Why is it that given:
module type ENTRY = sig type t end
module type LOG = functor (E : ENTRY) -> sig type t end
This is a valid implementation of LOG
module Log :LOG = functor (LogEntry : ENTRY) ->
struct type t = LogEntry.t list end
But this isn't
module Log (LogEntry: ENTRY) :LOG = struct
type t = LogEntry.t list end
Error: Signature mismatch:
Modules do not match: sig type t = LogEntry.t list end is not included in LOG
If I remove the sig label (:LOG) from both definitions of Log then they return the same type as they are just syntactic sugar[1]
[1] http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/oreilly-book/html/book-ora132.html
The error message is confusing but the reason the first example passes and the second fails is actually very simple. Compare:
type entry = int
type log = int -> string
let log : log = fun s -> string_of_int s
and
let log (s : entry) : log = string_of_int s
The error message in case of modules states that a module field is not included in a functor, because an un-applied functor does not have fields.
ETA: a functor logically cannot have fields: functions/functors are a "different sort of beasts" than datastructures / modules. -- This makes the error message confusing, it sounds like we are asked to introduce a field although it already is present in the result of the functor.
Let me clarify on lukstafi's answer.
LOG is the type of the functor, in the first case it is matched against Log implementation itself (which happens to be a functor indeed), but in the second case it is matched against the result of the functor application (which happens to be an ordinary module), hence the mismatch.
All in all it looks like syntax misunderstanding. Read carefully the section on module types in the manual.
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.
I'm reading lambdasoup/soup.ml at master · aantron/lambdasoup · GitHub but I don't understand the syntax.
and 'a node =
{mutable self : 'b. 'b node option;
mutable parent : general node option;
values : [ `Element of element_values
| `Text of string
| `Document of document_values ]}
I don't understand 'b. 'b node option, if it was * it would be a tuple but it's the first time I see with . Also why the back-tic in the branches (e.g. `Element)?
The type 'a . type is a type that is explicitly polymorphic in 'a. So your example 'b . 'b node option is explcitly a field whose contents are polymorphic. In other words, any value assigned to the field must itself be polymorphic.
Here's an example with list rather than node:
type a = { mutable self : 'b. 'b list option; }
# let x = { self = None };;
val x : a = {self = None}
# x.self <- None;;
- : unit = ()
# x.self <- Some [];;
- : unit = ()
# x.self <- Some [3];;
Error: This field value has type int list option
which is less general than 'b. 'b list option
#
You can assign None to x.self because None is polymorphic (its type is 'a option, which works for any option type). You can assign Some [] to x.self because it's also polymorphic (its type is 'a list option, which works for any optional list). But you can't assign Some [3] to x.self because its type is int list option; in other words, it's not polymorphic.
You can find a discussion of explicitly polymorphic types in Section 5.2.1 of the OCaml manual.
Variant values with leading backquote like `A or `B are so-called polymorphic variants. This is a different feature than the usual variant types. The basic idea is that a polymorphic variant represents a value that is not necessarily part of any predefined type. The associated types are essentially sets of these values. Polymorphic variants can also be constructors as in your example type; that is, they can take an associated value. Just as you can have Some "yes", your definition allows one to have `Text "yes".
You can find some discussion of polymorphic variants in Section 7.4 of the OCaml manual (search for "polymorphic variant types").
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
Why does the F# compiler complain "RequireQualifiedAccess ..." for the Open statement and give an error for the use of List.map in:
open Microsoft.FSharp.Collections.Map
type Gen =
static member Calc (data : int[]) = data.List.map (fun x -> x + 1)
First of all, your open statement has nothing to to with List.map, it would open the Map module, which you cannot open but have to access explicitly with Map., hence the error. The Map module contains functions similar to the ones in the List module, but works with maps (similar to dictionaries in C#).
The function List.map ist just called that: List.map. It is standalone and not a part of your data object, which, by the way, you have defined to be an array with (data : int[]).
So I think the code you meant to write is:
type Gen =
static member Calc (data : List<int>) = data |> List.map (fun x -> x + 1)
And also note that the compiler is smart enough to deduce that data is a list of ints, so you can remove the type annotation if you like.