I would like to have my own implementation of an existing module but to keep a compatible interface with the existing module. I don't have a module type for the existing module, only an interface. So I can't use include Original_module in my interface. Is there a way to get a module type from an interface?
An example could be with the List module from the stdlib. I create a My_list module with exactly the same signature than List. I could copy list.mli to my_list.mli, but it does not seem very nice.
In some cases, you should use
include module type of struct include M end (* I call it OCaml keyword mantra *)
rather than
include module type of M
since the latter drops the equalities of data types with their originals defined in M.
The difference can be observed by ocamlc -i xxx.mli:
include module type of struct include Complex end
has the following type definition:
type t = Complex.t = { re : float; im : float; }
which means t is an alias of the original Complex.t.
On the other hand,
include module type of Complex
has
type t = { re : float; im : float; }
Without the relation with Complex.t, it becomes a different type from Complex.t: you cannot mix code using the original module and your extended version without the include hack. This is not what you want usually.
You can look at RWO : if you want to include the type of a module (like List.mli) in another mli file :
include (module type of List)
Related
So when you define the structure of a module, it's possible to extend another module off of it:
module Base = struct
type t = Name of string
end
module Child = struct
include Base
end
Child.Name "test"
(* - : Child.t = Child.Name "test" *)
However, when working with recursive modules using recursive signatures, I run into issues when I try to extend a module:
module rec Base : sig
type t = | Name of string
end = Base
and Child : sig
include Base
end = Child
When I do this, I get an error saying:
Error: Unbound module type Base
Can you not extend modules when working with this recursive module trick? Am I misunderstanding something or doing something wrong?
It seems to me your problem is that Base is a module, not a module type. When including in a sig ... end construct you need a type. When including in a struct ... end construct you need a module. That's why the first example works and the second one doesn't.
If I change Base to module type of Base I get this error:
Error: Illegal recursive module reference
So I suspect this particular (somewhat strange) type of recursive definition isn't supported.
If you define the module type separately, you can make it work:
module type BASE = sig type t = Name of string end
module rec Base : BASE = Base
and Child : sig
include BASE
end = Child
Jeffrey Scofield already gave a good answer. I'd just like to add that include is just syntactic sugar. So if it is include which is causing you trouble, a solution might be to expand it. In the first of your examples that would lead to
module Base = struct
type t = Name of string
end
module Child = struct
type t = Name of string
end
Apparently, your examples are simplified versions of what you really want to do. As shown, there is no need to use rec at all. So I can only guess how much recursion you really need. According to Jeffrey Scofield's answer, the combination of rec and include is problematic. Possibly, getting rid of include suffices for you.
I would like to declare some "user-defined compiler-constants" to keep my specification files as "constant" as possible. This is something common in C++, e.g. :
// misc/config.hh
namespace misc
{
typedef std::shared_ptr<A> A_ptr;
namespace arch = ibmpc;
}
// misc/code.hh
#include "misc/config.hh"
namespace misc
{
void function p(A_ptr a);
}
Which would be in Ada :
-- misc.ads
package Misc is
use Types; ----> forbidden !
procedure P(A : A_Access);
end Misc;
-- misc-types.ads
package Misc.Types is
type A_Access is A'Access;
end Misc.Types;
Of course this does not work since use is a context keyword...hence my question : how is it possible to do something with the same results in Ada ?
I think this is a reasonable mapping from your C++ original to Ada:
To start with, corresponding more-or-less, I think, to your namespace misc, in file misc.ads,
package Misc is
end Misc;
Then, corresponding to config.hh, in file misc-config.ads,
package Misc.Config is
type A is (For_Example, An_Enumeration);
type A_Access is access A;
end Misc.Config;
(which could, of course, also reference types in Misc). Then, corresponding to code.hh, in file misc-code.ads,
with Misc.Config;
package Misc.Code is
use Config;
procedure P (A : A_Access);
end Misc.Code;
Personally I wouldn’t use Config;, at any rate in specs - it can make it difficult to work out where something is defined. Note, you can say use Config; or use Misc.Config; where shown, because you’re in a child of Misc; in the context clause, which is also OK, you would have to use Misc.Config;.
Ok, while I see what you're trying to do you're going about it wrong.
The problem you have with the given sniplets is this: circular dependency.
Now Ada has a great way of managing circular dependency by making it non-circular (in a sense) through it's use of specs and bodies. As the two are discrete, we can have two sets of spec/body files where the body references the other's spec precisely because the specs are publicly visible.
As an example, admittedly ridiculous; let's use fountain-pens and ink-cartridges.
With Cartridge;
Package Pen is
Subtype Model_Number is Positive Range 1000..3304;
Type Fountain_pen is private;
-- Pen procedures
private
Type Fountain_pen is Record
Model : Model_Number;
Ink : Cartridge.Ink_Cartridge;
end record;
end Pen;
and
With Pen;
Package Cartridge is
Type Ink_Cartridge is private;
-- Ink procedures
private
Type Ink_Cartridge is record
Color : Integer; -- I'm being lazy.
This_Pen : Pen.Fountain_pen;
end record;
end Cartridge;
and
Package Body Pen is
--- Pen Stuff
end Pen;
Package Body Cartridge is
-- Ink stuff
end Cartridge;
(Not compiled.)
I forget how to create a component of a circularly-nested type though... Anyway, you should get the general idea there. But what you're wanting is fundamentally different than mutually dependent types; what you want is some sort of container for your constants.
I would recommend using child packages. Something like Misc and Misc.Constants; where you place your base-types into Misc, and the constants into Misc.Constants. If your types are dependent on your constants you might make a separate child package for them Misc.Types and use the mutual withing as shown above.
You could put the child package spec inside the parent package spec, like this:
package Misc is
package Types is
type A is private;
type A_Access is access A;
-- other stuff
end Types;
procedure P (A : Types.A_Access);
end Misc;
you can even use Types; after the declaration of Misc.Types.
I am reading through OCaml lead designer's 1994 paper on modules, types, and separate compilation. (kindly pointed to me by Norman Ramsey in another question ). I understand that the paper discusses the origins of OCaml's present module type / signature system. It it, the author proposes opaque interpretation of type declarations in signatures (to allow separate compilation) together with manifest type declarations (for expressiveness). Attempting to put together some examples of my own to demonstrate the kind of problems the OCaml module signature notation is trying to tackle I wrote the following code in two files:
In file ordering.ml (or .mli — I've tried both) (file A):
module type ORDERING = sig
type t
val isLess : t -> t -> bool
end
and in file useOrdering.ml (file B):
open Ordering
module StringOrdering : ORDERING
let main () =
Printf.printf "%b" StringOrdering.isLess "a" "b"
main ()
The idea being to expect the compiler to complain (when compiling the second file) that not enough type information is available on module StringOrdering to typecheck the StringOrdering.isLess application (and thus motivate the need for the with type syntax).
However, although file A compiles as expected, file B causes the 3.11.2 ocamlc to complain for a syntax error. I understood that signatures were meant to allow someone to write code based on the module signature, without access to the implementation (the module structure).
I confess that I am not sure about the syntax: module A : B which I encountered in this rather old paper on separate compilation but it makes me wonder whether such or similar syntax exists (without involving functors) to allow someone to write code based only on the module type, with the actual module structure provided at linking time, similar to how one can use *.h and *.c files in C/C++. Without such an ability it would seem to be that module types / signatures are basically for sealing / hiding the internals of modules or more explicit type checking / annotations but not for separate / independent compilation.
Actually, looking at the OCaml manual section on modules and separate compilation it seems that my analogy with C compilation units is broken because the OCaml manual defines the OCaml compilation unit to be the A.ml and A.mli duo, whereas in C/C++ the .h files are pasted to the compilation unit of any importing .c file.
The right way to do such a thing is to do the following:
In ordering.mli write:
(* This define the signature *)
module type ORDERING = sig
type t
val isLess : t -> t -> bool
end
(* This define a module having ORDERING as signature *)
module StringOrdering : ORDERING
Compile the file: ocamlc -c ordering.mli
In another file, refer to the compiled signature:
open Ordering
let main () =
Printf.printf "%b" (StringOrdering.isLess "a" "b")
let () = main ()
When you compile the file, you get the expected type error (ie. string is not compatible with Ordering.StringOrdering.t). If you want to remove the type error, you should add the with type t = string constraint to the definition of StringOrdering in ordering.mli.
So answer to you second question: yes, in bytecode mode the compiler just needs to know about the interfaces your are depending on, and you can choose which implementation to use at link time. By default, that's not true for native code compilation (because of inter-module optimizations) but you can disable it.
You are probably just confused by the relation between explicit module and signature definitions, and the implicit definition of modules through .ml/.mli files.
Basically, if you have a file a.ml and use it inside some other file, then it is as if you had written
module A =
struct
(* content of file a.ml *)
end
If you also have a.mli, then it is as if you had written
module A :
sig
(* content of file a.mli *)
end =
struct
(* content of file a.ml *)
end
Note that this only defines a module named A, not a module type. A's signature cannot be given a name through this mechanism.
Another file using A can be compiled against a.mli alone, without providing a.ml at all. However, you want to make sure that all type information is made transparent where needed. For example, suppose you are to define a map over integers:
(* intMap.mli *)
type key = int
type 'a map
val empty : 'a map
val add : key -> 'a -> 'a map -> 'a map
val lookup : key -> 'a map -> 'a option
...
Here, key is made transparent, because any client code (of the module IntMap that this signature describes) needs to know what it is to be able to add something to the map. The map type itself, however, can (and should) be kept abstract, because a client shouldn't mess with its implementation details.
The relation to C header files is that those basically only allow transparent types. In Ocaml, you have the choice.
module StringOrdering : ORDERING is a module declaration. You can use this in a signature, to say that the signature contains a module field called StringOrdering and having the signature ORDERING. It doesn't make sense in a module.
You need to define a module somewhere that implements the operations you need. The module definition can be something like
module StringOrderingImplementation = struct
type t = string
let isLess x y = x <= y
end
If you want to hide the definition of the type t, you need to make a different module where the definition is abstract. The operation to make a new module out of an old one is called sealing, and is expressed through the : operator.
module StringOrderingAbstract = (StringOrdering : ORDERING)
Then StringOrderingImplementation.isLess "a" "b" is well-typed, whereas StringOrderingAbstract.isLess "a" "b" cannot be typed since StringOrderingAbstract.t is an abstract type, which is not compatible with string or any other preexisting type. In fact, it's impossible to build a value of type StringOrderingAbstract.t, since the module does not include any constructor.
When you have a compilation unit foo.ml, it is a module Foo, and the signature of this module is given by the interface file foo.mli. That is, the files foo.ml and foo.mli are equivalent to the module definition
module Foo = (struct (*…contents of foo.ml…*) end :
sig (*…contents of foo.mli…*) end)
When compiling a module that uses Foo, the compiler only looks at foo.mli (or rather the result of its compilation: foo.cmi), not at foo.ml¹. This is how interfaces and separate compilation fit together. C needs #include <foo.h> because it lacks any form of namespace; in OCaml, Foo.bar automatically refers to a bar defined in the compilation unit foo if there is no other module called Foo in scope.
¹ Actually, the native code compiler looks at the implementation of Foo to perform optimizations (inlining). The type checker never looks at anything but what is in the interface.
I'm quite stuck with the following functor problem in OCaml. I paste some of the code just to let you understand. Basically
I defined these two modules in pctl.ml:
module type ProbPA = sig
include Hashtbl.HashedType
val next: t -> (t * float) list
val print: t -> float -> unit
end
module type M = sig
type s
val set_error: float -> unit
val check: s -> formula -> bool
val check_path: s -> path_formula -> float
val check_suite: s -> suite -> unit
end
and the following functor:
module Make(P: ProbPA): (M with type s = P.t) = struct
type s = P.t
(* implementation *)
end
Then to actually use these modules I defined a new module directly in a file called prism.ml:
type state = value array
type t = state
type value =
| VBOOL of bool
| VINT of int
| VFLOAT of float
| VUNSET
(* all the functions required *)
From a third source (formulas.ml) I used the functor with Prism module:
module PrismPctl = Pctl.Make(Prism)
open PrismPctl
And finally from main.ml
open Formulas.PrismPctl
(* code to prepare the object *)
PrismPctl.check_suite s.sys_state suite (* error here *)
and compiles gives the following error
Error: This expression has type Prism.state = Prism.value array
but an expression was expected of type Formulas.PrismPctl.s
From what I can understand there a sort of bad aliasing of the names, they are the same (since value array is the type defined as t and it's used M with type s = P.t in the functor) but the type checker doesn't consider them the same.
I really don't understand where is the problem, can anyone help me?
Thanks in advance
(You post non-compilable code. That's a bad idea because it may make it harder for people to help you, and because reducing your problem down to a simple example is sometimes enough to solve it. But I think I see your difficulty anyway.)
Inside formulas.ml, Ocaml can see that PrismPctl.s = Pctl.Make(Prism).t = Prism.t; the first equality is from the definition of PrismPctl, and the second equality is from the signature of Pctl.Make (specifically the with type s = P.t bit).
If you don't write an mli file for Formulas, your code should compile. So the problem must be that the .mli file you wrote doesn't mention the right equality. You don't show your .mli files (you should, they're part of the problem), but presumably you wrote
module PrismPctl : Pctl.M
That's not enough: when the compiler compiles main.ml, it won't know anything about PrismPctl that's not specified in formulas.mli. You need to specify either
module PrismPctl : Pctl.M with type s = Prism.t
or, assuming you included with type s = P.t in the signature of Make in pctl.mli
module PrismPctl : Pctl.M with type s = Pctl.Make(Prism).s
This is a problem I ran into as well when learning more about these. When you create the functor you expose the signature of the functor, in this case M. It contains an abstract type s, parameterized by the functor, and anything more specific is not exposed to the outside. Thus, accessing any record element of s (as in sys_state) will result in a type error, as you've encountered.
The rest looks alright. It is definitely hard to get into using functors properly, but remember that you can only manipulate instances of the type parameterized by the functor through the interface/signature being exposed by the functor.
In OCaml 3.11, I want to "extend" an existing module using the include directive, like so:
module MyString = struct
include String
let trim s = ...
end
No problem. But now I want to expose this module's type explicitly (i.e. in a .mli file). I want something like this:
module MyString : sig
include String
val trim : string -> string
end
But the include syntax is not correct because String refers to a module, not a module type (and the compiler does indeed barf). How can I refer to the module type for String here (without having write it out explicitly in a sig expression)?
Thanks!
OCaml 3.12 will have a construct like module type of M that I believe would have solved your problem. Meanwhile, you can have the compiler generate the lengthy signature with ocamlc -i. Sorry, but I think it's the best you can do with 3.11.