So I have some json response content represented as string and I want to get its property names.
What I am doing
let properties = Newtonsoft.Json.Linq.JObject.Parse(responseContent).Properties()
let propertyNames, (jprop: JProperty) = properties.Select(jprop => jprop.Name);
According to this answer I needed to annotate the call to the extension method, however, I still get the error.
A unique overload for method 'Select' could not be determined based on type information prior to this program point. A type annotation may be needed. Candidates: (extension) Collections.Generic.IEnumerable.Select<'TSource,'TResult>(selector: Func<'TSource,'TResult>) : Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<'TResult>, (extension) Collections.Generic.IEnumerable.Select<'TSource,'TResult>(selector: Func<'TSource,int,'TResult>) : Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<'TResult>
Am I doing something wrong?
First, the syntax x => y you're trying to use is C# syntax for lambda expressions, not F# syntax. In F#, the correct syntax for lambda-expressions is fun x -> y.
Second, the syntax let a, b = c means "destructure the pair". For example:
let pair = (42, "foo")
let a, b = pair // Here, a = 42 and b = "foo"
You can provide a type annotation for one of the pair elements:
let a, (b: string) = pair
But this won't have any effect on pair the way you apparently expect it to work.
In order to provide type annotation for the argument of a lambda expression, just annotate the argument, what could be simpler?
fun (x: string) -> y
So, putting all of the above together, this is how your line should look:
let propertyNames = properties.Select(fun (jprop: JProperty) -> jprop.Name)
(also, note the absence of semicolon at the end. F# doesn't require semicolons)
If you have this level of difficulty with basic syntax, I suggest you read up on F# and work your way through a few examples before trying to implement something complex.
Related
In imperative programming, there is concise syntax sugar for changing part of an object, e.g. assigning to a field:
foo.bar = new_value
Or to an element of an array, or in some languages an array-like list:
a[3] = new_value
In functional programming, the idiom is not to mutate part of an existing object, but to create a new object with most of the same values, but a different value for that field or element.
At the semantic level, this brings about significant improvements in ease of understanding and composing code, albeit not without trade-offs.
I am asking here about the trade-offs at the syntax level. In general, creating a new object with most of the same values, but a different value for one field or element, is a much more heavyweight operation in terms of how it looks in your code.
Is there any functional programming language that provides syntax sugar to make that operation look more concise? Obviously you can write a function to do it, but imperative languages provide syntax sugar to make it more concise than calling a procedure; do any functional languages provide syntax sugar to make it more concise than calling a function? I could swear that I have seen syntax sugar for at least the object.field case, in some functional language, though I forget which one it was.
(Performance is out of scope here. In this context, I am talking only about what the code looks like and does, not how fast it does it.)
Haskell records have this functionality. You can define a record to be:
data Person = Person
{ name :: String
, age :: Int
}
And an instance:
johnSmith :: Person
johnSmith = Person
{ name = "John Smith"
, age = 24
}
And create an alternation:
johnDoe :: Person
johnDoe = johnSmith {name = "John Doe"}
-- Result:
-- johnDoe = Person
-- { name = "John Doe"
-- , age = 24
-- }
This syntax, however, is cumbersome when you have to update deeply nested records. We've got a library lens that solves this problem quite well.
However, Haskell lists do not provide an update syntax because updating on lists will have an O(n) cost - they are singly-linked lists.
If you want efficient update on list-like collections, you can use Arrays in the array package, or Vectors in the vector package. They both have the infix operator (//) for updating:
alteredVector = someVector // [(1, "some value")]
-- similar to `someVector[1] = "some value"`
it is not built-in, but I think infix notation is convenient enough!
One language with that kind of sugar is F#. It allows you to write
let myRecord3 = { myRecord2 with Y = 100; Z = 2 }
Scala also has sugar for updating a Map:
ms + (k -> v)
ms updated (k,v)
In a language such as Haskell, you would need to write this yourself. If you can express the update as a key-value pair, you might define
let structure' =
update structure key value
or
update structure (key, value)
which would let you use infix notation such as
structure `update` (key, value)
structure // (key, value)
As a proof of concept, here is one possible (inefficient) implementation, which also fails if your index is out of range:
module UpdateList (updateList, (//)) where
import Data.List (splitAt)
updateList :: [a] -> (Int,a) -> [a]
updateList xs (i,y) = let ( initial, (_:final) ) = splitAt i xs
in initial ++ (y:final)
infixl 6 // -- Same precedence as +
(//) :: [a] -> (Int,a) -> [a]
(//) = updateList
With this definition, ["a","b","c","d"] // (2,"C") returns ["a","b","C","d"]. And [1,2] // (2,3) throws a runtime exception, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
H. Rhen gave an example of Haskell record syntax that I did not know about, so I’ve removed the last part of my answer. See theirs instead.
Say I have some input word like "føøbær" and I want a hash table of letter frequencies s.t. f→1, ø→2 – how do I do this in OCaml?
The http://pleac.sourceforge.net/pleac_ocaml/strings.html examples only work on ASCII and https://ocaml-batteries-team.github.io/batteries-included/hdoc2/BatUTF8.html doesn't say how to actually create a BatUTF8.t from a string.
The BatUTF8 module you refer to defines its type t as string, thus there is no conversion needed: a BatUTF8.t is a string. Apparently, the module encourages you to validate your string before using other functions. I guess that a proper way of operating would be something like:
let s = "føøbær"
let () = BatUTF8.validate s
let () = BatUTF8.iter add_to_table s
Looking at the code of Batteries, I found this of_string_unsafe, so perhaps this is the way:
open Batteries
BatUTF8.iter (fun c -> …Hashtbl.add table c …) (BatUTF8.of_string_unsafe "føøbær")`
although, since it's termed "unsafe" (the doc's don't say why), maybe this is equivalent:
BatUTF8.iter (fun c -> …Hashtbl.add table c …) "føøbær"
At least it works for the example word here.
Camomile also seems to iterate through it correctly:
module C = CamomileLibraryDefault.Camomile
C.iter (fun c -> …Hashtbl.add table c …) "føøbær"
I don't know of the tradeoffs between Camomile and BatUTF8 here, though they end up storing different types (BatUChar vs C.Pervasives.UChar).
Consider this:
module Module1 =
type A() = class end
type B() = inherit A()
type C() = inherit A()
let f x = if x > 0 then new B() else new C()
The last line yields an error about type B being expected, but type C being found instead.
Ok, I can pretend to understand that: the compiler doesn't know which common base to infer in case there are many.
But guess what? Even when I specify the function type, it still doesn't work:
let f x : A = if x > 0 then new B() else new C()
Now this gives me two errors: "A expected, B found" and "A expected, C found".
WTF? Why can't it see that both B and C are implicitly convertible to A?
Yes, I do know that I could use upcast, like so:
let f x : A = if x > 0 then upcast new B() else upcast new C()
But guess what (again)? upcast only works in the presence of the explicit function type declaration!
In other words, this:
let f x = if x > 0 then upcast new B() else upcast new C()
still gives an error.
WTF?! Do I really have to add 50% of noise to my program just to help the compiler out?
What's with all that hype about F# code being clean and noiseless?
Somehow it feels like this cannot be true.
So the question is: am I missing something? How do I make this both compact and working?
Type inference and subtyping do not play well together, as Carsten's links discuss to some extent. It sounds like you are unhappy with F#'s approach and would prefer it if
if b then
e1
else
e2
were implicitly treated more like
if b then (e1 :> 'a) else (e2 :> 'a)
with the compiler additionally inferring 'a to be the least upper bound in the type hierarchy based on the types that would otherwise be inferred for e1 and e2.
It might be technically possible to do this, and I can't definitively speak to why F# doesn't work this way, but here's a guess: if if statements behaved this way then it would never be an error to have different types in the if and else branches, since they could always be unified by implicitly upcasting them to obj. However, in practice this is almost always a programmer error - you almost always want the types to be the same (e.g. if I return a character from one branch and a string from the other, I probably meant to return strings from both, not obj). By implicitly upcasting, you would merely make the presence of these errors harder to find.
Furthermore, it's relatively rare in F# to deal with complicated inheritance hierarchies, except perhaps when interoperating with other .NET code. As a result, this is a very minor limitation in practice. If you're looking for a syntactically shorter solution than upcast, you might try :> _, which will work as long as there is something to constrain the type (either an annotation on the overall result, or a specific cast on one of the branches).
there is a reason for all of this but to make it short: F# is more strong typed than C# so you have to tell where to cast to (see here):
let f x = if x > 0 then (new B() :> A) else (new C() :> A)
Here you can find further information: F# need for cast
And here is another great discussion on this.
A contrived example:
signature A =
sig
type t
val x: t
end
signature B =
sig
type t
val y: t
end
signature C = sig include A B end
Obviously, this will cause complaints that type t occurs twice in C. But is there any way to express that I want the two ts to be equated, ending up with:
signature C =
sig
type t
val x: t
val y: t
end
I tried all sorts of silly syntax like include B where type t = A.t, which unsurprisingly didn't work. Is there something I've forgotten to try?
Also, I know that this would be simply answered by checking the language's syntax for anything obvious (or a lack of), but I couldn't find a complete grammar anywhere on the internet.
(FWIW, the actual reason I'm trying to do this is Haskell-style monads and such, where a MonadPlus is just a mix of a Monad and an Alternative; at the moment I'm just repeating the contents of ALTERNATIVE in MONAD_PLUS, which strikes me as less than ideal.)
You're hosed. The best you can do is, as Jordan Lewis suggests, use substructures and a sharing clause. To include two different signatures that both define t is always an error. So mixing ALTERNATIVE and MONAD_PLUS in the way you would like just isn't going to work.
For a proposal of other things that are wrong with include and how to fix them, see An Expressive Language of Signatures.
You're looking for a sharing clause.
signature C =
sig
structure A1 : A
structure B1 : B
sharing type A1.t = B1.t
type t = A1.t
val z : t
end
This ensures that A1's t and B1's t are the same, and furthermore uses that same t as the type of a value z.
Standard ML '97's grammar is available here.
Where can I find a list of Scala's "magic" functions, such as apply, unapply, update, +=, etc.?
By magic-functions I mean functions which are used by some syntactic sugar of the compiler, for example
o.update(x,y) <=> o(x) = y
I googled for some combination of scala magic and synonyms of functions, but I didn't find anything.
I'm not interested with the usage of magic functions in the standard library, but in which magic functions exists.
As far as I know:
Getters/setters related:
apply
update
identifier_=
Pattern matching:
unapply
unapplySeq
For-comprehensions:
map
flatMap
filter
withFilter
foreach
Prefixed operators:
unary_+
unary_-
unary_!
unary_~
Beyond that, any implicit from A to B. Scala will also convert A <op>= B into A = A <op> B, if the former operator isn't defined, "op" is not alphanumeric, and <op>= isn't !=, ==, <= or >=.
And I don't believe there's any single place where all of Scala's syntactic sugars are listed.
In addition to update and apply, there are also a number of unary operators which (I believe) qualify as magical:
unary_+
unary_-
unary_!
unary_~
Add to that the regular infix/suffix operators (which can be almost anything) and you've got yourself the complete package.
You really should take a look at the Scala Language Specification. It is the only authoritative source on this stuff. It's not that hard to read (as long as you're comfortable with context-free grammars), and very easily searchable. The only thing it doesn't specify well is the XML support.
Sorry if it's not exactly answering your question, but my favorite WTF moment so far is # as assignment operator inside pattern match. Thanks to soft copy of "Programming in Scala" I found out what it was pretty quickly.
Using # we can bind any part of a pattern to a variable, and if the pattern match succeeds, the variable will capture the value of the sub-pattern. Here's the example from Programming in Scala (Section 15.2 - Variable Binding):
expr match {
case UnOp("abs", e # UnOp("abs", _)) => e
case _ =>
}
If the entire pattern match succeeds,
then the portion that matched the
UnOp("abs", _) part is made available
as variable e.
And here's what Programming Scala says about it.
That link no longer works. Here is one that does.
I'll also add _* for pattern matching on an arbitrary number of parameters like
case x: A(_*)
And operator associativity rule, from Odersky-Spoon-Venners book:
The associativity of an operator in Scala is determined by its last
character. As mentioned on <...>, any method that ends
in a ‘:’ character is invoked on its right operand, passing in the
left operand. Methods that end in any other character are the other
way around. They are invoked on their left operand, passing in the
right operand. So a * b yields a.*(b), but a ::: b yields b.:::(a).
Maybe we should also mention syntactic desugaring of for expressions which can be found here
And (of course!), alternative syntax for pairs
a -> b //converted to (a, b), where a and b are instances
(as correctly pointed out, this one is just an implicit conversion done through a library, so it's probably not eligible, but I find it's a common puzzler for newcomers)
I'd like to add that there is also a "magic" trait - scala.Dynamic:
A marker trait that enables dynamic invocations. Instances x of this trait allow method invocations x.meth(args) for arbitrary method names meth and argument lists args as well as field accesses x.field for arbitrary field names field.
If a call is not natively supported by x (i.e. if type checking fails), it is rewritten according to the following rules:
foo.method("blah") ~~> foo.applyDynamic("method")("blah")
foo.method(x = "blah") ~~> foo.applyDynamicNamed("method")(("x", "blah"))
foo.method(x = 1, 2) ~~> foo.applyDynamicNamed("method")(("x", 1), ("", 2))
foo.field ~~> foo.selectDynamic("field")
foo.varia = 10 ~~> foo.updateDynamic("varia")(10)
foo.arr(10) = 13 ~~> foo.selectDynamic("arr").update(10, 13)
foo.arr(10) ~~> foo.applyDynamic("arr")(10)
As of Scala 2.10, defining direct or indirect subclasses of this trait is only possible if the language feature dynamics is enabled.
So you can do stuff like
import scala.language.dynamics
object Dyn extends Dynamic {
def applyDynamic(name: String)(a1: Int, a2: String) {
println("Invoked " + name + " on (" + a1 + "," + a2 + ")");
}
}
Dyn.foo(3, "x");
Dyn.bar(3, "y");
They are defined in the Scala Language Specification.
As far as I know, there are just three "magic" functions as you mentioned.
Scalas Getter and Setter may also relate to your "magic":
scala> class Magic {
| private var x :Int = _
| override def toString = "Magic(%d)".format(x)
| def member = x
| def member_=(m :Int){ x = m }
| }
defined class Magic
scala> val m = new Magic
m: Magic = Magic(0)
scala> m.member
res14: Int = 0
scala> m.member = 100
scala> m
res15: Magic = Magic(100)
scala> m.member += 99
scala> m
res17: Magic = Magic(199)