Almost for the first time I'm trying to write imperative code in ocaml to try to answer a question on this website, but I'm facing a little problem.
let f() =
try
while true do
()
done
with
_ -> 2
He doesn't like this, because he thinks that this function returns unit, as it is in the try block, but the try block returns an int. So it works if I add 3 after "done", but it's really ugly since the 3 is really never returned.
How do you do this ?
Use assert false, which always raises an exception and therefore can be used where any type is expected:
let f() =
try
while true do
()
done;
assert false
with
_ -> 2
while (and for) loops in OCaml are expressions that return a result of type unit.
In addition, when you write (try expr1 with _ -> expr2), this is an OCaml expression of type t, if expr1 and expr2 are well typed of type t (more complicated with polymorphism)
But, in your example, try branch has type unit whereas with branch has type int. The OCaml compiler is not happy with that.
Related
I just started my first F# project and coming from the JVM world, I really like Kotlin's nullability syntax and was wondering how I could achieve similarily compact syntax in F#.
Here's an example:
class MyClass {
fun doSomething() {
// ...
}
}
// At some other place in the code:
val myNullableValue: MyClass? = null
myNullableVallue?.doSomething()
What this does:
If myNullableValue is not null, i.e. there is some data, doSomething() is called on that object.
If myNullableValue is null (like in the code above), nothing happens.
As far as I see, the F# equivalent would be:
type MyClass =
member this.doSomething() = ()
type CallingCode() =
let callingCode() =
let myOptionalValue: MyClass option = None
match myOptionalValue with
|Some(x) -> x.doSomething()
|None -> ()
A stamement that is 1 line long in Kotlin is 3 lines long in F#. My question is therefore whether there's a shorter syntax that acomplishes the same thing.
There is no built-in operator for doing this in F# at the moment. I suspect that the reason is that working with undefined values is just less frequent in F#. For example, you would never define a variable, initialize it to null and then have some code that may or may not set it to a value in F#, so the usual way of writing F# eliminates many of the needs for such operator.
You still need to do this sometimes, for example when using option to represent something that can legitimately be missing, but I think this is less frequent than in other languages. You also may need something like this when interacting with .NET, but then it's probably good practice to handle nulls first, before doing anything else.
Aside from pattern matching, you can use Option.map or an F# computation expression (there is no standard one, but it's easy to use a library or define one - see for example). Then you can write:
let myOptionalValue: MyClass option = None
// Option #1: Using the `opt` computation expression
opt { let! v = myOptionalValue
return v.doSomething() }
// Option #2: Using the `Option.map` function
myOptionalValue |> Option.map (fun v -> v.doSomething() )
For reference, my definition of opt is:
type OptionBuilder() =
member x.Bind(v,f) = Option.bind f v
member x.Return v = Some v
member x.ReturnFrom o = o
member x.Zero () = None
let opt = OptionBuilder()
The ?. operator has been suggested to be added to F#.
https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/14
Some day it will be added, I hope soon.
I'm pretty new with Kotlin and I'm trying to figure out Kotlin's scope functions.
My code looks like this:
with(something) {
when {
equals("test") -> var1 = "test123"
startsWith("test2") -> var2 = "test456"
contains("test3") -> myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }
}
}
So before I entered the third check with the .let function my with function does not need to be exhaustive (I'm not returning something, I'm only doing assignments). In my third check I'm using .let as a null-check ... but only for an assignment of it.var3 (if it is not null). I don't need to return anything while I know that Kotlin's .let function returns the result of the body by standard.
Nevertheless now my with/when needs to be exhaustive otherwise it won't compile anymore.
This got me thinking and trying out different things. I found these ways to solve this issue:
I can add an else to my with/when so it becomes exhaustive but actually I don't need an else and I don't want to use it in this case.
I can add another .let, so it looks like this: myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }.let{} .... but this looks kinda hacky to me. Is it supposed to work like this?
Use If(xy==null){...}else{...} stuff but I thought I can solve this with Kotlin differently
Because I'm new with Kotlin I'm not really sure how to handle this case properly. I would probably just go with my second idea because "it works". Or should I don't use .let for null-checks? Add another empty .let{}? Or did I not get the null-safety concept at all? I feel a little bit lost here. Thanks for any help.
This seems to be an unfortunate combination of features…
A when can be non-exhaustive only when it doesn't return a value. The problem is that the with() function does return a value. And since the when is at the bottom, its value is what gets returned, so in this case it must be exhaustive.
So why doesn't it insist on an else branch even if you omit the "test3" branch? That's because assignments don't yield a value. (They evaluate to Unit, which is Kotlin's special type for functions that don't return a useful value.) If every branch gives Unit, then Kotlin seems* to be happy to infer a default branch also giving Unit.
But the "test3" branch returns something else — the type of myNullableVar. So what type does the when infer? The nearest common supertype of that type and Unit, which is the top type Any?. And now it needs an explicit else branch!
So what to do?
You've found a few options, none of which is ideal. So here are a few more, ditto!
You could return an explicit Unit from that branch:
contains("test3") -> { myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }; Unit }
You could return an explicit Unit from the with():
contains("test3") -> myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }
}
Unit
}
You could give an explicit type for the with(). (It has two type parameters, so you'd need to give both, starting with the type of its parameter):
with<String, Unit>("abc") {
I haven't found a single obvious best answer, I'm afraid…
And to answer your last question: yes, ?.let{ is perfectly idiomatic and common for null checks. In this particular case, replacing it with an if happens to solve the type problem:
contains("test3") -> { if (myNullableVar != null) myNullableVar.var3 = "test789" }
But as well as being long-winded, if myNullableVar is a property and not a local variable, then it opens up a race condition (what if another thread sets it to null in between the test and the assignment?) so the compiler would complain — which is exactly why people use let instead!
(* I can't find a reference for this behaviour. Is there an official word on it?)
I'm new to Kotlin and while trying the programs when I included functions with Unit return type it showed kotlin.Unit after completion of execution.
Being main function has Unit return type too why it doesn't show kotlin.Unit after execution?
a
b
c
Process finished with exit code 0
This was the output I got for simple program without any other functions
First, please do not upload images of code/errors when asking a question..
But to answer your question: Kotlin is printing the Unit result of calling your function because you're telling it to:
print(compare(a, b))
There's almost never a need to print Unitor manipulate it in any way, but that's perfectly legal to do. And since your main() function also returns Unit, you could print that out too if you wanted (and were calling that from another function). But why would you want to?
Either remove the print(), and simply call compare(a, b) on its own; or change compare() to return a value that you do want to print!
I know how to read/interpret Java code and I can write it. However being new to kotlin I find code like below hard to read. Perhaps I am missing key concepts in the language.
But, how would you go about interpreting this code? Where do you propose one to start reading it in order to understand this piece of code quickly and efficiently? Left to right? Right to left? Break down parameters first? Look at return values?
inline fun <T : Any, R> ifNotNull(input: T?, callback: (T) -> R): R? {
return input?.let(callback)
}
So, like Java this is a generic function. It has two type parameters T which is of type 'Any' ('Any' is like 'Object' in Java) and R. The input parameter is a nullable T, as denoted by the question mark. Nullable types mean that the value can be null. The other function parameter is a function that takes in a T (non nullable type) and returns R. The return type of the function is a nullable R. The body of the function says that if input is not null, call and pass that to the callback and return that value. If input is null, then null is what gets returned.
Let's dissect the function definition piece by piece:
inline: Indicates that the code of the function will be copied directly to the call site, rather than being called like a normal function.
fun: We're defining a function.
<T : Any, R>: The function takes two generic type parameters, T and R. The T type is restricted to the Any type (which is Kotlin's Object-type). That might seem redundant, but what it actually says is that T cannot be a nullable type (Any?).
ifNotNull: The name of the function.
input: T?: The first parameter of type T?. We can put the ? on the T type here because we restricted it to non-nullable types in the type declaration.
callback: (T) -> R: The second parameter is of type (T) -> R, which is a function type. It's the type of a function that takes a T as input and returns an R.
: R?: The function returns a value of type R or null.
return input?.let(callback): The function body. The let function takes a function parameter, calls it with its receiver (input), and then returns the result of the function. The ? after input says that let will be called only if input is not null. If input is null, then the expression will return null.
The function is equivalent to this Java method (except for the inlining and nullable types):
public <T, R> R ifNotNull(final T input, final Function<T, R> callback) {
if (input == null) {
return null;
}
return callback.apply(input);
}
Matt's answer explains everything well in one go; I'll try to look at how you might go about reading such code.
Skipping over the first word for now, the most important thing is the second word: fun. So the whole thing is defining a function. That tells you what to expect from the rest.
The braces tell you that it's a block function, not a one-liner, so the basic structure you're expecting is: fun name(params): returnType { code }. The rest is filling in the blanks! (This fits the general pattern of Kotlin declarations, where the type comes second, after a colon. The Java equivalent would of course be more like returnType name(params) { code }.)
As with Java, the stuff in angle brackets is giving generic parameters, so we can skip that for now and go straight to the next most important bit, which is the name of the function being defined: ifNotNull.
Armed with those, we can read the rest. inline is a simple modifier, telling you that the function will be inlined by the compiler. (That enables a few things and restricts a few others, but I wouldn't worry about that now.)
The <T : Any, R> gives the generic parameter types that the function uses. The first is T, which must be Any or a subtype; the second is R, which is unrestricted.
(Any is like Java's Object, but can't be null; the topmost type is the related Any?, which also allows null. So except for the nullability, that's equivalent to the Java <T extends Object, R>.)
Going on, we have the function parameters in parentheses. Again, there are two: the first is called input, and it's of type T?, which means it accepts any value of type T, and also accepts null. The second parameter is called callback, and has a more complicated type, (T) -> R: it's a function which takes a T as its parameter, and returns an R. (Java doesn't have function types as such, so that probably looks strangest. Java's nearest equivalent is Function<R, T>.)
After the parentheses comes the return type of this function itself, R?, which means it can return either an R or null.
Finally, in braces is the actual code of the function. That has one line, which returns the value of an expression. (Its effect is to check whether the value of input is null: if so, it returns the null directly. Otherwise, it calls the callback function given in the parameter, passing input as its parameter, and returns its result.)
Although that's a short declaration, it's quite abstract and packs a lot in, so it's no wonder you're finding it hard going! (The format is similar to a Java method declaration — but Kotlin's quite expressive, so equivalent code tends to be quite a bit shorter than Java. And the generics make it more complex.) If you're just starting to learn Kotlin, I'd suggest something a bit easier :-)
(The good news is that, as in Java, you don't often need to read the stdlib code. Although Kotlin's doc comments are rarely up to the exemplary level of Java's, they're still usually enough.)
I want to have a function that determines if a type is a function type, like this:
isFunction : Type -> Bool
isFunction (a -> b) = True
isFunction _ = False
This returns True for all inputs, however. How can I make this work?
Matching on a Type is known as type-casing. Being able to do this would break a concept called parametricity which is very valuable.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/23224110/108359
Idris does not support type-casing. I think it may have tried at one stage, but people gave up on that quickly. It also used to give errors when type-casing was attempted but the check caused bugs and so has been disabled for now.
While you don't get errors any more, you can't provide an implementation of Type -> Bool which will work differently to const True or const False.
So sorry, this function is not possible. It might sound like a limitation but every time I thought I had a motivation for a function similar to this, I eventually figured out that I could have structured my program in a more explicit way instead.
The question here would be: Why do you need something like this?
Do you need to find out if any arbitrary Idris type is a function or not? Or do you just need to find this out from a specific subset of Idris types?
I can't figure out possible applications for the 1st one, but if it's the 2nd one you need, then you could define your own embedded language for dealing with values with these types, like this:
data Ty = TyNat | TyString | TyFun Ty Ty | ...
isFunction : Ty -> Bool
isFunction (TyFun _ _) = True
isFunction _ = False
Check out this talk for more information about how to implement these kind of embedded languages:
https://vimeo.com/61663317