Your split function returns a pair, but in the last case you are using on the result of split That will be a type error, since works on lists, not pairs. There is also a type error because fst and snd are functions to pick out the elements of a pair, but you are using them is a strange way Furthermore, use pattern matching instead of using length. Also, the case where you test if the length is 2 is not needed, since the general case removes 2 elements which takes you down to the base case of the empty list You can also make your function more general by using a type variable a instead of Int in the type Edit: Added code split :: a -> (a, a) split = (, ) split x = (x, ) split (x:y:xys) = (x:xs, y:ys) where (xs, ys) = split xys.
Your split function returns a pair, but in the last case you are using ++ on the result of split. That will be a type error, since ++ works on lists, not pairs. There is also a type error because fst and snd are functions to pick out the elements of a pair, but you are using them is a strange way.
Furthermore, use pattern matching instead of using length. Also, the case where you test if the length is 2 is not needed, since the general case removes 2 elements which takes you down to the base case of the empty list. You can also make your function more general by using a type variable a instead of Int in the type.
Edit: Added code split :: a -> (a, a) split = (, ) split x = (x, ) split (x:y:xys) = (x:xs, y:ys) where (xs, ys) = split xys.
Another way to do this is with mutual recursion. It comes out very easy to read: split xs = (odds xs, evens xs) odds (x:xs) = x : evens xs odds xs = evens xs = odds (drop 1 xs).
Split :: a -> (a, a) split xs | null xs = (, ) | otherwise = (head xs : snd pair, fst pair) where pair = split (tail xs) But you should be using a fold: split :: a -> (a, a) split = foldr (\x (ys, zs) -> (x : zs, ys)) (, ).
That code doesn't do what he asked for, and it is also bad because it uses head and tail instead of pattern matching. – augustss Sep 14 at 6:28 Could you give an example of an input where my code gives the wrong result, please. (And are you referring to the recursion-and-guards version or the foldr version?) I agree that pattern matching would be better than head and tail, but the OP seems to want to use guards, which --- in this case --- precludes pattern matching (there is nothing left to guard after the pattern match).
– dave4420 Sep 14 at 7:06 1 Sorry, I take that back about it being wrong. Not enough coffee. :) – augustss Sep 14 at 7:31.
There is a mistake in the last clause. You have to get results from recursive call and then add first and second elements to them. Split :: Int -> (Int,Int) split xs | length(xs) == 0 = (,) | length(xs) == 1 = (xs!0 : ,) | length(xs) == 2 = (xs!0 : , xs!1 : ) | otherwise = let (fst, snd) = split(drop 2 xs) in (xs!0 : fst, xs!1 : snd).
This is still a horrible way to write this function. – augustss Sep 14 at 3:52 Yes, you are absolutely right. But I'm trying to follow question 'to accomplish this recursively(with guards) and only using the single argument xs' – bravit Sep 14 at 3:55 You can still do that and get O(n) complexity instead of O(n^2).
– augustss Sep 14 at 4:32.
In case you are looking for some alternate way to do this, below is one such implementation: split xs = let (a,b) = partition (odd . Snd) (zip xs 1..) in ( (map fst a), (map fst b)).
Two alternative versions: split = conv . Map (map snd) . GroupWith (even.
Fst) . Zip 0.. where conv xs,ys = (xs,ys) split xs = (ti even xs, ti odd xs) where ti f = map snd . Filter (f.
Fst) . Zip 0..
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.