Matthias, Sorry if I was not clear in stating the problem. Your solution works nicely, but I would like to try writing a monad. This is what I came up with: type Failure = String data Computation a = Computation (Either Failure a) [a] instance Monad Computation where (Computation (Left e) h) >>= f = Computation (Left e) h -- do not proceed (Computation (Right a) h) >>= f = let r = f a -- result h' = case r of Left e -> h Right a' -> a':h in Computation r h' return (s,c) = Computation (Right (s,c)) [(s,c)] Basically, I want the >>= operator to call f on the last result, if it is not a failure, and append the new result to the list (if it didn't fail). However, I am getting the following error message: /home/tpapp/doc/research/pricespread/Main.hs:62:58: Couldn't match the rigid variable `b' against the rigid variable `a' `b' is bound by the type signature for `>>=' `a' is bound by the type signature for `>>=' Expected type: [b] Inferred type: [a] In the second argument of `Computation', namely `h' In the definition of `>>=': >>= (Computation (Left e) h) f = Computation (Left e) h I don't know what the problem is. Thanks, Tamas On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:54:23PM +0200, Matthias Fischmann wrote:

hi, i don't fully understand your problem, but perhaps you could use iterate to produce a list or type [Result a], ie, of all computation steps, and then use this function to extract either result or error from the list:

type Failmessage = Int data Result a = Root a | Failure Failmessage deriving (Show)

f :: [Result a] -> Either a (Int, [Result a]) f cs = f [] cs where f (Root r:_) [] = Left r f l [Failure i] = Right (i, reverse l) f l (x:xs) = f (x:l) xs

cs = [Root 1.2, Root 1.4, Root 1.38, Root 1.39121] cs' = [Root 1.2, Root 1.4, Root 1.38, Failure 1]

-- f cs ==> Left 1.39121 -- f cs' ==> Right (1,[Root 1.2,Root 1.4,Root 1.38])

(although this way you probably have the list still floating around somewhere if you process the error returned by f, so f should probably just drop the traversed part of the list.)

hth, matthias

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 06:00:43PM -0400, Tamas K Papp wrote:

...

To: Haskell Cafe From: Tamas K Papp Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Haskell-cafe] question - which monad to use?

Hi,

I have a computation where a function is always applied to the previous result. However, this function may not return a value (it involves finding a root numerically, and there may be no zero on the interval). The whole problem has a parameter c0, and the function is also parametrized by the number of steps that have been taken previously.

To make things concrete,

type Failmessage = Int -- this might be something more complex data Result a = Root a | Failure Failmessage -- guess I could use Either too

f :: Double -> Int -> Double 0 -> Result Double f c0 0 _ = c0 f c0 j x = {- computation using x, parameters calculated from c0 and j -}

Then

c1 = f c0 0 c0 c2 = f c0 1 c1 c3 = f c0 2 c2 ...

up to cn.

I would like to

1) stop the computation when a Failure occurs, and store that failure

2) keep track of intermediate results up to the point of failure, ie have a list [c1,c2,c3,...] at the end, which would go to cn in the ideal case of no failure.

I think that a monad would be the cleanest way to do this. I think I could try writing one (it would be a good exercise, I haven't written a monad before). I would like to know if there is a predefined one which would work.

Thank you,

Tamas _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Institute of Information Systems, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin

web: http://www.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/~fis/ e-mail: fis@wiwi.hu-berlin.de tel: +49 30 2093-5742 fax: +49 30 2093-5741 office: Spandauer Strasse 1, R.324, 10178 Berlin, Germany pgp: AD67 CF64 7BB4 3B9A 6F25 0996 4D73 F1FD 8D32 9BAA

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:42:22AM -0400, Tamas K Papp wrote:

To: haskell-cafe@haskell.org From: Tamas K Papp Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:42:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] question - which monad to use?

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:35:40AM -0400, Tamas K Papp wrote:

...

Matthias,

Sorry if I was not clear in stating the problem. Your solution works

no problem, i like to be confused by missing facts. (-: and you gave enough input for a discussion.

...

type Failure = String data Computation a = Computation (Either Failure a) [a]

instance Monad Computation where (Computation (Left e) h) >>= f = Computation (Left e) h -- do not proceed (Computation (Right a) h) >>= f = let r = f a -- result h' = case r of Left e -> h Right a' -> a':h in Computation r h' return (s,c) = Computation (Right (s,c)) [(s,c)]

sorry, I pasted an older version. This line should be

return a = Computation (Right a) [a]

yeah, that works. the (>>=) part has two problems: (1) according to the Monad class, the type of f is (a -> m b), and the type of (a >>= f) is m b. but in your definition, (a >>= f) has the same type as a, no matter what f. (2) the cases in the definition of h' shouldn't be of type (Either Failure a), but of type (Computation b). the second one is easy to fix, just add the constructors to the case switches. the first is more of a conceptual problem: you want to have elements of potentially different types in the computation history h. this is unfortunate, given that you don't want make use of this flexibility of the class type, but i don't see a quick way around this. i have been meaning to read this for a while, perhaps that could help you (but i sense it's somewhat of an overkill in your case): Oleg Kiselyov, Ralf Laemmel, Keean Schupke: Strongly typed heterogeneous collections, http://homepages.cwi.nl/~ralf/HList/. donno... matthias

...

Basically, I want the >>= operator to call f on the last result, if it is not a failure, and append the new result to the list (if it didn't fail).

However, I am getting the following error message:

/home/tpapp/doc/research/pricespread/Main.hs:62:58: Couldn't match the rigid variable `b' against the rigid variable `a' `b' is bound by the type signature for `>>=' `a' is bound by the type signature for `>>=' Expected type: [b] Inferred type: [a] In the second argument of `Computation', namely `h' In the definition of `>>=':

...

...

= (Computation (Left e) h) f = Computation (Left e) h

I don't know what the problem is.

Thanks,

Tamas

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:54:23PM +0200, Matthias Fischmann wrote:

...

hi, i don't fully understand your problem, but perhaps you could use iterate to produce a list or type [Result a], ie, of all computation steps, and then use this function to extract either result or error from the list:

type Failmessage = Int data Result a = Root a | Failure Failmessage deriving (Show)

f :: [Result a] -> Either a (Int, [Result a]) f cs = f [] cs where f (Root r:_) [] = Left r f l [Failure i] = Right (i, reverse l) f l (x:xs) = f (x:l) xs

cs = [Root 1.2, Root 1.4, Root 1.38, Root 1.39121] cs' = [Root 1.2, Root 1.4, Root 1.38, Failure 1]

-- f cs ==> Left 1.39121 -- f cs' ==> Right (1,[Root 1.2,Root 1.4,Root 1.38])

(although this way you probably have the list still floating around somewhere if you process the error returned by f, so f should probably just drop the traversed part of the list.)

hth, matthias

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 06:00:43PM -0400, Tamas K Papp wrote:

...

To: Haskell Cafe From: Tamas K Papp Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Haskell-cafe] question - which monad to use?

Hi,

I have a computation where a function is always applied to the previous result. However, this function may not return a value (it involves finding a root numerically, and there may be no zero on the interval). The whole problem has a parameter c0, and the function is also parametrized by the number of steps that have been taken previously.

To make things concrete,

type Failmessage = Int -- this might be something more complex data Result a = Root a | Failure Failmessage -- guess I could use Either too

f :: Double -> Int -> Double 0 -> Result Double f c0 0 _ = c0 f c0 j x = {- computation using x, parameters calculated from c0 and j -}

Then

c1 = f c0 0 c0 c2 = f c0 1 c1 c3 = f c0 2 c2 ...

up to cn.

I would like to

1) stop the computation when a Failure occurs, and store that failure

2) keep track of intermediate results up to the point of failure, ie have a list [c1,c2,c3,...] at the end, which would go to cn in the ideal case of no failure.

I think that a monad would be the cleanest way to do this. I think I could try writing one (it would be a good exercise, I haven't written a monad before). I would like to know if there is a predefined one which would work.

Thank you,

Tamas

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 apfelmus@quantentunnel.de wrote:

*d) reconsider your definition of f, separate concerns * The fact that the computation of ck depends on the iteration count j makes me suspicious. If you are using j for convergence tests etc. only, then it's not good. The most elegant way is to separate concerns: first generate an infinite list of approximations

f :: Double -> Double -> Double f c0 ck = {c_{k+1}}

cs = iterate (f c0)

and then look for convergence

epsilon = 1e-12 takeUntilConvergence [] = [] takeUntilConvergence [x] = [x] takeUntilConvergence (x:x2:xs) = if abs (x - x2) <= epsilon then [x] else x:takeUntilConvergence (x2:xs)

Once more: http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/whyfp.html