Currently, I'm trying to teach myself some F# by making an application that consists of a C# GUI layer and an F# business layer. In the GUI layer, the user will at some point have to make a choice by selecting a value that is part of a simple enum, e.g. selecting either of the following:
enum {One, Two, Three}
I have written a function to translate the enum value to an F# discriminated union
type MyValues =
| One
| Two
| Three
Now I have to translate back, and am already tired of the boilerplate code. Is there a generic way to translate my discriminated union to the corresponding enum, and vice versa?
Cheers,
You can also define the enum in F# and avoid doing conversions altogether:
type MyValues =
| One = 0
| Two = 1
| Three = 2
The = <num> bit tells the F# compiler that it should compile the type as a union. When using the type from C#, this will appear as a completely normal enum. The only danger is that someone from C# can call your code with (MyValues)4, which will compile, but it will cause incomplete pattern match exception if you are using match in F#.
Here are generic DU/enum converters.
open Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection
type Union<'U>() =
static member val Cases =
FSharpType.GetUnionCases(typeof<'U>)
|> Array.sortBy (fun case -> case.Tag)
|> Array.map (fun case -> FSharpValue.MakeUnion(case, [||]) :?> 'U)
let ofEnum e =
let i = LanguagePrimitives.EnumToValue e
Union.Cases.[i - 1]
let toEnum u =
let i = Union.Cases |> Array.findIndex ((=) u)
LanguagePrimitives.EnumOfValue (i + 1)
let du : MyValues = ofEnum ConsoleColor.DarkGreen
let enum : ConsoleColor = toEnum Three
It maps the DU tag to the enum underlying value.
Related
The ocaml manual chapter 8 "language extensions" describes "inline records" (8.17):
The arguments of sum-type constructors can now be defined using the same syntax as records. Mutable and polymorphic fields are allowed. GADT syntax is supported. Attributes can be specified on individual fields. [...]
I am looking for that with polymorphic variants:
# type a = B of {x:int; mutable y:int} ;;
type a = B of { x : int; mutable y : int; }
# type b = `A of {u:int; mutable v:int} ;;
Line 1, characters 9-10:
Error: Syntax error
But that does not work, so right now I use an explicit auxiliary record type instead...
As I understand it now, this both takes more memory and is somewhat slower.
Can I get this cool feature with polymorphic variants, too?
In the cases of ordinary constructors, the compiler can use the type definition to distinguish between:
type t = A of int * int | B
let f = function
| A (_,y) -> y
| B -> 0
and
type 'a t = A of 'a | B
let f = function
| A (_,y) -> y
| B -> 0
Thus, it is possible to optimize the first
A (_,y) -> y
into "access the second field of the block` while still compiling the second case
A (_,y) -> y
to "access the tuple in the first field of the block, and then access the second field of the block".
For polymorphic variants, it is not possible to rely on the non-existing type definition to distinguish between those two solutions. Consequently, their memory representation must be uniform. This means that polymorphic variants always take one argument, and it is not really useful to label each argument of the constructor when there is only one argument.
This is why inline records cannot be combined with polymorphic variants.
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.
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'm a beginner to F# and playing around with it, until I faced this problem. I searched for it but couldn't find anything. I want to mutate an object into another. I have Geolocation object With lots of properties, two of them the Latitude and Longitude. I want to create a new dynamic object but using a pipe or a select operator, with only that subset of properties
let customLocation = OtherPlace.Geolocation ....
how can I do this?
The best way to solve this sort of problem is to create a discriminated union with a single case. You could use a straight type alias, but you would lose a small amount of type safety. To define the type use:
type Loc = |LL of float * float
and then you can create instances with something like:
Something |> fun t -> LL(t.Latitude,t.Longitude)
or the simpler version:
LL(something.Latitude,something.Longitude)
let's say you have an array of OtherPlace.Geolocation
geoLocations : OtherPlace.Geolocation array
you can then, depending on your need :
use a tuple (which is just a special case of a record)
.
//of type (double * double) array
let g = geoLocations |> Array.map (fun x -> x.Latitude, x.Longitude)
create a record type (nb : a tuple is just a record with positional names)
.
type Position = {Latitude : double; Longitude : double}
//of type Position array
let g = geoLocations |> Array.map (fun x -> x.Latitude, x.Longitude)
For small local need, a tuple is better suited but can become unwieldy.
Records allow you to better structure the program
Union case should be used to differentiate between different things, that still represent some common concept.
For instance you could have the position to be expressed in different system
type GeoPosition = | LaTLong of double * double
| WGS84 of double * double
| ...
//of type GeoPosition array
let g = geoLocations |> Array.map (fun x -> LatLong (x.Latitude, x.Longitude))
PS : if you use F# 3.1 you have one additional sugar for naming union type fields as shown here
I'm trying to memoize a member function of a class, but every time the member is called (by another member) it makes a whole new cache and 'memoized' function.
member x.internal_dec_rates =
let cache = new Dictionary< Basis*(DateTime option), float*float>()
fun (basis:Basis) (tl:DateTime option) ->
match cache.TryGetValue((basis,tl)) with
| true, (sgl_mux, sgl_lps) -> (sgl_mux, sgl_lps)
| _ ->
let (sgl_mux, sgl_lps) =
(* Bunch of stuff *)
cache.Add((basis,tl),(sgl_mux,sgl_lps))
sgl_mux,sgl_lps
I'm using Listing 10.5 in "Real World Functional Programming" as a model. I've tried using a memoization higher-order function and that doesn't help. The above listing has the memoization built in directly.
The problem is, when I call it e.g.
member x.px (basis:Basis) (tl: DateTime option) =
let (q,l) = (x.internal_dec_rates basis tl)
let (q2,l2) = (x.internal_dec_rates basis tl)
(exp -q)*(1.-l)
execution goes to the 'let cache=...' line, defeating the whole point. I put in the (q2,l2) line in order to make sure it wasn't a scope problem, but it doesn't seem to be.
In fact I did a test using Petricek's code as a member function and that seems to have the same issue:
// Not a member function
let memo1 f =
let cache = new Dictionary<_,_>()
(fun x ->
match cache.TryGetValue(x) with
| true, v -> v
| _ -> let v = f x
cache.Add(x,v)
v
)
member x.factorial = memo1(fun y->
if (y<=0) then 1 else y*x.factorial(y-1))
Even the internal recursion of x.factorial seems to set up a new 'cache' for each level.
What am I doing wrong, and how can I make this work?
In response to your comment on Jack's answer, this doesn't have to become tedious. Given a memoize function:
let memoize f =
let cache = Dictionary()
fun x ->
match cache.TryGetValue(x) with
| true, v -> v
| _ ->
let v = f x
cache.Add(x, v)
v
Define each of your functions as let-bound values and return them from your methods:
type T() as x =
let internalDecRates = memoize <| fun (basis: Basis, tl: DateTime option) ->
(* compute result *)
Unchecked.defaultof<float * float>
let px = memoize <| fun (basis, tl) ->
let (q,l) = x.InternalDecRates(basis, tl)
let (q2,l2) = x.InternalDecRates(basis, tl)
(exp -q)*(1.-l)
member x.InternalDecRates = internalDecRates
member x.Px = px
The only "boilerplate" is the let binding and call to memoize.
EDIT: As kvb noted, in F# 3.0 auto-properties allow a more concise solution:
type T() as x =
member val InternalDecRates = memoize <| fun (basis: Basis, tl: DateTime option) ->
(* compute result *)
Unchecked.defaultof<float * float>
member val Px = memoize <| fun (basis, tl) ->
let (q,l) = x.InternalDecRates(basis, tl)
let (q2,l2) = x.InternalDecRates(basis, tl)
(exp -q)*(1.-l)
I see a lot of long answers here; the short answer is that
member x.P = code()
defines a property P which has a getter that runs code() every time P is accessed. You need to move the cache creation into the class's constructor, so that it will only run once.
As others already said, this cannot be done just by defining a single member in F# 2.0. You either need a separate field (let bound value) for a cache or for a local function that is memoized.
As mentioned by kvb, in F# 3.0, you can do this using member val which is a property that is initialized when the object is created (and has an automatically generated backing field where the result is stored). Here is a complete sample that demonstrates this (it will work in Visual Studio 2012):
open System.Collections.Generic
type Test() =
/// Property that is initialized when the object is created
/// and stores a function value 'int -> int'
member val Foo =
// Initialize cache and return a function value
let cache = Dictionary<int, int>()
fun arg ->
match cache.TryGetValue(arg) with
| true, res -> res
| false, _ ->
let res = arg * arg
printfn "calculating %d" arg
cache.Add(arg, res)
res
// Part of the property declaration that instructs
// the compiler to generate getter for the property
with get
The with get part of the declaration can be omitted, but I include it here to make the sample clearer (you can also use with get, set to get a mutable property). Now you can call test.Foo as a function and it caches the value as required
let t = Test()
t.Foo(10)
t.Foo(10)
The only problem with this approach is that t.Foo is actually compiled as a property that returns a function (instead of being compiled as a method). This is not a big problem when you use the class from F#, but it would be a problem if you were calling it from C# (because C# would see the member as a property of type FSharpFunc<int, int>, which is hard to use).
John is correct -- you need to move the cache dictionary into a private, let-bound member of the type.
Type members are compiled a bit differently than let-bound values in modules, which is the reason for the difference in behavior. If you copy/paste the body of your x.internal_dec_rates method and assign it to a let-bound value in a module, it should work correctly then, because the F# compiler will compile it as a closure which gets created once and then assigned to a static readonly field of the module.
A couple of other tips, for good measure:
Type member methods can use optional parameters -- so you can slightly simplify the method signature if you like.
You can create the cache key just once and reuse it (this also helps avoid mistakes).
You can simplify the (sgl_mux, sgl_lps) pattern-matching code by just assigning the tuple a name (e.g., value), since you're just returning the whole tuple anyway.
Here's my take on your code:
type FooBar () =
let cache = new Dictionary< Basis*(DateTime option), float*float>()
member x.internal_dec_rates (basis : Basis, ?tl : DateTime) =
let key = basis, tl
match cache.TryGetValue key with
| true, value -> value
| _ ->
// sgl_mux, sgl_lps
let value =
(* Bunch of stuff *)
cache.Add (key, value)
value
You need to move the dictionary outside the function call - like
let cache = new Dictionary< Basis*(DateTime option), float*float>()
member x.internal_dec_rates =
fun (basis:Basis) (tl:DateTime option) ->
match cache.TryGetValue((basis,tl)) with
| true, (sgl_mux, sgl_lps) -> (sgl_mux, sgl_lps)
| _ ->
let (sgl_mux, sgl_lps) =
(* Bunch of stuff *)
cache.Add((basis,tl),(sgl_mux,sgl_lps))
sgl_mux,sgl_lps
This way the cache persists across the function calls. Your memo1 has the same problem. In the original version, you create a new cache every time you call the function, this way we just have a single cache, which persists across function calls.
In addition to the other answers, note that in F# 3.0 you can use automatically implemented properties, which will behave as you want:
member val internal_dec_rates = ...
Here, the right hand side is evaluated only once, but everything is self-contained.