Difference between revisions of "Case"

From HaskellWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Using functions: reshuffle some code lines, c/e)
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
== Question ==
  +
 
Can I have a <hask>case</hask> where the alternatives contain expressions?
 
Can I have a <hask>case</hask> where the alternatives contain expressions?
   
  +
== Answer ==
   
  +
There are several approaches to this problem.
You can make use of some [[syntactic sugar]] of Haskell, namely of [[guard]]s.
 
   
  +
=== Using functions ===
<haskell>
 
case () of _
 
| cond1 -> ex1
 
| cond2 -> ex2
 
| cond3 -> ex3
 
| otherwise -> exDefault
 
</haskell>
 
   
  +
==== select ====
Alternatively, one could simply factor out a function(/value) and use guards in the argument patterns.
 
   
Why sticking to syntactic sugar? We can do it nicely with a function implemented in Haskell:
+
We can do this nicely with a function implemented in Haskell:
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
 
select :: a -> [(Bool, a)] -> a
 
select :: a -> [(Bool, a)] -> a
 
select def = maybe def snd . List.find fst
 
select def = maybe def snd . List.find fst
 
-- = fromMaybe def . lookup True
 
  +
-- = maybe def id . lookup True
   
 
select exDefault
 
select exDefault
Line 25: Line 23:
 
(cond3, ex3)]
 
(cond3, ex3)]
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
  +
Unfortunately this function is not in the [[Prelude]].
  +
It is however in the [http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/utility-ht/0.0.1/doc/html/Data-Bool-HT.html#v%3Aselect utility-ht] package.
  +
  +
==== nested 'if' ====
   
 
Alternative implementations are
 
Alternative implementations are
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
select' def = fromMaybe def . lookup True
 
 
 
{- a purely functional implementation of if-then-else -}
 
{- a purely functional implementation of if-then-else -}
 
if' :: Bool -> a -> a -> a
 
if' :: Bool -> a -> a -> a
Line 39: Line 39:
 
The implementation of <hask>select''</hask> makes clear that <hask>select</hask> can be considered as nested <hask>if</hask>s.
 
The implementation of <hask>select''</hask> makes clear that <hask>select</hask> can be considered as nested <hask>if</hask>s.
 
The functional <hask>if'</hask> is also useful in connection with <hask>zipWith3</hask> since <hask>zipWith3 if'</hask> merges two lists according to a list of conditions.
 
The functional <hask>if'</hask> is also useful in connection with <hask>zipWith3</hask> since <hask>zipWith3 if'</hask> merges two lists according to a list of conditions.
  +
See [[if-then-else]].
   
  +
Alternatively you can unroll <hask>foldr</hask> and write
 
If you don't like the parentheses for the pairs, you can also define
 
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
  +
if' cond1 ex1 $
data SelectBranch a = (:->) {
 
 
if' cond2 ex2 $
condition :: Bool,
 
 
if' cond3 ex3 $
expression :: a
 
 
exDefault
}
 
 
select :: a -> [SelectBranch a] -> a
 
select def = maybe def expression . List.find condition
 
 
 
select exDefault
 
[cond1 :-> ex1,
 
cond2 :-> ex2,
 
cond3 :-> ex3]
 
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
   
  +
==== infix operator ====
It is also possible to define a ternary operator '?' like in C.
 
Because of partial application it will work nicely together with
 
'$' for the else cause.
 
   
  +
If you use <hask>if'</hask> in infix form,
  +
you may call it <hask>?</hask> like in C,
 
then because of partial application it will work nicely together with '$' for the else clause.
 
<haskell>
 
<haskell>
 
infixl 1 ?
 
infixl 1 ?
 
(?) :: Bool -> a -> a -> a
 
(?) :: Bool -> a -> a -> a
True ? v = const v
+
(?) = if'
False ? _ = id
 
   
 
cond1 ? ex1 $
 
cond1 ? ex1 $
 
cond2 ? ex2 $
 
cond2 ? ex2 $
cond3 ? ex3 $ exDefault
+
cond3 ? ex3 $
  +
exDefault
 
</haskell>
  +
  +
=== Using syntactic sugar ===
  +
  +
==== Guards ====
  +
 
You can make use of some [[syntactic sugar]] of Haskell, namely of [[guard]]s.
  +
 
<haskell>
 
case () of _
 
| cond1 -> ex1
 
| cond2 -> ex2
 
| cond3 -> ex3
 
| otherwise -> exDefault
  +
</haskell>
  +
 
Alternatively, one could simply factor out a function(/value) and use guards in the argument patterns.
  +
  +
==== List comprehensions ====
  +
  +
An alternative sugarful approach is to use [[list comprehension]]s.
  +
  +
<haskell>
  +
head $
 
[ ex1 | cond1 ] ++
  +
[ ex2 | cond2 ] ++
  +
[ ex3 | cond3 ] ++
  +
[ exDefault ]
 
</haskell>
 
</haskell>
   
  +
[[Category:FAQ]]
 
[[Category:Idioms]]
 
[[Category:Idioms]]

Revision as of 18:31, 15 March 2012

Question

Can I have a case where the alternatives contain expressions?

Answer

There are several approaches to this problem.

Using functions

select

We can do this nicely with a function implemented in Haskell:

select :: a -> [(Bool, a)] -> a
select def = maybe def snd . List.find fst
        -- = fromMaybe def . lookup True
        -- = maybe def id . lookup True

select exDefault
    [(cond1, ex1),
     (cond2, ex2),
     (cond3, ex3)]

Unfortunately this function is not in the Prelude. It is however in the utility-ht package.

nested 'if'

Alternative implementations are

{- a purely functional implementation of if-then-else -}
if' :: Bool -> a -> a -> a
if' True  x _ = x
if' False _ y = y

select'' = foldr (uncurry if')

The implementation of select'' makes clear that select can be considered as nested ifs. The functional if' is also useful in connection with zipWith3 since zipWith3 if' merges two lists according to a list of conditions. See if-then-else.

Alternatively you can unroll foldr and write

if' cond1 ex1 $
if' cond2 ex2 $
if' cond3 ex3 $
   exDefault

infix operator

If you use if' in infix form, you may call it ? like in C, then because of partial application it will work nicely together with '$' for the else clause.

infixl 1 ?
(?) :: Bool -> a -> a -> a
(?) = if'

cond1 ? ex1 $
cond2 ? ex2 $
cond3 ? ex3 $
   exDefault

Using syntactic sugar

Guards

You can make use of some syntactic sugar of Haskell, namely of guards.

case () of _
             | cond1     -> ex1
             | cond2     -> ex2
             | cond3     -> ex3
             | otherwise -> exDefault

Alternatively, one could simply factor out a function(/value) and use guards in the argument patterns.

List comprehensions

An alternative sugarful approach is to use list comprehensions.

head $
  [ ex1 | cond1 ] ++
  [ ex2 | cond2 ] ++
  [ ex3 | cond3 ] ++
  [ exDefault ]