I’m quite new at this and I have a problem. I want to read an input and store it at a list, for example:
2 -> number of trees that will be formed after this all
2 -> number of nodes of the first tree
1 -> node 1
2 -> node 2
1 -> number of nodes of the second tree
2 -> node 1
The code below doesn’t work as I wanted. That means for example, using the input before:
2 -> number of trees that will be formed after this all
2 -> number of nodes of the first tree
1 -> number of nodes of the second tree
2 -> node 1 of the second tree
1 -> node 1 of the first tree
2 -> node 2 of the first tree
Output that the program shows for the input above is:
1 2 2
But I expected to have this:
1 2 1
How I can fix this?
let rec inputs number_of_nodes =
match number_of_nodes with
| 0 -> []
| _ -> let a = read_int() in a :: (inputs (number_of_nodes - 1))
let rec fill_tree_values number_of_trees =
match number_of_trees with
| 0 -> []
| _ -> let number_of_nodes = read_int() in
(inputs number_of_nodes) :: fill_tree_values (number_of_trees - 1)
let number_of_trees = read_int()
let trees = fill_tree_values number_of_trees
let printlist l = List.iter (Printf.printf "%d ") l
let () = List.iter (fun ll -> printlist ll) trees
>Solution :
You wrote:
(inputs number_of_nodes) :: fill_tree_values (number_of_trees - 1)
but the evaluation order between both operands of ::
is unspecified. So it might very well be the case — and unless I’m mistaken, it is effectively the case — that they are evaluated right-to-left, i.e. fill_tree_values (number_of_trees - 1)
is performed before inputs number_of_nodes
. So you’re reading inputs in a broken order. You can test this right-to-left behavior:
let _ = print_int 1 :: print_int 2 :: print_int 3 :: []
(* with OCaml 4.12, this prints me "321" *)
You must enforce the evaluation order by rewriting your code as:
let trees = inputs number_of_nodes in
trees :: fill_tree_values (number_of_trees - 1)
Note: I believe the evaluation order around ::
might change in cutting-edge versions of OCaml, with the introduction of the “tail-call-modulo-constructor” optimisation. In any case, you should not rely on it.