如何在F＃中编写高效的list / seq函数？ （mapFoldWhile）

Question

I was trying to write a generic mapFoldWhile function, which is just mapFold but requires the state to be an option and stops as soon as it encounters a None state.

I don't want to use mapFold because it will transform the entire list, but I want it to stop as soon as an invalid state (ie None ) is found.

This was myfirst attempt:

let mapFoldWhile (f : 'State option -> 'T -> 'Result * 'State option) (state : 'State option) (list : 'T list) =
  let rec mapRec f state list results =
    match list with 
    | [] -> (List.rev results, state)
    | item :: tail -> 
      let (result, newState) = f state item
      match newState with 
      | Some x -> mapRec f newState tail (result :: results)
      | None -> ([], None)
  mapRec f state list []

The List.rev irked me, since the point of the exercise was to exit early and constructing a new list ought to be even slower.

So I looked up what F#'s very own map does, which was:

let map f list = Microsoft.FSharp.Primitives.Basics.List.map f list

The ominous Microsoft.FSharp.Primitives.Basics.List.map can be found here and looks like this:

let map f x = 
    match x with
    | [] -> []
    | [h] -> [f h]
    | (h::t) -> 
        let cons = freshConsNoTail (f h)
        mapToFreshConsTail cons f t
        cons

The consNoTail stuff is also in this file:

// optimized mutation-based implementation. This code is only valid in fslib, where mutation of private
// tail cons cells is permitted in carefully written library code.
let inline setFreshConsTail cons t = cons.(::).1 <- t
let inline freshConsNoTail h = h :: (# "ldnull" : 'T list #)

So I guess it turns out that F#'s immutable lists are actually mutable because performance? I'm a bit worried about this, having used the prepend-then-reverse list approach as I thought it was the "way to go" in F#.

I'm not very experienced with F# or functional programming in general, so maybe (probably) the whole idea of creating a new mapFoldWhile function is the wrong thing to do, but then what am I to do instead?

I often find myself in situations where I need to "exit early" because a collection item is "invalid" and I know that I don't have to look at the rest. I'm using List.pick or Seq.takeWhile in some cases, but in other instances I need to do more ( mapFold ).

Is there an efficient solution to this kind of problem ( mapFoldWhile in particular and "exit early" in general) with functional programming concepts, or do I have to switch to an imperative solution / use a Collections.Generics.List ?

Answer 1

In most cases, using List.rev is a perfectly sufficient solution.

You are right that the F# core library uses mutation and other dirty hacks to squeeze some more performance out of the F# list operations, but I think the micro-optimizations done there are not particularly good example. F# list functions are used almost everywhere so it might be a good trade-off, but I would not follow it in most situations.

Running your function with the following:

let l = [ 1 .. 1000000 ]

#time 
mapFoldWhile (fun s v -> 0, s) (Some 1) l

I get ~240ms on the second line when I run the function without changes. When I just drop List.rev (so that it returns the data in the other order), I get around ~190ms. If you are really calling the function frequently enough that this matters, then you'd have to use mutation (actually, your own mutable list type), but I think that is rarely worth it.

For general "exit early" problems, you can often write the code as a composition of Seq.scan and Seq.takeWhile . For example, say you want to sum numbers from a sequence until you reach 1000. You can write:

input
|> Seq.scan (fun sum v -> v + sum) 0
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun sum -> sum < 1000)

Using Seq.scan generates a sequence of sums that is over the whole input, but since this is lazily generated, using Seq.takeWhile stops the computation as soon as the exit condition happens.