Related
The OCaml manual, Chapter 2, says
a structure and is introduced by the struct…end construct, which contains an arbitrary sequence of definitions. The structure is usually given a name with the module binding.
Is there any use case for the creating a struct and not giving it a module name.
If not, then we always use
module Name =
struct
...
end
and so the struct keyword seems a bit redundant.
It's possible and even common (in my code at least) to use nameless structures. One example:
module MyStrSet =
Set.Make(struct type t = string let compare a b = compare b a end)
To expand slightly on Jeffrey's answer, an OCaml functor maps a module to another module. It doesn't care about the module's name.
Consider the following trivial example.
module type SIG =
sig
val x : int
end
module A (B : SIG) =
struct
let y = B.x * 2
end
I've defined a functor A which takes a module B that fulfills the module type SIG. Now, I could define a module Twenty_one that supplies an x value of 21, and then give that to the functor A to create module C.
module Twenty_one =
struct
let x = 21
end
module C = A (Twenty_one)
Or I could directly use an anonymous structure.
module C = A (struct let x = 21 end)
We don't even need to name SIG.
module A (B : sig val x : int end) =
struct
let y = B.x * 2
end
module C = A (struct let x = 21 end)
Strongly into opinion territory, but you may want to give these things names in your code, if it aids with reuse and expressivess.
E.g.
module Int =
struct
type t = int
let compare = compare
end
module Int_map = Map.Make (Int)
Vs.
module Int_map = Map.Make (struct type t = int let compare = compare end)
Another thing you can do with an anonymous structure, that's more relevant to recent (as of 4.08.0) OCaml, is the ability to use open with it, for a syntactically-cheap way to hide names in your namespace (until you write an interface file anyway):
open struct
type hidden_type = string
let hidden_name = 42
end
This feature is called generalized-open, and the relevant manual page for it is here.
I'm learning OCaml, and the docs and books I'm reading aren't very clear on some things.
In simple words, what are the differences between
-10
and
~-10
To me they seem the same. I've encountered other resources trying to explain the differences, but they seem to explain in terms that I'm not yet familiar with, as the only thing I know so far are variables.
In fact, - is a binary operator, so some expression can be ambigous : f 10 -20 is treated as (f 10) - 20. For example, let's imagine this dummy function:
let f x y = (x, y)
If I want produce the tuple (10, -20) I naïvely would write something like that f 10 -20 which leads me to the following error:
# f 10 -20;;
Error: This expression has type 'a -> int * 'a
but an expression was expected of type int
because the expression is evaluated as (f 10) - 20 (so a substract over a function!!) so you can write the expression like this: f 10 (-20), which is valid or f 10 ~-20 since ~- (and ~+ and ~-. ~+. for floats) are unary operators, the predecense is properly respected.
It is easier to start by looking at how user-defined unary (~-) operators work.
type quaternion = { r:float; i:float; j:float; k:float }
let zero = { r = 0.; i = 0.; j = 0.; k = 0. }
let i = { zero with i = 1. }
let (~-) q = { r = -.q.r; i = -.q.i; j = -. q.j; k = -. q.k }
In this situation, the unary operator - (and +) is a shorthand for ~- (and ~+) when the parsing is unambiguous. For example, defining -i with
let mi = -i
works because this - could not be the binary operator -.
Nevertheless, the binary operator has a higher priority than the unary - thus
let wrong = Fun.id -i
is read as
let wrong = (Fun.id) - (i)
In this context, I can either use the full form ~-
let ok' = Fun.id ~-i
or add some parenthesis
let ok'' = Fun.id (-i)
Going back to type with literals (e.g integers, or floats), for those types, the unary + and - symbol can be part of the literal itself (e.g -10) and not an operator. For instance redefining ~- and ~+ does not change the meaning of the integer literals in
let (~+) = ()
let (~-) = ()
let really = -10
let positively_real = +10
This can be "used" to create some quite obfuscated expression:
let (~+) r = { zero with r }
let (+) x y = { r = x.r +. y.r; i = x.i +. y.i; k = x.k +. x.k; j =x.k +. y.j }
let ( *. ) s q = { r = s *. q.r; i = s *. q.i; j = s *. q.j; k = s *. q.k }
let this_is_valid x = +x + +10. *. i
OCaml has two kinds of operators - prefix and infix. The prefix operators precede expressions and infix occur in between the two expressions, e.g., in !foo we have the prefix operator ! coming before the expression foo and in 2 + 3 we have the infix operator + between expressions 2 and 3.
Operators are like normal functions except that they have a different syntax for application (aka calling), whilst functions are applied to an arbitrary number of arguments using a simple syntax of juxtaposition, e.g., f x1 x2 x3 x41, operators can have only one (prefix) or two (infix) arguments. Prefix operators are very close to normal functions, cf., f x and !x, but they have higher precedence (bind tighter) than normal function application. Contrary, the infix operators, since they are put between two expressions, enable a more natural syntax, e.g., x + y vs. (+) x y, but have lower precedence (bind less tight) than normal function application. Moreover, they enable chaining several operators in a row, e.g., x + y + z is interpreted as (x + y) + z, which is much more readable than add (add (x y) z).
Operators in OCaml distinguished purely syntactically. It means that the kind of an operator is fully defined by the first character of that operator, not by a special compiler directive, like in some other languages (i.e., there is not infix + directive in OCaml). If an operator starts with the prefix-symbol sequence, e.g., !, ?#, ~%, it is considered as prefix and if it starts with an infix-symbol then it is, correspondingly, an infix operator.
The - and -. operators are treated specially and can appear both as prefix and infix. E.g., in 1 - -2 we have - occurring both in the infix and prefix positions. However, it is only possible to disambiguate between the infix and the prefix versions of the - (and -.) operators when they occur together with other operators (infix or prefix), but when we have a general expression, the - operator is treated as infix. E.g., max 0 -1 is interpreted as (max 0) - 1 (remember that operator has lower precedence than function application, therefore when they two appear with no parentheses then functions are applied first and operators after that). Another example, Some -1, which is interpreted as Some - 1, not as Some (-1). To disambiguate such code, you can use either the parentheses, e.g., max 0 (-1), or the prefix-only versions, e.g, Some ~-1 or max 0 ~-1.
As a matter of personal style, I actually prefer parentheses as it is usually hard to keep these rules in mind when you read the code.
1) Purists will say that functions in OCaml can have only one argument and f x1 x2 x3 x4 is just ((f x1) x2) x3) x4, which would be a totally correct statement, but a little bit irrelevant to the current discussion.
as the title states, when creating a table, when definining an variable + datatype like:
CREATE TABLE ExampleTable{
ID INTEGER,
NAME VARCHAR(200),
Integerandfloat
}
Question: You can define a variable as integer or as float etc. however, is there a datatype that can hold both values, integer as well as a float number ?
Some databases support variant data types that can have an arbitrary type. For instance, SQL Server has sql_variant.
Most databases also allow you to create your own data type (using create type). However, the power of that functionality depends on the database.
For the choice between a float and an integer, there isn't much choice. An 8-byte floating point representation covers all 4-byte integers, so you can just use a float. However, float is generally not very useful in relational databases. Fixed-point representations (numeric/decimal) are more common and might also do what you want.
Just store it using float.
Think in this way: you have two variables, one integer type (let's call it i) and another float type (let's call it f).
If you do:
i = 0.55
RESULT -> i = 0
But if you have:
f = 0.55
RESULT -> f = 0.55
In this way you can store in f also integer value:
f = 1
RESULT -> f = 1
Just started Haskell, it's said that everything in Haskell is "immutable" except IO package. So when I bind a name to something, it's always something immutable? Question, like below:
Prelude> let removeLower x=[c|c<-x, c `elem` ['A'..'Z']]
Prelude> removeLower "aseruiiUIUIdkf"
"UIUI"
So here:
1. “removeLower" is an immutable? Even it's a function object?
But I can still use "let" to assign something else to this name.
2. inside the function "c<-x" seems that "c" is a variable.
It is assigned by list x's values.
I'm using the word "variable" from C language, not sure how Haskell name all its names?
Thanks.
If you're familiar with C, think of the distinction between declaring a variable and assigning a value to it. For example, you can declare a variable on its own and later assign to it:
int i;
i = 7;
Or you can declare a variable and assign initial value at the same time:
int i = 7;
And in either case, you can mutate the value of a variable by assigning to it once more after the first initialization or assignment:
int i = 7; // Declaration and initial assignment
i = 5; // Mutation
Assignment in Haskell works exclusively like the second example—declaration with initialization:
You declare a variable;
Haskell doesn't allow uninitialized variables, so you are required to supply a value in the declaration;
There's no mutation, so the value given in the declaration will be the only value for that variable throughout its scope.
I bolded and hyperlinked "scope" because it's the second critical component here. This goes one of your questions:
“removeLower" is an immutable? Even it's a function object? But I can still use "let" to assign something else to this name.
After you bind removeLower to the function you define in your example, the name removeLower will always refer to that function within the scope of that definition. This is easy to demonstrate in the interpreter. First, let's define a function foo:
Prelude> let foo x = x + 2
Prelude> foo 4
6
Now we define an bar that uses foo:
Prelude> let bar x = foo (foo x)
Prelude> bar 4
8
And now we "redefine" foo to something different:
Prelude> let foo x = x + 3
Prelude> foo 4
7
Now what do you think happens to bar?
Prelude> bar 4
8
It remains the same! Because the "redefinition" of foo doesn't mutate anything—it just says that, in the new scope created by the "redefinition", the name foo stands for the function that adds three. The definition of bar was made in the earlier scope where foo x = x + 2, so that's the meaning that the name foo has in that definition of bar. The original value of foo was not destroyed or mutated by the "redefinition."
In a Haskell program as much as in a C program, the same name can still refer to different values in different scopes of the program. This is what makes "variables" variable. The difference is that in Haskell you can never mutate the value of a variable within one scope. You can shadow a definition, however—uses of a variable will refer to the "nearest" definition of that name in some sense. (In the case of the interpreter, the most recent let declaration for that variable.)
Now, with that out of the way, here are the syntaxes that exist in Haskell for variable binding ("assignment"). First, there's top-level declarations in a module:
module MyLibrary (addTwo) where
addTwo :: Int -> Int
addTwo x = x + 2
Here the name addTwo is declared with the given function as its value. A top level declaration can have private, auxiliary declarations in a where block:
addSquares :: Integer -> Integer
addSquares x y = squareOfX + squareOfY
where square z = z * z
squareOfX = square x
squareOfY = square y
Then there's the let ... in ... expression, that allows you to declare a local variable for any expression:
addSquares :: Integer -> Integer
addSquares x y =
let square z = z * z
squareOfX = square x
squareOfY = square y
in squareOfX + squareOfY
Then there's the do-notation that has its own syntax for declaring variables:
example :: IO ()
example = do
putStrLn "Enter your first name:"
firstName <- getLine
putStrLn "Enter your lasst name:"
lastName <- getLine
let fullName = firstName ++ " " ++ lastName
putStrLn ("Hello, " ++ fullName ++ "!")
The var <- action assigns a value that is produced by an action (e.g., reading a line from standard input), while let var = expr assigns a value that is produced by a function (e.g., concatenating some strings). Note that the let in a do block is not the same thing as the let ... in ... from above!
And finally, in list comprehension you get the same assignment syntax as in do-notation.
It's referring to the monadic bind operator >>=. You just don't need to explicitly write a lambda as right hand side parameter. The list comprension will be compiled down to the monadic actions defined. And by that it means exactly the same as in a monadic environment.
In fact you can replace the list comprension with a simple call to filter:
filter (`elem` ['A' .. 'Z']) x
To answer your question regarding the <- syntactic structure a bit clearer:
[c| c <- x]
is the same as
do c <- x
return c
is the same as
x >>= \c -> return c
is the same as
x >>= return
Consider the official documentation of Haskell for further reading: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.8.2.0/docs/Control-Monad.html#v:-62--62--61-
[c|c<-x, c `elem` ['A'..'Z']]
is a list comprehension, and c <- x is a generator where c is a pattern to be matched from the elements of the list x. c is a pattern which is successively bound to the elements of the input list x which are a, s, e, u, ... when you evaluate removeLower "aseruiiUIUIdkf".
c `elem` ['A'..'Z']
is a predicate which is applied to each successive binding of c inside the comprehension and an element of the input only appears in the output list if it passes this predicate.
How can I write an ANTLR rule that accepts a mixture of optional and required arguments in any order?
For example, a valid query could look like function(a = 5, c = "foo", b = 21) or function(b = 4, c = 5) where a is optional but c and b are required. The only valid arguments are a, b and c.
Any help would be appreciated.
That is not something you would define in your grammar. The grammar would just accept function(a = 5, c = "foo", b = 21) and function(a = 5, c = "foo", i = 21). After parsing the input, you would reject the latter example in a traversal of the parse tree.
For example, take the BNF specification of a Java assignment statement:
Expression:
Expression1 [AssignmentOperator Expression1]
where Expression1 might very well be the variable Q which is defined as follows:
final int Q = 42;
In other words: the statement Q = 123; would be illegal since it was already defined final. Such semantic checks are not defined in the grammar but handled at a later stage.