F# record: ref vs mutable field - data-structures

While refactoring my F# code, I found a record with a field of type bool ref:
type MyType =
{
Enabled : bool ref
// other, irrelevant fields here
}
I decided to try changing it to a mutable field instead
// Refactored version
type MyType =
{
mutable Enabled : bool
// other fields unchanged
}
Also, I applied all the changes required to make the code compile (i.e. changing := to <-, removing incr and decr functions, etc).
I noticed that after the changes some of the unit tests started to fail.
As the code is pretty large, I can't really see what exactly changed.
Is there a significant difference in implementation of the two that could change the behavior of my program?

Yes, there is a difference. Refs are first-class values, while mutable variables are a language construct.
Or, from a different perspective, you might say that ref cells are passed by reference, while mutable variables are passed by value.
Consider this:
type T = { mutable x : int }
type U = { y : int ref }
let t = { x = 5 }
let u = { y = ref 5 }
let mutable xx = t.x
xx <- 10
printfn "%d" t.x // Prints 5
let mutable yy = u.y
yy := 10
printfn "%d" !u.y // Prints 10
This happens because xx is a completely new mutable variable, unrelated to t.x, so that mutating xx has no effect on x.
But yy is a reference to the exact same ref cell as u.y, so that pushing a new value into that cell while referring to it via yy has the same effect as if referring to it via u.y.
If you "copy" a ref, the copy ends up pointing to the same ref, but if you copy a mutable variable, only its value gets copied.

You have the difference not because one is first-value, passed by reference/value or other things. It's because a ref is just a container (class) on its own.
The difference is more obvious when you implement a ref by yourself. You could do it like this:
type Reference<'a> = {
mutable Value: 'a
}
Now look at both definitions.
type MyTypeA = {
mutable Enabled: bool
}
type MyTypeB = {
Enabled: Reference<bool>
}
MyTypeA has a Enabled field that can be directly changed or with other word is mutable.
On the other-side you have MyTypeB that is theoretically immutable but has a Enabled that reference to a mutable class.
The Enabled from MyTypeB just reference to an object that is mutable like the millions of other classes in .NET. From the above type definitions, you can create objects like these.
let t = { MyTypeA.Enabled = true }
let u = { MyTypeB.Enabled = { Value = true }}
Creating the types makes it more obvious, that the first is a mutable field, and the second contains an object with a mutable field.
You find the implementation of ref in FSharp.Core/prim-types.fs it looks like this:
[<DebuggerDisplay("{contents}")>]
[<StructuralEquality; StructuralComparison>]
[<CompiledName("FSharpRef`1")>]
type Ref<'T> =
{
[<DebuggerBrowsable(DebuggerBrowsableState.Never)>]
mutable contents: 'T }
member x.Value
with get() = x.contents
and set v = x.contents <- v
and 'T ref = Ref<'T>
The ref keyword in F# is just the built-in way to create such a pre-defined mutable Reference object, instead that you create your own type for this. And it has some benefits that it works well whenever you need to pass byref, in or out values in .NET. So you should use ref. But you also can use a mutable for this. For example, both code examples do the same.
With a reference
let parsed =
let result = ref 0
match System.Int32.TryParse("1234", result) with
| true -> result.Value
| false -> result.Value
With a mutable
let parsed =
let mutable result = 0
match System.Int32.TryParse("1234", &result) with
| true -> result
| false -> result
In both examples you get a 1234 as an int parsed. But the first example will create a FSharpRef and pass it to Int32.TryParse while the second example creates a field or variable and passes it with out to Int32.TryParse

Related

Referencing / dereferencing a vector element in a for loop

In the code below, I want to retain number_list, after iterating over it, since the .into_iter() that for uses by default will consume. Thus, I am assuming that n: &i32 and I can get the value of n by dereferencing.
fn main() {
let number_list = vec![24, 34, 100, 65];
let mut largest = number_list[0];
for n in &number_list {
if *n > largest {
largest = *n;
}
}
println!("{}", largest);
}
It was revealed to me that instead of this, we can use &n as a 'pattern':
fn main() {
let number_list = vec![24, 34, 100, 65];
let mut largest = number_list[0];
for &n in &number_list {
if n > largest {
largest = n;
}
}
println!("{}", largest);
number_list;
}
My confusion (and bear in mind I haven't covered patterns) is that I would expect that since n: &i32, then &n: &&i32 rather than it resolving to the value (if a double ref is even possible). Why does this happen, and does the meaning of & differ depending on context?
It can help to think of a reference as a kind of container. For comparison, consider Option, where we can "unwrap" the value using pattern-matching, for example in an if let statement:
let n = 100;
let opt = Some(n);
if let Some(p) = opt {
// do something with p
}
We call Some and None constructors for Option, because they each produce a value of type Option. In the same way, you can think of & as a constructor for a reference. And the syntax is symmetric:
let n = 100;
let reference = &n;
if let &p = reference {
// do something with p
}
You can use this feature in any place where you are binding a value to a variable, which happens all over the place. For example:
if let, as above
match expressions:
match opt {
Some(1) => { ... },
Some(p) => { ... },
None => { ... },
}
match reference {
&1 => { ... },
&p => { ... },
}
In function arguments:
fn foo(&p: &i32) { ... }
Loops:
for &p in iter_of_i32_refs {
...
}
And probably more.
Note that the last two won't work for Option because they would panic if a None was found instead of a Some, but that can't happen with references because they only have one constructor, &.
does the meaning of & differ depending on context?
Hopefully, if you can interpret & as a constructor instead of an operator, then you'll see that its meaning doesn't change. It's a pretty cool feature of Rust that you can use constructors on the right hand side of an expression for creating values and on the left hand side for taking them apart (destructuring).
As apart from other languages (C++), &n in this case isn't a reference, but pattern matching, which means that this is expecting a reference.
The opposite of this would be ref n which would give you &&i32 as a type.
This is also the case for closures, e.g.
(0..).filter(|&idx| idx < 10)...
Please note, that this will move the variable, e.g. you cannot do this with types, that don't implement the Copy trait.
My confusion (and bear in mind I haven't covered patterns) is that I would expect that since n: &i32, then &n: &&i32 rather than it resolving to the value (if a double ref is even possible). Why does this happen, and does the meaning of & differ depending on context?
When you do pattern matching (for example when you write for &n in &number_list), you're not saying that n is an &i32, instead you are saying that &n (the pattern) is an &i32 (the expression) from which the compiler infers that n is an i32.
Similar things happen for all kinds of pattern, for example when pattern-matching in if let Some (x) = Some (42) { /* … */ } we are saying that Some (x) is Some (42), therefore x is 42.

How to create a global variable in ATS?

Basically, I am looking for something more or less equivalent to the following C code:
int theGlobalCount = 0;
int
theGlobalCount_get() { return theGlobalCount; }
void
theGlobalCount_set(int n) { theGlobalCount = n; return; }
You could use a neat trick: declare a mutable global variable, and make a ref (aka mutable reference) point to it (no GC is required to make this work!). Then, implement functions to provide access to the mutable reference.
local
var theGlobalCount_var : int = 0
val theGlobalCount = ref_make_viewptr (view# theGlobalCount_var | addr# theGlobalCount_var)
in // in of [local]
fun
theGlobalCount_get () : int = ref_get_elt (theGlobalCount)
fun
theGlobalCount_set (n: int): void = ref_set_elt (theGlobalCount, n)
end // end of [local]
Note that declarations inside local-in are visible only to code inside in-end. Therefore, neither theGlobalCount_var nor theGlobalCount are visible outside the scope of the local.
Full code: glot.io
You can also use the extvar feature to update an external global variable (declared in the target language). This is very useful if you compile ATS to a language that does not support explicit pointers (e.g., JavaScript). Here is a running example that makes use of this feature:
http://www.ats-lang.org/SERVER/MYCODE/Patsoptaas_serve.php?mycode_url=http://pastebin.com/raw/MsXhVE0A

Is it possible to use a member instead of let for an F# Event?

In this code, EventL uses a let binding and EventM (is an attempt to) use a member:
type MyType() =
let EventL = new Event<_>()
member this.EventM = new Event<_>()
member this.AddHandlers() =
Event.add (fun string1 -> printfn "EventL: %s" string1) EventL.Publish
Event.add (fun string1 -> printfn "EventM: %s" string1) this.EventM.Publish
member this.Trigger(message) =
EventL.Trigger(message)
this.EventM.Trigger(message)
let myMyType = MyType()
myMyType.AddHandlers()
myMyType.Trigger("Event arg.")
When run, this outputs only EventL: Event arg. while EventM's handler is not called.
Am I making a silly mistake or missing some piece of logic regarding members?
Your EventM is a computed property that gets evaluated every time it's called. This results in different Event objects being created throughout the rest of your code (2 times, once in AddHandlers, next in Trigger).
Checkout the member val syntax. That creates a backing field and still gives public accessibility.
The fixed version would be:
type MyType() =
member val EventM = new Event<_>()
If you don't have a primary constructor then you will need to use val instead and assign it in your constructor:
type MyType =
val EventM : Event<string>
new () = { EventM = new Event<_>() }
Note that in this case, you will have to give the type argument to Event.

ruby c extension how to manage garbage collection between 2 objects

I have a C extension in which I have a main class (class A for example) created with the classical:
Data_Wrap_Struct
rb_define_alloc_func
rb_define_private_method(mymodule, "initialize" ...)
This A class have an instance method that generate B object. Those B objects can only be generated from A objects and have C data wrapped that depends on the data wrapped in the A instance.
I the A object are collected by the garbage collector before a B object, this could result in a Seg Fault.
How can I tell the GC to not collect a A instance while some of his B objects are still remaining. I guess I have to use rb_gc_mark or something like that. Should I have to mark the A instance each time a B object is created ??
Edit : More specifics Informations
I am trying to write a Clang extension. With clang, you first create a CXIndex, from which you can get a CXTranslationUnit, from which you can get a CXDiagnostic and or a CXCursor and so on. here is a simple illustration:
Clangc::Index#new => Clangc::Index
Clangc::Index#create_translation_unit => Clangc::TranslationUnit
Clangc::TranslationUnit#diagnostic(index) => Clangc::Diagnostic
You can see some code here : https://github.com/cedlemo/ruby-clangc
Edit 2 : A solution
The stuff to build the "b" objects with a reference to the "a" object:
typedef struct B_t {
void * data;
VALUE instance_of_a;
} B_t;
static void
c_b_struct_free(B_t *s)
{
if(s)
{
if(s->data)
a_function_to_free_the_data(s->data);
ruby_xfree(s);
}
}
static void
c_b_mark(void *s)
{
B_t *b =(B_t *)s;
rb_gc_mark(b->an_instance_of_a);
}
VALUE
c_b_struct_alloc( VALUE klass)
{
B_t * ptr;
ptr = (B_t *) ruby_xmalloc(sizeof(B_t));
ptr->data = NULL;
ptr->an_instance_of_a = Qnil;
return Data_Wrap_Struct(klass, c_b_mark, c_b_struct_free, (void *) ptr);
}
The c function that is used to build a "b" object from an "a" object:
VALUE c_A_get_b_object( VALUE self, VALUE arg)
{
VALUE mModule = rb_const_get(rb_cObject, rb_intern("MainModule"));\
VALUE cKlass = rb_const_get(mModule, rb_intern("B"));
VALUE b_instance = rb_class_new_instance(0, NULL, cKlass);
B_t *b;
Data_Get_Struct(b_instance, B_t, b);
/*
transform ruby value arg to C value c_arg
*/
b->data = function_to_fill_the_data(c_arg);
b->instance_of_a = self;
return b_instance;
}
In the Init_mainModule function:
void Init_mainModule(void)
{
VALUE mModule = rb_define_module("MainModule");
/*some code ....*/
VALUE cKlass = rb_define_class_under(mModule, "B", rb_cObject);
rb_define_alloc_func(cKlass, c_b_struct_alloc);
}
Same usage of the rb_gc_mark can be found in mysql2/ext/mysql2/client.c ( rb_mysql_client_mark function) in the project https://github.com/brianmario/mysql2
In the mark function for your B class, you should mark the A Ruby object, telling the garbage collector not to garbage collect it.
The mark function can be specified as the second argument to Data_Wrap_Struct. You might need to modify your design somehow to expose a pointer to the A objects.
Another option is to let the A object be an instance variable of the B object. You should probably do this anyway so that Ruby code can obtain the A object from the B object. Doing this would have the side effect of making the garbage collector not collect the A before the B, but you should not be relying on this side effect because it would be possible for your Ruby code to accidentally mess up the instance variable and then cause a segmentation fault.
Edit: Another option is to use reference counting of the shared C data. Then when the last Ruby object that is using that shared data gets garbage collected, you would delete the shared data. This would involve finding a good, cross-platform, thread-safe way to do reference counting so it might not be trivial.

Class set method in Haskell using State-Monad

I've recently had a look at Haskell's Monad - State. I've been able to create functions that operate with this Monad, but I'm trying to encapsulate the behavior into a class, basically I'm trying to replicate in Haskell something like this:
class A {
public:
int x;
void setX(int newX) {
x = newX;
}
void getX() {
return x;
}
}
I would be very grateful if anyone can help with this. Thanks!
I would start off by noting that Haskell, to say the least, does not encourage traditional OO-style development; instead, it has features and characteristics that lend themselves well to the sort of 'pure functional' manipulation that you won't really find in many other languages; the short on this is that trying to 'bring over' concepts from other (traditional languages) can often be a very bad idea.
but I'm trying to encapsulate the behavior into a class
Hence, my first major question that comes to mind is why? Surely you must want to do something with this (traditional OO concept of a) class?
If an approximate answer to this question is: "I'd like to model some sort of data construct", then you'd be better off working with something like
data A = A { xval :: Int }
> let obj1 = A 5
> xval obj1
5
> let obj2 = obj1 { xval = 10 }
> xval obj2
10
Which demonstrates pure, immutable data structures, along with 'getter' functions and destructive updates (utilizing record syntax). This way, you'd do whatever work you need to do as some combination of functions mapping these 'data constructs' to new data constructs, as appropriate.
Now, if you absolutely needed some sort of model of State (and indeed, answering this question requires a bit of experience in knowing exactly what local versus global state is), only then would you delve into using the State Monad, with something like:
module StateGame where
import Control.Monad.State
-- Example use of State monad
-- Passes a string of dictionary {a,b,c}
-- Game is to produce a number from the string.
-- By default the game is off, a C toggles the
-- game on and off. A 'a' gives +1 and a b gives -1.
-- E.g
-- 'ab' = 0
-- 'ca' = 1
-- 'cabca' = 0
-- State = game is on or off & current score
-- = (Bool, Int)
type GameValue = Int
type GameState = (Bool, Int)
playGame :: String -> State GameState GameValue
playGame [] = do
(_, score) <- get
return score
playGame (x:xs) = do
(on, score) <- get
case x of
'a' | on -> put (on, score + 1)
'b' | on -> put (on, score - 1)
'c' -> put (not on, score)
_ -> put (on, score)
playGame xs
startState = (False, 0)
main = print $ evalState (playGame "abcaaacbbcabbab") startState
(shamelessly lifted from this tutorial). Note the use of the analogous 'pure immutable data structures' within the context of a state monad, in addition to 'put' and 'get' monadic functions, which facilitate access to the state contained within the State Monad.
Ultimately, I'd suggest you ask yourself: what is it that you really want to accomplish with this model of an (OO) class? Haskell is not your typical OO-language, and trying to map concepts over 1-to-1 will only frustrate you in the short (and possibly long) term. This should be a standard mantra, but I'd highly recommend learning from the book Real World Haskell, where the authors are able to delve into far more detailed 'motivation' for picking any one tool or abstraction over another. If you were adamant, you could model traditional OO constructs in Haskell, but I wouldn't suggest going about doing this - unless you have a really good reason for doing so.
It takes a bit of permuting to transform imperative code into a purely functional context.
A setter mutates an object. We're not allowed to do that directly in Haskell because of laziness and purity.
Perhaps, if we transcribe the State monad to another language it'll be more apparent. Your code is in C++, but because I at least want garbage collection I'll use java here.
Since Java never got around to defining anonymous functions, first, we'll define an interface for pure functions.
public interface Function<A,B> {
B apply(A a);
}
Then we can make up a pure immutable pair type.
public final class Pair<A,B> {
private final A a;
private final B b;
public Pair(A a, B b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
public A getFst() { return a; }
public B getSnd() { return b; }
public static <A,B> Pair<A,B> make(A a, B b) {
return new Pair<A,B>(a, b);
}
public String toString() {
return "(" + a + ", " + b + ")";
}
}
With those in hand, we can actually define the State monad:
public abstract class State<S,A> implements Function<S, Pair<A, S> > {
// pure takes a value a and yields a state action, that takes a state s, leaves it untouched, and returns your a paired with it.
public static <S,A> State<S,A> pure(final A a) {
return new State<S,A>() {
public Pair<A,S> apply(S s) {
return new Pair<A,S>(a, s);
}
};
}
// we can also read the state as a state action.
public static <S> State<S,S> get() {
return new State<S,S>() {
public Pair<S,S> apply(S, s) {
return new Pair<S,S>(s, s);
}
}
}
// we can compose state actions
public <B> State<S,B> bind(final Function<A, State<S,B>> f) {
return new State<S,B>() {
public Pair<B,S> apply(S s0) {
Pair<A,S> p = State.this.apply(s0);
return f.apply(p.getFst()).apply(p.getSnd());
}
};
}
// we can also read the state as a state action.
public static <S> State<S,S> put(final S newS) {
return new State<S,S>() {
public Pair<S,S> apply(S, s) {
return new Pair<S,S>(s, newS);
}
}
}
}
Now, there does exist a notion of a getter and a setter inside of the state monad. These are called lenses. The basic presentation in Java would look like:
public abstract class Lens[A,B] {
public abstract B get(A a);
public abstract A set(B b, A a);
// .. followed by a whole bunch of concrete methods.
}
The idea is that a lens provides access to a getter that knows how to extract a B from an A, and a setter that knows how to take a B and some old A, and replace part of the A, yielding a new A. It can't mutate the old one, but it can construct a new one with one of the fields replaced.
I gave a talk on these at a recent Boston Area Scala Enthusiasts meeting. You can watch the presentation here.
To come back into Haskell, rather than talk about things in an imperative setting. We can import
import Data.Lens.Lazy
from comonad-transformers or one of the other lens libraries mentioned here. That link provides the laws that must be satisfied to be a valid lens.
And then what you are looking for is some data type like:
data A = A { x_ :: Int }
with a lens
x :: Lens A Int
x = lens x_ (\b a -> a { x_ = b })
Now you can write code that looks like
postIncrement :: State A Int
postIncrement = do
old_x <- access x
x ~= (old_x + 1)
return old_x
using the combinators from Data.Lens.Lazy.
The other lens libraries mentioned above provide similar combinators.
First of all, I agree with Raeez that this probably the wrong way to go, unless you really know why! If you want to increase some value by 42 (say), why not write a function that does that for you?
It's quite a change from the traditional OO mindset where you have boxes with values in them and you take them out, manipulate them and put them back in. I would say that until you start noticing the pattern "Hey! I always take some value as an argument, and at the end return it slightly modified, tupled with some other value and all the plumbing is getting messy!" you don't really need the State monad. Part of the fun of (learning) Haskell is finding new ways to get around the stateful OO thinking!
That said, if you absolutely want a box with an x of type Int in it, you could try making your own get and put variants, something like this:
import Control.Monad.State
data Point = Point { x :: Int, y :: Int } deriving Show
getX :: State Point Int
getX = get >>= return . x
putX :: Int -> State Point ()
putX newVal = do
pt <- get
put (pt { x = newVal })
increaseX :: State Point ()
increaseX = do
x <- getX
putX (x + 1)
test :: State Point Int
test = do
x1 <- getX
increaseX
x2 <- getX
putX 7
x3 <- getX
return $ x1 + x2 + x3
Now, if you evaluate runState test (Point 2 9) in ghci, you'll get back (12,Point {x = 7, y = 9}) (since 12 = 2 + (2+1) + 7 and the x in the state gets set to 7 at the end). If you don't care about the returned point, you can use evalState and you'll get just the 12.
There's also more advanced things to do here like abstracting out Point with a typeclass in case you have multiple datastructures which have something which behaves like x but that's better left for another question, in my opinion!

Resources