type alias Footballer =
{ name : String, age : Float, overall : Float, potential : Float }
type alias Point =
{ pointName : String, x : Float, y : Float }
pointName : Footballer -> Point
pointName x a b c=
Point x.a x.b x.c
I am trying to create points for a scatterplot and want to be able to provide the function with a Player and 3 columns I want to be able to provide variably.
I am struggling with elm, as I am trying to access fields of my List of Football players variably but I can not seem to find a way to do this without rewriting the function pointName for each Variation of Points I want to create.
Elm automatically generates polymorphic accessor functions for all the fields of the records used. (e.g. .age : { a | age : b } -> b) You can use these functions as arguments to pointName and apply them in the body of the function to extract the targeted field.
pointName :
r
-> (r -> String)
-> (r -> Float)
-> (r -> Float)
-> Point
pointName r a b c =
Point (a r) (b r) (c r)
player =
{ name = "Messi", age = 34, overall = 99, potential = 100 }
foo =
pointName player .name .age .potential
bar =
pointName player (.age >> String.fromFloat) .overall .potential
Related
Does anyone know why this function raises the syntax error? I haven't provided my written side functions, since they are probably not that relevant here, since it's revolving around proper syntax.
I tried deleting the brackets that raised the error (which I think.. should be there?), only to then raise another syntax error one line lower, at the begining of the row with the line "|".
type 'a grid = 'a Array.t Array.t
type problem = { initial_grid : int option grid }
type available = { loc : int * int; possible : int list }
type state = { problem : problem; current_grid : int option grid; available = available list }
let branch_state (state : state) : (state * state) option =
if prazni_kvadratki state.current_grid = [] then
None
else
let lst = prazni_kvadratki state.current_grid in
let loc = List.hd lst in
let st1_grid = copy_grid state.current_grid in
let st2_grid = copy_grid state.current_grid in
match razpolozljive state.current_grid loc with
| x :: xs -> (vstavi_vrednost st1_grid loc (Some x);
let st1 = {problem = state.problem; current_grid = st1_grid} in
match xs with
| [y] -> (vstavi_vrednost st2_grid loc (Some y);
let st2 = {
problem = state.problem;
current_grid = st2_grid
}) (* this is where it shows me a syntax error*)
| y :: ys -> let st2 = {
problem = state.problem;
current_grid = copy_grid state.current_grid;
available = {loc = loc; possible = xs}
})
Some (st1, st2)
On around the 5th last line or so you have let with no matching in. The let expression always must have an in.
The basic rule for nested match is that you should use parentheses or begin/end around the inner one:
match x with
| [] -> 0
| [_] ->
begin
match y with
| [] -> 1
| _ -> 2
end
| _ -> 3
Otherwise the final cases of the outer match look like they belong to the inner one. I don't think this is your problem here because you have no outer cases after the inner match.
Syntax issues
You have a few syntax issues.
type state = { problem : problem; current_grid : int option grid; available = available list }
You likely meant to have:
type state = { problem : problem; current_grid : int option grid; available : available list }
However, given how you construct values later in your program where you provide a value for the available field in one case but not in the other, you may want a variant type that allows your state type to be constructed with or without this value, with distinct behavior when not constructed with this value. This might look like:
type state =
| With_available of { problem : problem;
current_grid : int option grid;
available : available list }
| Without_available of { problem : problem;
current_grid : int option grid }
The other syntax issue is missing an in to go with a let which brings us to:
Scoping issues
There are clearly some miunderstandings here for you in regards to how scope works with let bindings in OCaml.
Aside from a definition at the topmost level of a program, all let bindings are local bindings. That is, they apply to a single expression that trails an in keyword.
Consider this toplevel session.
# let x = 5;;
val x : int = 5
# let y =
let x = 42 in
x + 3;;
val y : int = 45
# x;;
- : int = 5
#
Here the x bound with let x = 42 in x + 3 is only in scope for the duration of the expression x + 3. Once we're done with that expression, that binding for x is gone. In the outer scope, x is still bound to 5.
In both cases in your match you bind names st1 and st2, which would have to be local bindings, but then you try to use them in an outer scope, where they don't exist.
If you want st1 and st2, you'd need to bind them in a similar way to a and b in the below simple example.
# let (a, b) = match [1; 2; 3] with
| [x] -> (x, x)
| x :: y :: _ -> (x, y)
| _ -> (1, 1)
in
a + b;;
- : int = 3
#
Pattern-matching
Please also note that the pattern-matching you're shown is not exhaustive. It does not handle an empty list. If you consider it impossible that an empty list will be a result, you still have to either handle it anyway or use a different data structure than a list which can by definition be empty.
You've shown pattern-matching of the basic pattern:
match some_list with
| x :: xs ->
match xs with
| [y] -> ...
| y :: xs -> ...
We can actually match against the two possibilities you've show in one level of match.
match some_list with
| x :: [y] -> ...
| x :: y :: ys -> ...
If you still need to address y :: ys as xs in the second case, we can readily bind that name with the as keyword.
match some_list with
| x :: [y] -> ...
| x :: (y :: ys as xs) -> ...
I am trying to create module/interface (i dont exactly know how its called, i am new to the language) for basic operations on BST in OCaml. My goal is to have an implementation that lets me doing something like this:
T.create();;
T.push(2);;
T.push(3);;
T.push(5);;
in order to get a bst tree consisting of 2,3,5.
But at the moment to achieve this i have to write something like this:
let teeBst = T.push(2)(T.push(3)(T.push(5)(T.create())));;
So when I am checking/using my code I have to do it like this:
let tee2 = T.push(2)(T.push(3)(T.push(5)(T.create())));;
T.postorder(tee2);;
The output is fine:
# val tee2 : T.bt = <abstr>
# - : int list = [2; 3; 5]
But, as I said before, I would like to achieve this doing as below:
T.push(2);;
T.push(3);;
T.push(5);;
T.postorder();;
(I realise this requires some changes to my postorder function but the one I am currently using is a temporary one so I can check the tree I have atm )
Below is my implementation. If you see the solution, please let me know ;)
module type Tree =
sig
type bt
val create: unit -> bt
val push: int -> bt -> bt
val find: int -> bt -> bool
val preorder: bt -> int list
val postorder: bt -> int list
val inorder: bt -> int list
end;;
module T : Tree =
struct
type bt = E | B of bt * int * bt
let create () = E
let rec push x = function
| E -> B(E, x, E)
| B (l, y, r) when x<y -> B(push x l, y, r)
| B (l, y, r) when x>y -> B(l, y, push x r)
| xs -> xs;;
let rec find x = function
| E -> false
| B(l, y,_) when x< y -> find x l
| B(_,y,r) when x>y -> find x r
| _ -> true;;
let rec preorder = function
| B(l,v,r) -> v::(preorder r) # (preorder l)
| E -> [];;
let rec inorder = function
| B(l,v,r) ->(inorder r) # v::(inorder l)
| E -> []
let rec postorder = function
| B(l,v,r) -> (postorder r) # (postorder l) # [v]
| E -> []
end;;
It seems like you want modules to be classes, but I'd advise you to consider more idiomatic solutions. Have you considered using the pipe operator?
T.create()
|> T.push(2)
|> T.push(3)
|> T.push(5)
|> T.postorder;;
Or with local open (which makes more sense if you have a module with a longer name than just T of course) you can even do
T.(
create()
|> push(2)
|> push(3)
|> push(5)
|> postorder
);
What you're asking for would require introducing global mutable state, which isn't just "some changes" but an entirely different paradigm. And one that is generally frowned upon because it makes your code unpredictable and hard to debug since it relies on state that might change at any moment from anywhere.
Another possibility is to actually use classes, since OCaml has those too. Then you'd still have mutable state, but it would at least be contained.
I'm trying to write a functor that takes a pair of ordered things and produces another ordered thing (with ordering defined lexicographically).
However, I want the resulting "ordered type" to be abstract, rather than an OCaml tuple.
This is easy enough to do with an inline/anonymous signature.
(* orderedPairSetInlineSig.ml *)
module type ORDERED_TYPE = sig
type t
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
module MakeOrderedPairSet (X : ORDERED_TYPE) :
sig
type t
val get_fst : t -> X.t
val get_snd : t -> X.t
val make : X.t -> X.t -> t
val compare : t -> t -> int
end = struct
type t = X.t * X.t
let combine_comparisons fst snd =
if fst = 0 then snd else fst
let compare (x, y) (a, b) =
let cmp = X.compare x a in
let cmp' = X.compare y b in
combine_comparisons cmp cmp'
let get_fst ((x, y) : t) = x
let get_snd ((x, y) : t) = y
let make x y = (x, y)
end
I want to give my anonymous signature a name like ORDERED_PAIR_SET_TYPE and move it outside the definition of MakeOrderedPairSet, like so (warning: not syntactically valid) :
(* orderedPairSet.ml *)
module type ORDERED_TYPE = sig
type t
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
module type ORDERED_PAIR_SET_TYPE = sig
type t
type el
val get_fst : t -> el
val get_snd : t -> el
val make : el -> el -> t
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
module MakeOrderedPairSet (X : ORDERED_TYPE) :
(ORDERED_PAIR_SET_TYPE with type el = X.t) = struct
type t = X.t * X.t
let combine_comparisons fst snd =
if fst = 0 then snd else fst
let compare (x, y) (a, b) =
let cmp = X.compare x a in
let cmp' = X.compare y b in
combine_comparisons cmp cmp'
let get_fst ((x, y) : t) = x
let get_snd ((x, y) : t) = y
let make x y = (x, y)
end
with el being an abstract type in the signature that I'm trying to bind to X.t inside the body of MakeOrderedPairSet.
However, I can't figure out how to fit everything together.
(ORDERED_PAIR_SET_TYPE with type el = X.t) is the most obvious way I can think of to say "give me a signature that's just like this one, but with an abstract type replaced with a concrete one (or differently-abstract in this case)". However, it isn't syntactically valid in this case (because of the parentheses). Taking the parentheses off does not result in a valid "module-language-level expression" either; I left it on because I think it makes my intent more obvious.
So ... how do you use a named signature to restrict the visibility into a [module produced by a functor]/[parameterized module]?
If you don't want to add el to the exports of the module then there are two ways:
Use a substitution constraint:
ORDERED_PAIR_SET_TYPE with type el := X.t
That will remove the specification of el from the signature.
Use a parameterised signature. Unfortunately, that is not expressible directly in OCaml, but requires a bit of extra functor gymnastics around the definition of your signature:
module SET_TYPE (X : ORDERED_TYPE) =
struct
module type S =
sig
type t
val get_fst : t -> X.el
val get_snd : t -> X.el
val make : X.el -> X.el -> t
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
end
With that you can write:
module MakeOrderedPairSet (X : ORDERED_TYPE) : SET_TYPE(X).S = ...
I'm trying to create a functor that makes a polynomial ring out of a ring. My underlying type, Ring_elt, has the following signature:
module type Ring_elt = sig
type t
val add : t -> t -> t
val mul : t -> t -> t
val zer : t
val one : t
val neg : t -> t
end;;
My polynomial functor looks like:
module Make_Poly2(Underlying:Ring_elt) = struct
type t = Poly of Underlying.t list
let rec create lst =
match List.rev lst with
| Underlying.zer :: tl -> create List.rev tl
| _ -> Poly of lst
end;;
(so the 'create' function should take a list, remove the leading zeros, and then return the polynomial of the result). However, I get a syntax error and utop underlines the "zer" after "Underlying."
By comparison, the following code (for making integer polynomials) works:
module Make_int_poly = struct
type t = Poly of int list
let rec create lst =
match List.rev lst with
| 0 :: tl -> create (List.rev tl)
| _ -> Poly lst
end;;
Any idea what's going on?
An OCaml pattern is built from constants, data constructors, and new names bound by the pattern match. Underlying.zer isn't any of those things. But 0 is one of them.
Seems like you can just use an if to compare against Underlying.zer.
Jeffrey's answer is good but instead of correcting it with an if construction, what you should do is the following : use algebraic data types
Instead of writing
val zer : t
val one : t
You could write
module type Ring_elt = sig
type t = Zer | One | Num of t
val add : t -> t -> t
val mul : t -> t -> t
val neg : t -> t
end
module Make_int_poly = struct
type t = Poly of int list
let rec create lst =
match List.rev lst with
| Underlying.Zer :: tl -> create (List.rev tl)
| _ -> Poly lst
end
It's a much better way of doing it since you can easily pattern match on it and even add some constants to your type t without problems.
I'm trying to translate the Haskell core library's Arrows into F# (I think it's a good exercise to understanding Arrows and F# better, and I might be able to use them in a project I'm working on.) However, a direct translation isn't possible due to the difference in paradigms. Haskell uses type-classes to express this stuff, but I'm not sure what F# constructs best map the functionality of type-classes with the idioms of F#. I have a few thoughts, but figured it best to bring it up here and see what was considered to be the closest in functionality.
For the tl;dr crowd: How do I translate type-classes (a Haskell idiom) into F# idiomatic code?
For those accepting of my long explanation:
This code from the Haskell standard lib is an example of what I'm trying to translate:
class Category cat where
id :: cat a a
comp :: cat a b -> cat b c -> cat a c
class Category a => Arrow a where
arr :: (b -> c) -> a b c
first :: a b c -> a (b,d) (c,d)
instance Category (->) where
id f = f
instance Arrow (->) where
arr f = f
first f = f *** id
Attempt 1: Modules, Simple Types, Let Bindings
My first shot at this was to simply map things over directly using Modules for organization, like:
type Arrow<'a,'b> = Arrow of ('a -> 'b)
let arr f = Arrow f
let first f = //some code that does the first op
That works, but it loses out on polymorphism, since I don't implement Categories and can't easily implement more specialized Arrows.
Attempt 1a: Refining using Signatures and types
One way to correct some issues with Attempt 1 is to use a .fsi file to define the methods (so the types enforce easier) and to use some simple type tweaks to specialize.
type ListArrow<'a,'b> = Arrow<['a],['b]>
//or
type ListArrow<'a,'b> = LA of Arrow<['a],['b]>
But the fsi file can't be reused (to enforce the types of the let bound functions) for other implementations, and the type renaming/encapsulating stuff is tricky.
Attempt 2: Object models and interfaces
Rationalizing that F# is built to be OO also, maybe a type hierarchy is the right way to do this.
type IArrow<'a,'b> =
abstract member comp : IArrow<'b,'c> -> IArrow<'a,'c>
type Arrow<'a,'b>(func:'a->'b) =
interface IArrow<'a,'b> with
member this.comp = //fun code involving "Arrow (fun x-> workOn x) :> IArrow"
Aside from how much of a pain it can be to get what should be static methods (like comp and other operators) to act like instance methods, there's also the need to explicitly upcast the results. I'm also not sure that this methodology is still capturing the full expressiveness of type-class polymorphism. It also makes it hard to use things that MUST be static methods.
Attempt 2a: Refining using type extensions
So one more potential refinement is to declare the interfaces as bare as possible, then use extension methods to add functionality to all implementing types.
type IArrow<'a,'b> with
static member (&&&) f = //code to do the fanout operation
Ah, but this locks me into using one method for all types of IArrow. If I wanted a slightly different (&&&) for ListArrows, what can I do? I haven't tried this method yet, but I would guess I can shadow the (&&&), or at least provide a more specialized version, but I feel like I can't enforce the use of the correct variant.
Help me
So what am I supposed to do here? I feel like OO should be powerful enough to replace type-classes, but I can't seem to figure out how to make that happen in F#. Were any of my attempts close? Are any of them "as good as it gets" and that'll have to be good enough?
My brief answer is:
OO is not powerful enough to replace type classes.
The most straightforward translation is to pass a dictionary of operations, as in one typical typeclass implementation. That is if typeclass Foo defines three methods, then define a class/record type named Foo, and then change functions of
Foo a => yadda -> yadda -> yadda
to functions like
Foo -> yadda -> yadda -> yadda
and at each call site you know the concrete 'instance' to pass based on the type at the call-site.
Here's a short example of what I mean:
// typeclass
type Showable<'a> = { show : 'a -> unit; showPretty : 'a -> unit } //'
// instances
let IntShowable =
{ show = printfn "%d"; showPretty = (fun i -> printfn "pretty %d" i) }
let StringShowable =
{ show = printfn "%s"; showPretty = (fun s -> printfn "<<%s>>" s) }
// function using typeclass constraint
// Showable a => [a] -> ()
let ShowAllPretty (s:Showable<'a>) l = //'
l |> List.iter s.showPretty
// callsites
ShowAllPretty IntShowable [1;2;3]
ShowAllPretty StringShowable ["foo";"bar"]
See also
https://web.archive.org/web/20081017141728/http://blog.matthewdoig.com/?p=112
Here's the approach I use to simulate Typeclasses (from http://code.google.com/p/fsharp-typeclasses/ ).
In your case, for Arrows could be something like this:
let inline i2 (a:^a,b:^b ) =
((^a or ^b ) : (static member instance: ^a* ^b -> _) (a,b ))
let inline i3 (a:^a,b:^b,c:^c) =
((^a or ^b or ^c) : (static member instance: ^a* ^b* ^c -> _) (a,b,c))
type T = T with
static member inline instance (a:'a ) =
fun x -> i2(a , Unchecked.defaultof<'r>) x :'r
static member inline instance (a:'a, b:'b) =
fun x -> i3(a, b, Unchecked.defaultof<'r>) x :'r
type Return = Return with
static member instance (_Monad:Return, _:option<'a>) = fun x -> Some x
static member instance (_Monad:Return, _:list<'a> ) = fun x -> [x]
static member instance (_Monad:Return, _: 'r -> 'a ) = fun x _ -> x
let inline return' x = T.instance Return x
type Bind = Bind with
static member instance (_Monad:Bind, x:option<_>, _:option<'b>) = fun f ->
Option.bind f x
static member instance (_Monad:Bind, x:list<_> , _:list<'b> ) = fun f ->
List.collect f x
static member instance (_Monad:Bind, f:'r->'a, _:'r->'b) = fun k r -> k (f r) r
let inline (>>=) x (f:_->'R) : 'R = T.instance (Bind, x) f
let inline (>=>) f g x = f x >>= g
type Kleisli<'a, 'm> = Kleisli of ('a -> 'm)
let runKleisli (Kleisli f) = f
type Id = Id with
static member instance (_Category:Id, _: 'r -> 'r ) = fun () -> id
static member inline instance (_Category:Id, _:Kleisli<'a,'b>) = fun () ->
Kleisli return'
let inline id'() = T.instance Id ()
type Comp = Comp with
static member instance (_Category:Comp, f, _) = (<<) f
static member inline instance (_Category:Comp, Kleisli f, _) =
fun (Kleisli g) -> Kleisli (g >=> f)
let inline (<<<) f g = T.instance (Comp, f) g
let inline (>>>) g f = T.instance (Comp, f) g
type Arr = Arr with
static member instance (_Arrow:Arr, _: _ -> _) = fun (f:_->_) -> f
static member inline instance (_Arrow:Arr, _:Kleisli<_,_>) =
fun f -> Kleisli (return' <<< f)
let inline arr f = T.instance Arr f
type First = First with
static member instance (_Arrow:First, f, _: 'a -> 'b) =
fun () (x,y) -> (f x, y)
static member inline instance (_Arrow:First, Kleisli f, _:Kleisli<_,_>) =
fun () -> Kleisli (fun (b,d) -> f b >>= fun c -> return' (c,d))
let inline first f = T.instance (First, f) ()
let inline second f = let swap (x,y) = (y,x) in arr swap >>> first f >>> arr swap
let inline ( *** ) f g = first f >>> second g
let inline ( &&& ) f g = arr (fun b -> (b,b)) >>> f *** g
Usage:
> let f = Kleisli (fun y -> [y;y*2;y*3]) <<< Kleisli ( fun x -> [ x + 3 ; x * 2 ] ) ;;
val f : Kleisli<int,int list> = Kleisli <fun:f#4-14>
> runKleisli f <| 5 ;;
val it : int list = [8; 16; 24; 10; 20; 30]
> (arr (fun y -> [y;y*2;y*3])) 3 ;;
val it : int list = [3; 6; 9]
> let (x:option<_>) = runKleisli (arr (fun y -> [y;y*2;y*3])) 2 ;;
val x : int list option = Some [2; 4; 6]
> ( (*) 100) *** ((+) 9) <| (5,10) ;;
val it : int * int = (500, 19)
> ( (*) 100) &&& ((+) 9) <| 5 ;;
val it : int * int = (500, 14)
> let x:List<_> = (runKleisli (id'())) 5 ;;
val x : List<int> = [5]
Note: use id'() instead of id
Update: you need F# 3.0 to compile this code, otherwise here's the F# 2.0 version.
And here's a detailed explanation of this technique which is type-safe, extensible and as you can see works even with some Higher Kind Typeclasses.