in reply to Re^17: Near-free function currying in Perl
in thread Near-free function currying in Perl
Keep in mind that the following code is probably too small, too simple, and too limited to be useful for drawing general conclusions. The best you can hope for is to get a taste. To draw inferences about the whole cuisine from this tiny sampling would be a mistake.
First some library functions:
package ToolBox; use AutoCurry ':all'; use List::Util qw( min ); # zips sub zip { my $len = min( map scalar @$_, @_ ); map [ do { my $i=$_; map $_->[$i], @_ } ], 0..$len-1; } sub zip_with { my $f = shift; map $f->(@$_), zip(@_); } # folds & scans sub foldl { my $f = shift; my $z = shift; $z = $f->($z, $_) for @_; $z; } # (other folds and scans omitted) # functional glue: curry and compose sub _compose2 { my ($f, $g) = @_; sub { $f->($g->(@_)) } } sub compose { foldl( \&_compose2, @_ ); } sub pipeline { compose( reverse @_ ); } # a partially-applicable map sub map_c(&@) { my $f = shift; my $args = \@_; sub { map $f->($_), @$args, @_; } }
Now let us write code using the above vocabulary. First, the preliminaries:
Let us start with some simple functions to show the general idea:use ToolBox; use Data::Dumper; # a convenience function for examining our output sub say(@) { local $Data::Dumper::Terse = 1; local $Data::Dumper::Indent = 0; my @d = map Dumper($_), @_; print "@d$/"; }
Now let us build further to create a function to compute vector dot products:# some simple binary operators sub plus { $_[0] + $_[1] } sub times { $_[0] * $_[1] } # build n-ary operators from them *sum = foldl_c( \&plus, 0 ); *product = foldl_c( \×, 1 ); # test them out say sum(1..10); # 55 say product(1..10); # 3628800
So far, we have computed only with numbers. Let us now turn to data. One common programming task is to compute the combinations that can be generated by taking one element from a set of sets. (I selected this problem because various implementations can be found on Perl Monks for comparison.) Here's my implementation:*dot_product = compose( \&sum, zip_with_c( \&product )); say dot_product( [1,1,1], [1,2,3] ); # 6
Building further, let's compute power sets. One common method of computing the power set of a set S is the following:*combos = foldr_c( \&outer_prod, [[]] ); sub outer_prod { my ($xs, $ys) = @_; [ map do { my $x=$_; map [$x, @$_], @$ys }, @$xs ]; } say combos( ['a','b'], [1,2,3] ); # [['a',1],['a',2],['a',3],['b',1],['b',2],['b',3]]
Each step in the original method maps directly to a stage in the composition pipeline, the output of each stage becoming the input of the next.*powerset = pipeline( map_c { [ [$_], [] ] }, # step 1 \&combos, # step 2 map_c { map [ map @$_, @$_ ], @$_ } # step 3 ); say powerset( 1, 2 ); # [1,2] [1] [2] [] say powerset(qw( a b c )); # ['a','b','c'] ['a','b'] ['a','c'] ['a'] # ['b','c'] ['b'] ['c'] []
This ends my example.
You are welcome to code your own versions of these functions for comparison. Because these functions are so simple, the comparisons might not yield much insight. A more useful exercise might be for you to write FP and non-FP code to solve more complex problems and then compare the coding experiences instead of the code itself.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom Moertel : Blog / Talks / CPAN / LectroTest / PXSL / Coffee / Movie Rating Decoder
|
---|