I've created a type for lazy binary tree:
type 'a lBT = LEmpty | LNode of 'a * (unit -> 'a lBT) * (unit -> 'a lBT);;
and wanted to create an instance of it:
let exlBST = LNode(3, function() -> LEmpty, function() -> LEmpty);;
but I received this error:
Error: The constructor LNode expects 3 argument(s),
but is applied here to 2 argument(s)
Can you tell me what's going on? Isn't unit considered as an argument?
The argument to LNode is not parsed as you expect, a triple with two functions, but as a pair where the the second item is a function returning another pair. Use parentheses around at least the middle function, but preferably both for consistency, to make your intention explicit:
let exlBST = LNode (3, (function () -> LEmpty), (function () -> LEmpty));;
There are unfortunately a few of these weird parsing edge cases/ambiguities with OCaml's syntax. You'll learn to deal with it in time, but a good rule of thumb is: If in doubt, use parentheses (or begin/end when appropriate)
Related
Look at the following snippets:
if a
return
if a b
return
if (a b)
return
if a(b)
return
if a((b) -> c)
return
if (a (b) -> c)
return
if a (b) -> c
return
The last one won't compile and it will produce a misleading error message, unexpected if.
I would expect it to produce the same output as the previous two.
Why is it not allowed?
In the last example there is an ambiguity whether the return is part of the function, or of the if statement. If it's interpreted as part of the function, then it would be a syntax error as there is no body for the if statement.
if a (b) -> c
return
Could be interpreted as you expected:
if (a (b) -> c)
return
Or the indentation of the return is understood to be a continuation of the anonymous function:
if (a (b) -> c
return)
In this case it gives an error as there is no body to go with the if statement.
I'm not certain, but I assume it chooses to place the return inside the function as this is the closest context, and it hasn't been explicitly closed (eg. with parenthesis).
As an alternative, It's safe enough to use the parenthesis as you have, as it will fail with a compile error rather than giving you unexpected behaviour that would be dificult to debug.
If all you are doing is returning inside the if statement, you can use a trailing if:
return if a (b) -> c
Or execute the function first, then use the result in the if statement to make it more
verbose:
isValid = a (b) -> c
return if isValid
I am trying to write a code that calculate the size of a list.
Here is what I've done:
let rec l = function
| [] -> 0
| t::q -> 1 + l q
print_int(l ([1;2;3;4]))
The problem is that it's saying me :
It is applied to too many arguments; maybe you forgot a `;'.
When I put the double semicolon ;; at the end of the definition of l it works well, yet I've read that ;; is not useful at all if you are not coding in the REPL, so here I don't see why it's giving me this error.
The following
print_int(l [1;2;3;4])
is a toplevel expression. Such expression needs to be preceded by ;;:
;; print_int(l [1;2;3;4])
Another option is to make this toplevel expression a binding with
let () = print_int(l [1;2;3;4])
When parsing the code the parser advances until it hits l q. At this point there could be more arguments that should get applied to the function l. So the parser keeps going and the next thing it finds is the value print_int. Another argument to l. Which gives you your error.
The parser has no way of knowing that you had finished the code for the function l. In the top level the special token ;; is used to tell the parser that the input is finished and it should evaluate the code now. After that it starts paring the remaining input again.
Now why doesn't compiled code also have the ';;' token?
Simply because its not needed. In compiled code the line print_int(l [1;2;3;4]) is not valid input. That would be a statement you want to execute and functional languages have no such thing. Instead print_int(l [1;2;3;4]) is an expression that returns a value, () in this case, and you have to tell the compiler what to do with that value. A let () = tells the compiler to match it against (). And the let ... also tells the compiler that the previous let rec l ... has finished. So no special ;; token is needed.
Or think of it this way: In the top level there is an implicit let _ = if your input doesn't start with let. That way you can just type in some expression and see what it evaluates to without having to type let _ = every time. The ';;' token still means "evaluate now" though and is still needed.
I'm learning F#. I want to know best practices for validating input parameters. In my naivety I had thought I could do something like this:
let foo = match bar with
| <test for valid> -> bar
| _ -> "invalid"
of course that doesn't work due to mismatching types. So I'd like to see the patterns experienced F# programmers use for this sort of thing. match? If/then/else?
Something else?
You are having problems because you are trying to bind a value to something that could be two possible types depending upon program flow - that is incompatible with static typing.
If I have some value foo, it cannot be, for example, a string OR an int depending upon program flow; it must resolve to exactly one type at compile time.
You can, however, use a discriminated union that can represent several different options within a single type.
Here is a summary of the approaches for doing just that.
Result Type / Either
F# 4.1, which is currently available via nuget, introduces the Result type. You may find this type referred to as Either in other languages.
It is defined like this:
[<Struct>]
type Result<'T,'TError> =
/// Represents an OK or a Successful result. The code succeeded with a value of 'T.
| Ok of ResultValue:'T
/// Represents an Error or a Failure. The code failed with a value of 'TError representing what went wrong.
| Error of ErrorValue:'TError
If you are pre-F# 4.1 (which is very likely). You can define this type yourself, although you must remove the [<Struct>] attribute.
You can then make a tryParseFloat function:
let tryParseFloat str =
match System.Double.TryParse str with
| true, f -> Ok f
| _ -> Error <| sprintf "Supplied string (%s) is not a valid float" str
You can determine success or failure:
match tryParseFloat "0.0001" with
|Ok v -> // handle success
|Error err -> // handle error
In my opinion, this is the preferred option, especially in F# 4.1+ where the type is built in. This is because it allows you to include information relating to how and why some activity failed.
Option Type / Maybe
The option type contains either Some 'T or simply None. The option type is used to indicate the presence or absence of a value, None fills a role similar to null in other languages, albeit far more safely.
You may find this type referred to as Maybe in other languages.
let tryParseFloat str =
match System.Double.TryParse str with
| true, f -> Some f
| _ -> None
You can determine success or failure:
match tryParseFloat "0.0001" with
|Some value -> // handle success
|None -> // handle error
Composition
In both cases, you can readily compose options or results using the associated map and bind functions in the Option and Result modules respectively:
Map:
val map: mapping:('T -> 'U) -> option:'T option -> 'U option
val map : mapping:('T -> 'U) -> result:Result<'T, 'TError> -> Result<'U, 'TError>
The map function lets you take an ordinary function from 'a -> 'b and makes it operate on results or options.
Use case: combine a result with a function that will always succeed and return a new result.
tryParseFloat "0.001" |> Result.map (fun x -> x + 1.0);;
val it : Result<float,string> = Ok 1.001
Bind:
val bind: binder:('T -> 'U option) -> option:'T option -> 'U option
val bind: binder:('T -> Result<'U, 'TError>) -> result:Result<'T, 'TError> -> Result<'U, 'TError>
The bind function lets you combine results or options with a function that takes an input and generates a result or option
Use case: combine a result with another function that may succeed or fail and return a new result.
Example:
let trySqrt x =
if x < 0.0 then Error "sqrt of negative number is imaginary"
else Ok (sqrt x)
tryParseFloat "0.001" |> Result.bind (fun x -> trySqrt x);;
val it : Result<float,string> = Ok 0.0316227766
tryParseFloat "-10.0" |> Result.bind (fun x -> trySqrt x);;
val it : Result<float,string> = Error "sqrt of negative number is imaginary"
tryParseFloat "Picard's Flute" |> Result.bind (fun x -> trySqrt x);;
val it : Result<float,string> =
Error "Supplied string (Picard's Flute) is not a valid float"
Notice that in both cases, we return a single result or option despite chaining multiple actions - that means that by following these patterns you need only check the result once, after all of your validation is complete.
This avoids a potential readability nightmare of nested if statements or match statements.
A good place to read more about this is the Railway Oriented Programming article that was mentioned to you previously.
Exceptions
Finally, you have the option of throwing exceptions as a way of preventing some value from validating. This is definitely not preferred if you expect it to occur but if the event is truly exceptional, this could be the best alternative.
The basic way of representing invalid states in F# is to use the option type, which has two possible values. None represents invalid state and Some(<v>) represents a valid value <v>.
So in your case, you could write something like:
let foo =
match bar with
| <test for valid> -> Some(bar)
| _ -> None
The match construct works well if <test for valid> is actual pattern (e.g. empty list or a specific invalid number or a null value), but if it is just a boolean expression, then it is probably better to write the condition using if:
let foo =
if <test for valid> bar then Some(bar)
else None
You could do something along this lines
type Bar =
| Bar of string
| Foo of int
let (|IsValidStr|_|) x = if x = Bar "bar" then Some x else None
let (|IsValidInt|_|) x = if x = Foo 0 then Some x else None
let foo (bar:Bar) =
match bar with
| IsValidStr x -> Some x
| IsValidInt x -> Some x
| _ -> None
That is you could use active patterns to check for the actual business rules and return an Option instance
Based on what the OP wrote in the comments:
You would define a type as in the post that Fyodor linked, that captures your two possible outcomes:
type Result<'TSuccess,'TFailure> =
| Success of 'TSuccess
| Failure of 'TFailure
Your validation code becomes:
let checkBool str =
match bool.TryParse str with
| true, b -> Success b
| _ -> Failure ("I can't parse this: " + str)
When using it, again use match:
let myInput = "NotABool"
match checkBool myInput with
| Success b -> printfn "I'm happy: %O" b
| Failure f -> printfn "Did not like because: %s" f
If you only would like to continue with valid bools, your code can only fail on invalid arguments, so you would do:
let myValidBool =
match checkBool myInput with
| Success b -> b
| Failure f -> failwithf "I did not like the args because: %s" f
I have code that does some parsing of files according to specified rules. The whole parsing takes place in a monad that is a stack of ReaderT/STTrans/ErrorT.
type RunningRule s a = ReaderT (STRef s LocalVarMap) (STT s (ErrorT String Identity)) a
Because it would be handy to run some IO in the code (e.g. to query external databases), I thought I would generalize the parsing, so that it could run both in Identity or IO base monad, depending on the functionality I would desire. This changed the signature to:
type RunningRule s m a = ReaderT (STRef s LocalVarMap) (STT s (ErrorT String m)) a
After changing the appropriate type signatures (and using some extensions to get around the types) I ran it again in the Identity monad and it was ~50% slower. Although essentially nothing changed, it is much slower. Is this normal behaviour? Is there some simple way how to make this faster? (e.g. combining the ErrorT and ReaderT (and possibly STT) stack into one monad transformer?)
To add a sample of code - it is a thing that based on a parsed input (given in C-like language) constructs a parser. The code looks like this:
compileRule :: forall m. (Monad m, Functor m) =>
-> [Data -> m (Either String Data)] -- For tying the knot
-> ParsedRule -- This is the rule we are compiling
-> Data -> m (Either String Data) -- The real parsing
compileRule compiled (ParsedRule name parsedlines) =
\input -> runRunningRule input $ do
sequence_ compiledlines
where
compiledlines = map compile parsedlines
compile (Expression expr) = compileEx expr >> return ()
compile (Assignment var expr) =
...
compileEx (Function "check" expr) = do
value <- expr
case value of
True -> return ()
False -> fail "Check failed"
where
code = compileEx expr
This is not so unusual, no. You should try using SPECIALIZE pragmas to specialize to Identity, and maybe IO too. Use -ddump-simpl and watch for warnings about rule left hand sides being too complicated. When specialization doesn't happen as it should, GHC ends up passing around typeclass dictionaries at runtime. This is inherently somewhat inefficient, but more importantly it prevents GHC from inlining class methods to enable further simplification.
What could be the possible function foo, which has a type
’a * ’a -> int
in ML. i.e. a function which has the following type of the output
This seems to be homework, so I give you a partial solution and some hints only. The type you want is a 'a * 'a -> int, so the skeleton of a suitable function could be something like this (I assume you are using Standard ML):
fun foo(x, y) = ???
The ??? needs to meet two requirements: it must contain an expression that forces x and y to have the same type, and it must return an integer. The latter shouldn't be hard. For the former, there are many possibilities in SML, e.g., putting them in the same list, or returning them from the branches of the same if or case or handle.