Starting from:
$30
Programming Languages Assignment 3
Programming Languages
Assignment 3
You will define several SML functions. Many will be very short because they will use other higher-order
functions. You may use functions in ML’s library; the problems point you toward the useful functions and
often require that you use them. The sample solution is about 120 lines, including the provided code, but
not including the challenge problem. This assignment is probably more difficult than Homework 2 even
though (perhaps because) many of the problems have 1-line answers.
Download hw3provided.sml from the course website.
1. Write a function only_capitals that takes a string list and returns a string list that has only
the strings in the argument that start with an uppercase letter. Assume all strings have at least 1
character. Use List.filter, Char.isUpper, and String.sub to make a 1-2 line solution.
2. Write a function longest_string1 that takes a string list and returns the longest string in the
list. If the list is empty, return "". In the case of a tie, return the string closest to the beginning of the
list. Use foldl, String.size, and no recursion (other than the implementation of foldl is recursive).
3. Write a function longest_string2 that is exactly like longest_string1 except in the case of ties
it returns the string closest to the end of the list. Your solution should be almost an exact copy of
longest_string1. Still use foldl and String.size.
4. Write functions longest_string_helper, longest_string3, and longest_string4 such that:
• longest_string3 has the same behavior as longest_string1 and longest_string4 has the
same behavior as longest_string2.
• longest_string_helper has type (int * int - bool) - string list - string
(notice the currying). This function will look a lot like longest_string1 and longest_string2
but is more general because it takes a function as an argument.
• If longest_string_helper is passed a function that behaves like (so it returns true exactly
when its first argument is stricly greater than its second), then the function returned has the same
behavior as longest_string1.
• longest_string3 and longest_string4 are defined with val-bindings and partial applications
of longest_string_helper.
5. Write a function longest_capitalized that takes a string list and returns the longest string in
the list that begins with an uppercase letter, or "" if there are no such strings. Assume all strings
have at least 1 character. Use a val-binding and the ML library’s o operator for composing functions.
Resolve ties like in problem 2.
6. Write a function rev_string that takes a string and returns the string that is the same characters in
reverse order. Use ML’s o operator, the library function rev for reversing lists, and two library functions
in the String module. (Browse the module documentation to find the most useful functions.)
The next two problems involve writing functions over lists that will be useful in later problems.
7. Write a function first_answer of type (’a - ’b option) - ’a list - ’b (notice the 2 arguments are curried). The first argument should be applied to elements of the second argument in order
until the first time it returns SOME v for some v and then v is the result of the call to first_answer.
If the first argument returns NONE for all list elements, then first_answer should raise the exception
NoAnswer. Hints: Sample solution is 5 lines and does nothing fancy.
1
8. Write a function all_answers of type (’a - ’b list option) - ’a list - ’b list option
(notice the 2 arguments are curried). The first argument should be applied to elements of the second
argument. If it returns NONE for any element, then the result for all_answers is NONE. Else the
calls to the first argument will have produced SOME lst1, SOME lst2, ... SOME lstn and the result of
all_answers is SOME lst where lst is lst1, lst2, ..., lstn appended together (order doesn’t matter).
Hints: The sample solution is 8 lines. It uses a helper function with an accumulator and uses @. Note
all_answers f [] should evaluate to SOME [].
The remaining problems use these type definitions, which are inspired by the type definitions an ML implementation would use to implement pattern matching:
datatype pattern = Wildcard | Variable of string | UnitP | ConstP of int
| TupleP of pattern list | ConstructorP of string * pattern
datatype valu = Const of int | Unit | Tuple of valu list | Constructor of string * valu
Given valu v and pattern p, either p matches v or not. If it does, the match produces a list of string * valu
pairs; order in the list does not matter. The rules for matching should be unsurprising:
• Wildcard matches everything and produces the empty list of bindings.
• Variable s matches any value v and produces the one-element list holding (s,v).
• UnitP matches only Unit and produces the empty list of bindings.
• ConstP 17 matches only Const 17 and produces the empty list of bindings (and similarly for other
integers).
• TupleP ps matches a value of the form Tuple vs if ps and vs have the same length and for all i, the
i
th element of ps matches the i
th element of vs. The list of bindings produced is all the lists from the
nested pattern matches appended together.
• ConstructorP(s1,p) matches Constructor(s2,v) if s1 and s2 are the same string (you can compare
them with =) and p matches v. The list of bindings produced is the list from the nested pattern match.
We call the strings s1 and s2 the constructor name.
• Nothing else matches.
9. (This problem uses the pattern datatype but is not really about pattern-matching.) A function g has
been provided to you.
(a) Use g to define a function count_wildcards that takes a pattern and returns how many Wildcard
patterns it contains.
(b) Use g to define a function count_wild_and_variable_lengths that takes a pattern and returns
the number of Wildcard patterns it contains plus the sum of the string lengths of all the variables
in the variable patterns it contains. (Use String.size. We care only about variable names; the
constructor names are not relevant.)
(c) Use g to define a function count_some_var that takes a string and a pattern (as a pair) and
returns the number of times the string appears as a variable in the pattern. We care only about
variable names; the constructor names are not relevant.
2
10. Write a function check_pat that takes a pattern and returns true if and only if all the variables
appearing in the pattern are distinct from each other (i.e., use different strings). The constructor
names are not relevant. Hints: The sample solution uses two helper functions. The first takes a
pattern and returns a list of all the strings it uses for variables. Using foldl with a function that uses
@ is useful in one case. The second takes a list of strings and decides if it has repeats. List.exists may
be useful. Sample solution is 15 lines. These are hints: We are not requiring foldl and List.exists
here, but they make it easier.
11. Write a function match that takes a valu * pattern and returns a (string * valu) list option,
namely NONE if the pattern does not match and SOME lst where lst is the list of bindings if it does.
Note that if the value matches but the pattern has no patterns of the form Variable s, then the result
is SOME []. Hints: Sample solution has one case expression with 7 branches. The branch for tuples
uses all_answers and ListPair.zip. Sample solution is 13 lines. Remember to look above for the
rules for what patterns match what values, and what bindings they produce. These are hints: We are
not requiring all_answers and ListPair.zip here, but they make it easier.
12. Write a function first_match that takes a value and a list of patterns and returns a
(string * valu) list option, namely NONE if no pattern in the list matches or SOME lst where
lst is the list of bindings for the first pattern in the list that matches. Use first_answer and a
handle-expression. Hints: Sample solution is 3 lines.
(Challenge Problem) Write a function typecheck_patterns that “type-checks” a pattern list. Types
for our made-up pattern language are defined by:
datatype typ = Anything (* any type of value is okay *)
| UnitT (* type for Unit *)
| IntT (* type for integers *)
| TupleT of typ list (* tuple types *)
| Datatype of string (* some named datatype *)
typecheck_patterns should have type ((string * string * typ) list) * (pattern list) - typ option.
The first argument contains elements that look like ("foo","bar",IntT), which means constructor foo
makes a value of type Datatype "bar" given a value of type IntT. Assume list elements all have different
first fields (the constructor name), but there are probably elements with the same second field (the datatype
name). Under the assumptions this list provides, you “type-check” the pattern list to see if there exists
some typ (call it t) that all the patterns in the list can have. If so, return SOME t, else return NONE.
You must return the “most lenient” type that all the patterns can have. For example, given patterns
TupleP[Variable("x"),Variable("y")] and TupleP[Wildcard,Wildcard], return TupleT[Anything,Anything]
even though they could both have type TupleT[IntT,IntT]. As another example, if the only patterns
are TupleP[Wildcard,Wildcard] and TupleP[Wildcard,TupleP[Wildcard,Wildcard]], you must return
TupleT[Anything,TupleT[Anything,Anything]].
Type Summary: Evaluating a correct homework solution should generate these bindings, in addition to
the bindings for datatype and exception definitions:
val g = fn : (unit - int) - (string - int) - pattern - int
val only_capitals = fn : string list - string list
val longest_string1 = fn : string list - string
val longest_string2 = fn : string list - string
3
val longest_string_helper = fn : (int * int - bool) - string list - string
val longest_string3 = fn : string list - string
val longest_string4 = fn : string list - string
val longest_capitalized = fn : string list - string
val rev_string = fn : string - string
val first_answer = fn : (’a - ’b option) - ’a list - ’b
val all_answers = fn : (’a - ’b list option) - ’a list - ’b list option
val count_wildcards = fn : pattern - int
val count_wild_and_variable_lengths = fn : pattern - int
val count_some_var = fn : string * pattern - int
val check_pat = fn : pattern - bool
val match = fn : valu * pattern - (string * valu) list option
val first_match = fn : valu - pattern list - (string * valu) list option
Of course, generating these bindings does not guarantee that your solutions are correct. Test your functions:
Put your testing code in a second file. We will not grade the testing file, nor will you turn it in, but surely
you want to run your functions and record your test inputs in a file.
Assessment: We will automatically test your functions on a variety of inputs, including edge cases. We
will also ask peers to evaluate your code for simplicity, conciseness, elegance, and good formatting including
indentation and line breaks. Do not use SML’s mutable references or arrays.
Turn-in Instructions
First, follow the instructions on the course website to submit your solution file (not your testing file) for autograding. Do not proceed to the peer-assessment submission until you receive a high-enough grade from the
auto-grader: Doing peer assessment requires instructions that include a sample solution, so these instructions
will be “locked” until you receive high-enough auto-grader score. Then submit your same solution file again
for peer assessment and follow the peer-assessment instructions.
4
Assignment 3
You will define several SML functions. Many will be very short because they will use other higher-order
functions. You may use functions in ML’s library; the problems point you toward the useful functions and
often require that you use them. The sample solution is about 120 lines, including the provided code, but
not including the challenge problem. This assignment is probably more difficult than Homework 2 even
though (perhaps because) many of the problems have 1-line answers.
Download hw3provided.sml from the course website.
1. Write a function only_capitals that takes a string list and returns a string list that has only
the strings in the argument that start with an uppercase letter. Assume all strings have at least 1
character. Use List.filter, Char.isUpper, and String.sub to make a 1-2 line solution.
2. Write a function longest_string1 that takes a string list and returns the longest string in the
list. If the list is empty, return "". In the case of a tie, return the string closest to the beginning of the
list. Use foldl, String.size, and no recursion (other than the implementation of foldl is recursive).
3. Write a function longest_string2 that is exactly like longest_string1 except in the case of ties
it returns the string closest to the end of the list. Your solution should be almost an exact copy of
longest_string1. Still use foldl and String.size.
4. Write functions longest_string_helper, longest_string3, and longest_string4 such that:
• longest_string3 has the same behavior as longest_string1 and longest_string4 has the
same behavior as longest_string2.
• longest_string_helper has type (int * int - bool) - string list - string
(notice the currying). This function will look a lot like longest_string1 and longest_string2
but is more general because it takes a function as an argument.
• If longest_string_helper is passed a function that behaves like (so it returns true exactly
when its first argument is stricly greater than its second), then the function returned has the same
behavior as longest_string1.
• longest_string3 and longest_string4 are defined with val-bindings and partial applications
of longest_string_helper.
5. Write a function longest_capitalized that takes a string list and returns the longest string in
the list that begins with an uppercase letter, or "" if there are no such strings. Assume all strings
have at least 1 character. Use a val-binding and the ML library’s o operator for composing functions.
Resolve ties like in problem 2.
6. Write a function rev_string that takes a string and returns the string that is the same characters in
reverse order. Use ML’s o operator, the library function rev for reversing lists, and two library functions
in the String module. (Browse the module documentation to find the most useful functions.)
The next two problems involve writing functions over lists that will be useful in later problems.
7. Write a function first_answer of type (’a - ’b option) - ’a list - ’b (notice the 2 arguments are curried). The first argument should be applied to elements of the second argument in order
until the first time it returns SOME v for some v and then v is the result of the call to first_answer.
If the first argument returns NONE for all list elements, then first_answer should raise the exception
NoAnswer. Hints: Sample solution is 5 lines and does nothing fancy.
1
8. Write a function all_answers of type (’a - ’b list option) - ’a list - ’b list option
(notice the 2 arguments are curried). The first argument should be applied to elements of the second
argument. If it returns NONE for any element, then the result for all_answers is NONE. Else the
calls to the first argument will have produced SOME lst1, SOME lst2, ... SOME lstn and the result of
all_answers is SOME lst where lst is lst1, lst2, ..., lstn appended together (order doesn’t matter).
Hints: The sample solution is 8 lines. It uses a helper function with an accumulator and uses @. Note
all_answers f [] should evaluate to SOME [].
The remaining problems use these type definitions, which are inspired by the type definitions an ML implementation would use to implement pattern matching:
datatype pattern = Wildcard | Variable of string | UnitP | ConstP of int
| TupleP of pattern list | ConstructorP of string * pattern
datatype valu = Const of int | Unit | Tuple of valu list | Constructor of string * valu
Given valu v and pattern p, either p matches v or not. If it does, the match produces a list of string * valu
pairs; order in the list does not matter. The rules for matching should be unsurprising:
• Wildcard matches everything and produces the empty list of bindings.
• Variable s matches any value v and produces the one-element list holding (s,v).
• UnitP matches only Unit and produces the empty list of bindings.
• ConstP 17 matches only Const 17 and produces the empty list of bindings (and similarly for other
integers).
• TupleP ps matches a value of the form Tuple vs if ps and vs have the same length and for all i, the
i
th element of ps matches the i
th element of vs. The list of bindings produced is all the lists from the
nested pattern matches appended together.
• ConstructorP(s1,p) matches Constructor(s2,v) if s1 and s2 are the same string (you can compare
them with =) and p matches v. The list of bindings produced is the list from the nested pattern match.
We call the strings s1 and s2 the constructor name.
• Nothing else matches.
9. (This problem uses the pattern datatype but is not really about pattern-matching.) A function g has
been provided to you.
(a) Use g to define a function count_wildcards that takes a pattern and returns how many Wildcard
patterns it contains.
(b) Use g to define a function count_wild_and_variable_lengths that takes a pattern and returns
the number of Wildcard patterns it contains plus the sum of the string lengths of all the variables
in the variable patterns it contains. (Use String.size. We care only about variable names; the
constructor names are not relevant.)
(c) Use g to define a function count_some_var that takes a string and a pattern (as a pair) and
returns the number of times the string appears as a variable in the pattern. We care only about
variable names; the constructor names are not relevant.
2
10. Write a function check_pat that takes a pattern and returns true if and only if all the variables
appearing in the pattern are distinct from each other (i.e., use different strings). The constructor
names are not relevant. Hints: The sample solution uses two helper functions. The first takes a
pattern and returns a list of all the strings it uses for variables. Using foldl with a function that uses
@ is useful in one case. The second takes a list of strings and decides if it has repeats. List.exists may
be useful. Sample solution is 15 lines. These are hints: We are not requiring foldl and List.exists
here, but they make it easier.
11. Write a function match that takes a valu * pattern and returns a (string * valu) list option,
namely NONE if the pattern does not match and SOME lst where lst is the list of bindings if it does.
Note that if the value matches but the pattern has no patterns of the form Variable s, then the result
is SOME []. Hints: Sample solution has one case expression with 7 branches. The branch for tuples
uses all_answers and ListPair.zip. Sample solution is 13 lines. Remember to look above for the
rules for what patterns match what values, and what bindings they produce. These are hints: We are
not requiring all_answers and ListPair.zip here, but they make it easier.
12. Write a function first_match that takes a value and a list of patterns and returns a
(string * valu) list option, namely NONE if no pattern in the list matches or SOME lst where
lst is the list of bindings for the first pattern in the list that matches. Use first_answer and a
handle-expression. Hints: Sample solution is 3 lines.
(Challenge Problem) Write a function typecheck_patterns that “type-checks” a pattern list. Types
for our made-up pattern language are defined by:
datatype typ = Anything (* any type of value is okay *)
| UnitT (* type for Unit *)
| IntT (* type for integers *)
| TupleT of typ list (* tuple types *)
| Datatype of string (* some named datatype *)
typecheck_patterns should have type ((string * string * typ) list) * (pattern list) - typ option.
The first argument contains elements that look like ("foo","bar",IntT), which means constructor foo
makes a value of type Datatype "bar" given a value of type IntT. Assume list elements all have different
first fields (the constructor name), but there are probably elements with the same second field (the datatype
name). Under the assumptions this list provides, you “type-check” the pattern list to see if there exists
some typ (call it t) that all the patterns in the list can have. If so, return SOME t, else return NONE.
You must return the “most lenient” type that all the patterns can have. For example, given patterns
TupleP[Variable("x"),Variable("y")] and TupleP[Wildcard,Wildcard], return TupleT[Anything,Anything]
even though they could both have type TupleT[IntT,IntT]. As another example, if the only patterns
are TupleP[Wildcard,Wildcard] and TupleP[Wildcard,TupleP[Wildcard,Wildcard]], you must return
TupleT[Anything,TupleT[Anything,Anything]].
Type Summary: Evaluating a correct homework solution should generate these bindings, in addition to
the bindings for datatype and exception definitions:
val g = fn : (unit - int) - (string - int) - pattern - int
val only_capitals = fn : string list - string list
val longest_string1 = fn : string list - string
val longest_string2 = fn : string list - string
3
val longest_string_helper = fn : (int * int - bool) - string list - string
val longest_string3 = fn : string list - string
val longest_string4 = fn : string list - string
val longest_capitalized = fn : string list - string
val rev_string = fn : string - string
val first_answer = fn : (’a - ’b option) - ’a list - ’b
val all_answers = fn : (’a - ’b list option) - ’a list - ’b list option
val count_wildcards = fn : pattern - int
val count_wild_and_variable_lengths = fn : pattern - int
val count_some_var = fn : string * pattern - int
val check_pat = fn : pattern - bool
val match = fn : valu * pattern - (string * valu) list option
val first_match = fn : valu - pattern list - (string * valu) list option
Of course, generating these bindings does not guarantee that your solutions are correct. Test your functions:
Put your testing code in a second file. We will not grade the testing file, nor will you turn it in, but surely
you want to run your functions and record your test inputs in a file.
Assessment: We will automatically test your functions on a variety of inputs, including edge cases. We
will also ask peers to evaluate your code for simplicity, conciseness, elegance, and good formatting including
indentation and line breaks. Do not use SML’s mutable references or arrays.
Turn-in Instructions
First, follow the instructions on the course website to submit your solution file (not your testing file) for autograding. Do not proceed to the peer-assessment submission until you receive a high-enough grade from the
auto-grader: Doing peer assessment requires instructions that include a sample solution, so these instructions
will be “locked” until you receive high-enough auto-grader score. Then submit your same solution file again
for peer assessment and follow the peer-assessment instructions.
4
1 file (120.9KB)
