Difference between revisions of "Case"

From HaskellWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(select in utility-ht)
Line 21: Line 21:
Unfortunately this function is not in the [[Prelude]].
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.
Alternative implementations are
Alternative implementations are

Revision as of 23:16, 7 January 2009


Can I have a case where the alternatives contain expressions?


There are several approaches to this problem.

Using functions

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

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

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

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

Alternative implementations are

select' def = fromMaybe def . lookup True

{- 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 $

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 $

Using syntactic sugar


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 ]