# Difference between revisions of "99 questions/Solutions/21"

Remi.berson (talk | contribs) (Add a solution with foldr along with some explanation.) |
Remi.berson (talk | contribs) |
||

Line 29: | Line 29: | ||

</haskell> |
</haskell> |
||

− | The use of foldl impose the use of concatenation. With a foldr we can use (:) instead, which is faster (O(n) vs. O(n²) |
+ | The use of foldl impose the use of concatenation. With a foldr we can use (:) instead, which is faster (O(n) vs. O(n²)). The use of zip [1..] doesn't seem to had overhead compared to the same solution with the index stored in the accumulator. |

<haskell> |
<haskell> |
||

insertAt :: a -> [a] -> Int -> [a] |
insertAt :: a -> [a] -> Int -> [a] |

## Revision as of 21:30, 8 May 2014

Insert an element at a given position into a list.

```
insertAt :: a -> [a] -> Int -> [a]
insertAt x xs (n+1) = let (ys,zs) = split xs n in ys++x:zs
```

or

```
insertAt :: a -> [a] -> Int -> [a]
insertAt x ys 1 = x:ys
insertAt x (y:ys) n = y:insertAt x ys (n-1)
```

There are two possible simple solutions. First we can use `split`

from problem 17 (or even `splitAt`

from the Prelude) to split the list and insert the element. Second we can define a recursive solution on our own.

As a note to the above solution - this presumes that the inserted argument will be a singleton type `a` inserted into a list `[a]`. The lisp example does not infer this intent. As a result, presuming the data to be inserted is likewise of type `[a]` (which we are tacitly inferring here to be String into String insertion), a solution is:

```
insertAt x xs n = take (n-1) xs ++ [x] ++ drop (n-1) xs
```

This solution, like many others in this quiz presumes counting element positions starts at 1, perhaps causing needless confusion.

A solution using foldl and a closure, also assumes lists are 1 indexed:

```
insertAt :: a -> [a] -> Int -> [a]
insertAt el lst n = fst $ foldl helper ([],1) lst
where helper (acc,i) x = if i == n then (acc++[el,x],i+1) else (acc++[x],i+1)
```

The use of foldl impose the use of concatenation. With a foldr we can use (:) instead, which is faster (O(n) vs. O(n²)). The use of zip [1..] doesn't seem to had overhead compared to the same solution with the index stored in the accumulator.

```
insertAt :: a -> [a] -> Int -> [a]
insertAt elt lst pos = foldr concat' [] $ zip [1..] lst
where
concat' (i, x) xs
| i == pos = elt:x:xs
| otherwise = x:xs
```

Compared to the simple recursive definition, the fold version visit every elements of the list, whereas we could just stop after insertion of the element.