I'm trying to make a type that should represent a "slice" of some indexable collection.
I know that there are some similar types in F# but not one that specifies the criteria that I need.
To do this it needs to carry a reference to the collection of type 'content and the content needs to be indexable. So I tried this constraint since a type only needs to have the member Item (get/set) so I tried this
type Slice<'a, 'content when 'content: (member Item: int -> 'a)>
This still throw the usual error
So is it possible to constrain a type to still be generic but constraint to be indexable?
I think something like this should work:
type Slice<'a, 'content when 'content: (member get_Item: int -> 'a)> =
{
Content : 'content
Start : int
Stop : int
}
with
member inline slice.get_Item(i) =
slice.Content.get_Item(slice.Start + i)
I've implemented get_Item on Slice as well, so you can take a slice of a slice. Here are some values of this type:
let strSlice =
{
Content = "hello"
Start = 1
Stop = 2
}
let arraySlice =
{
Content = [| 2; 4; 6; 8 |]
Start = 0
Stop = 3
}
let strSliceSlice =
{
Content = strSlice
Start = 0
Stop = 1
}
[<Interface>]
type Indexable<'a> =
abstract member Item: int -> 'a with get
[<Struct>]
type Slice<'a> =
{
content: Indexable<'a>
start: int
len: int
}
with
interface Indexable<'a> with
member I.Item with get(i) = I.[idx]
member S.Item with get(idx) =
if idx >= S.len
then raise(IndexOutOfRangeException())
else S.content.[S.start+idx]
This works.
I'm running into problems around recursive/mutually referential module definitions trying to use Caml's Map/Set stuff. I really want ones that just work on types, not modules. I feel like it should be possible to do this with first-class modules, but I'm failing to make the syntax work.
The signature I want is:
module type NonFunctorSet = sig
type 'a t
val create : ('a -> 'a -> int) -> 'a t
val add : 'a t -> 'a -> 'a t
val remove : 'a t -> 'a -> 'a t
val elements : 'a t -> 'a list
end
Possibly with other Caml.Set functions included. My idea for how this would work is something like:
type 'a t = {
m : (module Caml.Set.S with type elt = 'a);
set : m.t
}
let create (compare : 'a -> 'a -> t) =
module m = Caml.Set.Make(struct type t = 'a let compare = compare end) in
let set = m.empty in
{m = m; set = set;}
end
But that doesn't work for a number of reasons; 'a isn't exposed in the right places, I can't reference m.t in the same record where m was defined, etc.
Is there a version of this that works?
Adding more context about my use case:
I have two modules, Region and Tribe. Tribe needs access to a lot of the interface of Region, so I am currently creating Tribe as a functor, MakeTribe(Region : RegionT). Region mostly doesn't need to know about Tribe, but it does need to be able to store a mutable collection of Tribe.t that represent the tribes living in that region.
So, somehow or other, I need a RegionT like
module type RegionT = sig
type <region>
val get_local_tribes : <region> -> <tribes>
val add_tribe : <region> -> <tribe> -> unit
...
end
I don't really care about the specific syntax of <tribe>, <tribes> and <region> in this, so long as the fully built Tribe module can know that Region.get_local_tribes, etc, will yield an actual Tribe.t
The circular dependency problem is that the type <tribe> does not exist until the module Tribe is created. My idea so far has been to have RegionT.t actually be 'a RegionT.t, and then Tribe could simply refer to Tribe.t Region.t. This is all fine if I'm satisfied with keeping a <tribe> list inside Region, but I want it to be a set.
I feel this should be possible based on the following example code :
module Example : sig
type t
val compare : t -> t -> int
end = struct
type t = int
let compare = Int.compare
end
module ExampleSet = Caml.Set.Make(struct type t = Example.t let compare = Example.compare end)
All that Example exposes in its interface is a type and a function from two instances of that type to an int; why is that more than having a 'a -> 'a -> int, which has the same things?
Using Polymoprhic Sets and Maps from the Base Library
In Base and Core libraries, from Jane Street, ordered data structures, such as maps, sets, hash tables, and hash sets, are all implemented as polymorphic data structures, instead of functorized versions as in the vanilla OCaml standard library.
You can read about them more in the Real World OCaml Maps and Hashtbales chapter. But here are quick recipes. When you see a comparator in the function interface, e.g., in Map.empty what it actually wants you is to give you a module that implements the comparator interface. The good news is that most of the modules in Base/Core are implementing it, so you don't have to worry or know anything about this to use it, e.g.,
# open Base;;
# let empty = Map.empty (module Int);;
val empty : (Base.Int.t, 'a, Base.Int.comparator_witness) Base.Map.t =
<abstr>
# Map.add empty 1 "one";;
- : (Base.Int.t, string, Base.Int.comparator_witness) Base.Map.t
Base.Map.Or_duplicate.t
= `Ok <abstr>
So the simple rule, if you want a set,map,hashtable,hashset where the key element has type foo, just pass (module Foo) as a comparator.
Now, what if you want to make a mapping from your custom type? E.g., a pair of ints that you would like to compare in lexicographical order.
First of all, we need to define sexp_of and compare functions. For our type. We will use ppx derivers for it, but it is easy to make it manually if you need.
module Pair = struct
type t = int * int [##deriving compare, sexp_of]
end
Now, to create a comparator, we just need to use the Base.Comparator.Make functor, e.g.,
module Lexicographical_order = struct
include Pair
include Base.Comparator.Make(Pair)
end
So now we can do,
# let empty = Set.empty (module Lexicographical_order);;
val empty :
(Lexicographical_order.t, Lexicographical_order.comparator_witness)
Base.Set.t = <abstr>
# Set.add empty (1,2);;
- : (Lexicographical_order.t, Lexicographical_order.comparator_witness)
Base.Set.t
= <abstr>
Despite that Base's data structures are polymorphic they strictly require that the module that provides the comparator is instantiated and known. You can just use the compare function to create a polymorphic data structure because Base will instantiate a witness type for each defined compare function and capture it in the data structure type to enable binary methods. Anyway, it is a complex issue, read on for easier (and harder) solutions.
Instantiating Sets on mutually dependent modules
In fact, OCaml supports mutually recursive funtors and although I would suggest you to break the recursion by introducing a common abstraction on which both Region and Tribe depend, you can still encode your problem in OCaml, e.g.,
module rec Tribe : sig
type t
val create : string -> t
val compare : t -> t -> int
val regions : t -> Region.t list
end = struct
type t = string * Region.t list
let create name = name,[]
let compare (x,_) (y,_) = String.compare x y
let regions (_,r) = r
end
and Region : sig
type t
val empty : t
val add_tribe : Tribe.t -> t -> t
val tribes : t -> Tribe.t list
end = struct
module Tribes = Set.Make(Tribe)
type t = Tribes.t
let empty = Tribes.empty
let add_tribe = Tribes.add
let tribes = Tribes.elements
end
Breaking the Dependency Loop
A much better solution would be to redesign your modules and break the dependency loop. The simplest approach would be just to choose some identifier that will be used to compare tribes, e.g., by their unique names,
module Region : sig
type 'a t
val empty : 'a t
val add_tribe : string -> 'a -> 'a t -> 'a t
val tribes : 'a t -> 'a list
end = struct
module Tribes = Map.Make(String)
type 'a t = 'a Tribes.t
let empty = Tribes.empty
let add_tribe = Tribes.add
let tribes r = Tribes.bindings r |> List.map snd
end
module Tribe : sig
type t
val create : string -> t
val name : t -> string
val regions : t -> t Region.t list
val conquer : t Region.t -> t -> t Region.t
end = struct
type t = Tribe of string * t Region.t list
let create name = Tribe (name,[])
let name (Tribe (name,_)) = name
let regions (Tribe (_,r)) = r
let conquer region tribe =
Region.add_tribe (name tribe) tribe region
end
There are also tons of other options and in general, when you have mutual dependencies it is actually an indicator of a problem in your design. So, I would still revisit the design stage and eschew the circular dependencies.
Creating Polymorphic Sets using the Vanilla OCaml Standard Library
It is not an easy task, especially if you need to handle operations that involve several sets, e.g., Set.union. The problem is that Set.Make is generating a new type for the set per each compare function so when we need to union two sets it is hard for us to prove to the OCaml compiler that they were created from the same type. It is possible but really painful, I am showing how to do this only to discourage you from doing this (and to showcase OCaml's dynamic typing capabilities).
First of all we need a witness type that will reify an OCaml type for the set into a concrete value.
type _ witness = ..
module type Witness = sig
type t
type _ witness += Id : t witness
end
Now we can define our polymorphic set as an existential that holds the set itself and the module with operations. It also holds the tid (for type identifier) that we will later use to recover the type 's of the set.
type 'a set = Set : {
set : 's;
ops : (module Set.S with type elt = 'a and type t = 's);
tid : (module Witness with type t = 's);
} -> 'a set
Now we can write the create function that will take the compare function and turn it into a set,
let create : type a s. (a -> a -> int) -> a set =
fun compare ->
let module S = Set.Make(struct
type t = a
let compare = compare
end) in
let module W = struct
type t = S.t
type _ witness += Id : t witness
end in
Set {
set = S.empty;
ops = (module S);
tid = (module W);
}
The caveat here is that each call to create will generate a new instance of the set type 's so we can compare/union/etc two sets that were created with the same create function. In other words, all sets in our implementation shall share the same ancestor. But before that lets take a pain and implement at least two operations, add and union,
let add : type a. a -> a set -> a set =
fun elt (Set {set; tid; ops=(module Set)}) -> Set {
set = Set.add elt set;
ops = (module Set);
tid;
}
let union : type a. a set -> a set -> a set =
fun (Set {set=s1; tid=(module W1); ops=(module Set)})
(Set {set=s2; tid=(module W2)}) ->
match W1.Id with
| W2.Id -> Set {
set = Set.union s1 s2;
tid = (module W1);
ops = (module Set);
}
| _ -> failwith "sets are potentially using different types"
Now, we can play with it a bit,
# let empty = create compare;;
val empty : '_weak1 set = Set {set = <poly>; ops = <module>; tid = <module>}
# let x1 = add 1 empty;;
val x1 : int set = Set {set = <poly>; ops = <module>; tid = <module>}
# let x2 = add 2 empty;;
val x2 : int set = Set {set = <poly>; ops = <module>; tid = <module>}
# let x3 = union x1 x2;;
val x3 : int set = Set {set = <poly>; ops = <module>; tid = <module>}
# let x4 = create compare;;
val x4 : '_weak2 set = Set {set = <poly>; ops = <module>; tid = <module>}
# union x3 x4;;
Exception: Failure "sets are potentially using different types".
#
I have the following type:
type alias SelList a =
{ list : List a
, selected : Maybe a
}
A Sel(ectable)List a is a list of a from which I can possibly choose an element.
In my application, all my objects have an id : Int field, so I've defined this type alias :
type alias HasId r = { r | id : Int}
Now I would like a function eventually selecting an element in the list, I've tried :
select : Int -> SelList (HasId r)-> Maybe (SelList (HasId r))
select id sl = find (\x-> x.id ==id) sl.list &> \ el ->
Just { sl | selected = el }
where (&>) = flip Maybe.andThen and find : (a -> Bool) -> List a -> Maybe a.
I've got the following message:
The type annotation for `select` says it always returns:
Maybe (SelList (HasId r))
But the returned value (shown above) is a:
Maybe { list : List (HasId r), selected : { r | id : Int } }
I'm confused because { r | id : Int } is the same than HasId, and then
{ list : List (HasId r), selected : HasId r }
is the same than SelList (HasId r). Why the compiler can not figure out that the types match?
The compiler's error is 90% of the way there, but I think mixing type aliases and records makes it harder to figure out what's wrong. (Future versions of Elm are going to improve this).
If it was a record and not a Maybe record, the compiler would tell you something like "I see a problem with the selected field`". Does that help?
Spoiler: The SelList type has a selected : Maybe a, but select returns selected : a
I am writing a small program that handles and displays guitar chords.
But I got stuck: I don't know how to convert an Int value into Html.
My little render function looks like:
renderGuitarString : GuitarString -> Html Msg
renderGuitarString guitarString =
div [ class "string" ] --here I don't know what to do
and:
view : Model -> Html Msg
view model =
div [] (List.map renderGuitarString model.guitarStrings)
just for the complete picture, my types and my model:
type alias GuitarString =
{ number : Int
, frets : List Fret
}
and:
type alias Fret =
{ number : Int
, tone : ( String, Int )
}
and:
type alias Model =
{ guitarStrings : List GuitarString
}
I want to transform the Fret number value into real Html.
thanks for help!
For me, toString did not work and may be outdated. But String.fromInt did.
UPDATE: this will not work in Elm 0.19, use String.fromInt instead
You use Html.text to display a string, but the problem is that an integer is not a string, so you'll have to use toString. For example:
renderGuitarStringNum : Int -> Html Msg
renderGuitarStringNum num =
text (toString num)
You could also render that as
renderGuitarStringNum = toString >> text
Or
renderGuitarStringNum = text << toString
type alias Model =
{ dieFace : Int
}
init : (Model, Cmd Msg)
init =
(Model 1, Cmd.none)
Why does the integer 1 get passed to the model ala Model 1?
The type alias seems to requiring a record?
There is not so much un-explained magic in Elm (for good reason), but one bit is the type and type alias constructors. Whenever you create a type (alias) you get a constructor function for free. So, to use your example,
type alias Model =
{ dieFace : Int
}
gives you a (somewhat weird-looking) constructor function
Model : Int -> Model
for free. If you add more entries to your record, like this
type alias Model =
{ dieFace : Int
, somethingElse : String
}
the constructor function takes more arguments.
Model : Int -> String -> Model
The order of these are the same order as the record entries, so if you change the order of your type aliases, you'll have to change the argument order to to the constructor function.
Union types work in a similar way.
type Shape
= Circle Int
| Square Int Int
quietly creates constructors:
Circle: Int -> Shape
Square : Int -> Int -> Shape
In Model 1 "Model" is used as positional record constructor. It is equal to {dieFace = 1}
Here is another example:
type alias Rcd =
{ first : String
, second : Int
}
Rcd can be constructed in two ways:
Rcd "some string" 4
{ first = "some string" , second = 4}
The former variant is just shorthand and often used for initialisation of Records.