your problem becomes
foo = map ((a,b) -> revappend (tail a) b) . picks
revappend a b = foldl (flip (:)) b a
This is of course again quadratic, but maybe you could keep the prefixes reversed to stay linear, with
foo' = map (first tail) . picks
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Look out for standard functions that can help you!
Prelude Data.List> let subOneLists ls = zipWith (++) (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls)
Prelude Data.List> subOneLists [1, 2, 3, 4]
[[2,3,4],[1,3,4],[1,2,4],[1,2,3]]
This uses the fact that the inits
- and tails
-elements at corresponding index always recombine to the original list, but with a variably splitting point:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tails ls))
(,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7],)
If you now “shift up” that tails
, by dropping its head, you effectively lose the head of each of the contained lists:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls))
(,[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],)
And that can just be ++
combined with the inits
again.
New contributor
makes me wonder that maybe there should berevinits
in the library somewhere...
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Would probably make more sense to make that a rewrite rule fortails . reverse
, if even necessary.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
I meantreversed_inits [1..] !! 10 == [10,9..1]
. :) (i.e.map reverse . inits
but linear)
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Ok,reverse . tails . reverse
... yeah, that's ah bit meh. Still – I don't think it's good to packbase
with every combination of reversal and disassembly. If you use any of these, then it's probably not optimal for performance anyway (compared to somethingData.Vector
based), and if performance isn't that critical then just combine simple list functions.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
1
see my updated comment. It's supposed to be linear, that's the point. and work for infinite inputs too.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
Here's a simpler way to implement it:
subOneLists :: [a] -> [[a]]
subOneLists =
subOneLists (x:xs) = xs : map (x :) (subOneLists xs)
This is really clever
– Paul
10 hours ago
this repeats the oldinits
bug which makes(last $ subOneLists xs !! n)
quadratic inn
. My version as well as the newer, corrected version ofinits
in the library makes it linear.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
Here's a simpler way to implement it:
subOneLists :: [a] -> [[a]]
subOneLists =
subOneLists (x:xs) = xs : map (x :) (subOneLists xs)
This is really clever
– Paul
10 hours ago
this repeats the oldinits
bug which makes(last $ subOneLists xs !! n)
quadratic inn
. My version as well as the newer, corrected version ofinits
in the library makes it linear.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
Here's a simpler way to implement it:
subOneLists :: [a] -> [[a]]
subOneLists =
subOneLists (x:xs) = xs : map (x :) (subOneLists xs)
Here's a simpler way to implement it:
subOneLists :: [a] -> [[a]]
subOneLists =
subOneLists (x:xs) = xs : map (x :) (subOneLists xs)
answered 11 hours ago
4castle
345212
345212
This is really clever
– Paul
10 hours ago
this repeats the oldinits
bug which makes(last $ subOneLists xs !! n)
quadratic inn
. My version as well as the newer, corrected version ofinits
in the library makes it linear.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
add a comment |
This is really clever
– Paul
10 hours ago
this repeats the oldinits
bug which makes(last $ subOneLists xs !! n)
quadratic inn
. My version as well as the newer, corrected version ofinits
in the library makes it linear.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
This is really clever
– Paul
10 hours ago
This is really clever
– Paul
10 hours ago
this repeats the old
inits
bug which makes (last $ subOneLists xs !! n)
quadratic in n
. My version as well as the newer, corrected version of inits
in the library makes it linear.– Will Ness
1 hour ago
this repeats the old
inits
bug which makes (last $ subOneLists xs !! n)
quadratic in n
. My version as well as the newer, corrected version of inits
in the library makes it linear.– Will Ness
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
List as an abstract concept can have many representations.
In particular, with a list being represented by its "zipper" - a pairing of a reversed prefix and a suffix, it becomes possible to have a linear solution to this problem, as opposed to the quadratic one which is unavoidable with the plain linear representation :
picks :: [a] -> [([a], [a])]
picks =
picks (x:xs) = go [x] xs
where
go pref suff@(x:xs) = (pref,suff) : go (x:pref) xs
go pref = [(pref,)]
Using this, your problem becomes
foo = map ((a,b) -> revappend (tail a) b) . picks
revappend a b = foldl (flip (:)) b a
This is of course again quadratic, but maybe you could keep the prefixes reversed to stay linear, with
foo' = map (first tail) . picks
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
List as an abstract concept can have many representations.
In particular, with a list being represented by its "zipper" - a pairing of a reversed prefix and a suffix, it becomes possible to have a linear solution to this problem, as opposed to the quadratic one which is unavoidable with the plain linear representation :
picks :: [a] -> [([a], [a])]
picks =
picks (x:xs) = go [x] xs
where
go pref suff@(x:xs) = (pref,suff) : go (x:pref) xs
go pref = [(pref,)]
Using this, your problem becomes
foo = map ((a,b) -> revappend (tail a) b) . picks
revappend a b = foldl (flip (:)) b a
This is of course again quadratic, but maybe you could keep the prefixes reversed to stay linear, with
foo' = map (first tail) . picks
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
List as an abstract concept can have many representations.
In particular, with a list being represented by its "zipper" - a pairing of a reversed prefix and a suffix, it becomes possible to have a linear solution to this problem, as opposed to the quadratic one which is unavoidable with the plain linear representation :
picks :: [a] -> [([a], [a])]
picks =
picks (x:xs) = go [x] xs
where
go pref suff@(x:xs) = (pref,suff) : go (x:pref) xs
go pref = [(pref,)]
Using this, your problem becomes
foo = map ((a,b) -> revappend (tail a) b) . picks
revappend a b = foldl (flip (:)) b a
This is of course again quadratic, but maybe you could keep the prefixes reversed to stay linear, with
foo' = map (first tail) . picks
List as an abstract concept can have many representations.
In particular, with a list being represented by its "zipper" - a pairing of a reversed prefix and a suffix, it becomes possible to have a linear solution to this problem, as opposed to the quadratic one which is unavoidable with the plain linear representation :
picks :: [a] -> [([a], [a])]
picks =
picks (x:xs) = go [x] xs
where
go pref suff@(x:xs) = (pref,suff) : go (x:pref) xs
go pref = [(pref,)]
Using this, your problem becomes
foo = map ((a,b) -> revappend (tail a) b) . picks
revappend a b = foldl (flip (:)) b a
This is of course again quadratic, but maybe you could keep the prefixes reversed to stay linear, with
foo' = map (first tail) . picks
answered 4 hours ago
Will Ness
6971619
6971619
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Look out for standard functions that can help you!
Prelude Data.List> let subOneLists ls = zipWith (++) (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls)
Prelude Data.List> subOneLists [1, 2, 3, 4]
[[2,3,4],[1,3,4],[1,2,4],[1,2,3]]
This uses the fact that the inits
- and tails
-elements at corresponding index always recombine to the original list, but with a variably splitting point:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tails ls))
(,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7],)
If you now “shift up” that tails
, by dropping its head, you effectively lose the head of each of the contained lists:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls))
(,[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],)
And that can just be ++
combined with the inits
again.
New contributor
makes me wonder that maybe there should berevinits
in the library somewhere...
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Would probably make more sense to make that a rewrite rule fortails . reverse
, if even necessary.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
I meantreversed_inits [1..] !! 10 == [10,9..1]
. :) (i.e.map reverse . inits
but linear)
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Ok,reverse . tails . reverse
... yeah, that's ah bit meh. Still – I don't think it's good to packbase
with every combination of reversal and disassembly. If you use any of these, then it's probably not optimal for performance anyway (compared to somethingData.Vector
based), and if performance isn't that critical then just combine simple list functions.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
1
see my updated comment. It's supposed to be linear, that's the point. and work for infinite inputs too.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Look out for standard functions that can help you!
Prelude Data.List> let subOneLists ls = zipWith (++) (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls)
Prelude Data.List> subOneLists [1, 2, 3, 4]
[[2,3,4],[1,3,4],[1,2,4],[1,2,3]]
This uses the fact that the inits
- and tails
-elements at corresponding index always recombine to the original list, but with a variably splitting point:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tails ls))
(,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7],)
If you now “shift up” that tails
, by dropping its head, you effectively lose the head of each of the contained lists:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls))
(,[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],)
And that can just be ++
combined with the inits
again.
New contributor
makes me wonder that maybe there should berevinits
in the library somewhere...
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Would probably make more sense to make that a rewrite rule fortails . reverse
, if even necessary.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
I meantreversed_inits [1..] !! 10 == [10,9..1]
. :) (i.e.map reverse . inits
but linear)
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Ok,reverse . tails . reverse
... yeah, that's ah bit meh. Still – I don't think it's good to packbase
with every combination of reversal and disassembly. If you use any of these, then it's probably not optimal for performance anyway (compared to somethingData.Vector
based), and if performance isn't that critical then just combine simple list functions.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
1
see my updated comment. It's supposed to be linear, that's the point. and work for infinite inputs too.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Look out for standard functions that can help you!
Prelude Data.List> let subOneLists ls = zipWith (++) (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls)
Prelude Data.List> subOneLists [1, 2, 3, 4]
[[2,3,4],[1,3,4],[1,2,4],[1,2,3]]
This uses the fact that the inits
- and tails
-elements at corresponding index always recombine to the original list, but with a variably splitting point:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tails ls))
(,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7],)
If you now “shift up” that tails
, by dropping its head, you effectively lose the head of each of the contained lists:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls))
(,[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],)
And that can just be ++
combined with the inits
again.
New contributor
Look out for standard functions that can help you!
Prelude Data.List> let subOneLists ls = zipWith (++) (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls)
Prelude Data.List> subOneLists [1, 2, 3, 4]
[[2,3,4],[1,3,4],[1,2,4],[1,2,3]]
This uses the fact that the inits
- and tails
-elements at corresponding index always recombine to the original list, but with a variably splitting point:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tails ls))
(,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7],)
If you now “shift up” that tails
, by dropping its head, you effectively lose the head of each of the contained lists:
Prelude Data.List> let ls = [0..7] in mapM_ print (zip (inits ls) (tail $ tails ls))
(,[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0],[2,3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1],[3,4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2],[4,5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3],[5,6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4],[6,7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5],[7])
([0,1,2,3,4,5,6],)
And that can just be ++
combined with the inits
again.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 3 hours ago
leftaroundabout
1113
1113
New contributor
New contributor
makes me wonder that maybe there should berevinits
in the library somewhere...
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Would probably make more sense to make that a rewrite rule fortails . reverse
, if even necessary.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
I meantreversed_inits [1..] !! 10 == [10,9..1]
. :) (i.e.map reverse . inits
but linear)
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Ok,reverse . tails . reverse
... yeah, that's ah bit meh. Still – I don't think it's good to packbase
with every combination of reversal and disassembly. If you use any of these, then it's probably not optimal for performance anyway (compared to somethingData.Vector
based), and if performance isn't that critical then just combine simple list functions.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
1
see my updated comment. It's supposed to be linear, that's the point. and work for infinite inputs too.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
makes me wonder that maybe there should berevinits
in the library somewhere...
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Would probably make more sense to make that a rewrite rule fortails . reverse
, if even necessary.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
I meantreversed_inits [1..] !! 10 == [10,9..1]
. :) (i.e.map reverse . inits
but linear)
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Ok,reverse . tails . reverse
... yeah, that's ah bit meh. Still – I don't think it's good to packbase
with every combination of reversal and disassembly. If you use any of these, then it's probably not optimal for performance anyway (compared to somethingData.Vector
based), and if performance isn't that critical then just combine simple list functions.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
1
see my updated comment. It's supposed to be linear, that's the point. and work for infinite inputs too.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
makes me wonder that maybe there should be
revinits
in the library somewhere...– Will Ness
1 hour ago
makes me wonder that maybe there should be
revinits
in the library somewhere...– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Would probably make more sense to make that a rewrite rule for
tails . reverse
, if even necessary.– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
Would probably make more sense to make that a rewrite rule for
tails . reverse
, if even necessary.– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
I meant
reversed_inits [1..] !! 10 == [10,9..1]
. :) (i.e. map reverse . inits
but linear)– Will Ness
1 hour ago
I meant
reversed_inits [1..] !! 10 == [10,9..1]
. :) (i.e. map reverse . inits
but linear)– Will Ness
1 hour ago
Ok,
reverse . tails . reverse
... yeah, that's ah bit meh. Still – I don't think it's good to pack base
with every combination of reversal and disassembly. If you use any of these, then it's probably not optimal for performance anyway (compared to something Data.Vector
based), and if performance isn't that critical then just combine simple list functions.– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
Ok,
reverse . tails . reverse
... yeah, that's ah bit meh. Still – I don't think it's good to pack base
with every combination of reversal and disassembly. If you use any of these, then it's probably not optimal for performance anyway (compared to something Data.Vector
based), and if performance isn't that critical then just combine simple list functions.– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
1
1
see my updated comment. It's supposed to be linear, that's the point. and work for infinite inputs too.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
see my updated comment. It's supposed to be linear, that's the point. and work for infinite inputs too.
– Will Ness
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Paul is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Paul is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Paul is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Paul is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f207619%2fgiven-a-haskell-list-return-all-sub-lists-obtained-by-removing-one-element%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password