I would like to define a module which could support int, int64 and float. For instance,
module Matrix =
struct
type 'a t = 'a array array
(* add point-wise 2 matrices with same dimension *)
let add (m: 'a t) (n: 'a t): 'a t =
...
end
The implementation of add needs the operator plus, which is + for int, +. for float and Int64.add for int64. So I can't write anyone of them, otherwise, the type of Matrix is no more polymorphic.
Could anyone tell me how you work around this problem?
One idea I have at the moment is to make the Matrix a functor:
module type NUM_TYPE =
sig
type t
val add: t -> t -> t
end
module Matrix =
functor (Elt: NUM_TYPE)
struct
type element = Elt.t
type t = element array array
(* add point-wise 2 matrices with same dimension *)
let add (m: t) (n: t): t =
...
end
Then I have to define the following numerical modules:
module MyInt =
(struct
type t = int
let add (a: t) (b: t): t = a + b
end: NUM_TYPE)
module MyFloat = ...
module MyInt64 = ...
module MatInt = Matrix(MyInt)
module MatFloat = Matrix(MyFloat)
module MatInt64 = Matrix(MyInt64)
By this method, I find it is tedious to define MyInt, MyFloat and MyInt64, especially their own add function. Does anyone have any idea to improve this?
You could write each of those in one line like this:
module MatInt = Matrix(struct type t = int let add = (+) end)
I don't think you can do much better in OCaml (have a look at this blog post: https://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/37). This would be a very nice use of typeclasses. If you're ok with using language extensions you can have a look at this project: https://github.com/jaked/deriving.
Related
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 very simple signature and module in OCaml:
module type S = sig
type t
val y : t
end;;
and
module M2 : S = struct
type t = int
let x = 1
let y = x+2
end;;
I cannot use construction like
M2.y
to get 3 unless i specify the module as
module M2 : S with type t = int = struct ...
Why is it so? There already is statement, that type t = int
The concrete, int value for M2.y is indeed not available because the following two conditions are met:
the type of y is abstract in the signature S
(there is no type t = ... there)
the module M2 is made opaque with respect to the signature S
(in other words, it is restricted to the signature S via the notation : S)
As a result, you indeed obtain:
let test = M2.y ;;
(* val test : M2.t = <abstr> *)
As suggested by the keyword <abstr>, this is related to the notion of abstract type. This notion is a very strong feature enforced by OCaml's typing rules, which prevents any user of a module having signature S to inspect the concrete content of one such abstract type. As a result, this property is very useful to implement so-called abstract data types (ADT) in OCaml, by carefully separating the implementation and the signature of the ADT.
If any of the two conditions above is missing, the type won't be abstract anymore and the concrete value of y will show up.
More precisely:
If the type t is made concrete, you obtain:
module type S = sig
type t = int
val y : t
end
module M2 : S = struct
type t = int
let x = 1
let y = x+2
end
let test = M2.y ;;
(* val test : M2.t = 3 *)
But in practice this is not very interesting because you lose generality. However, a somewhat more interesting approach consists in adding an "evaluator" or a "pretty-printer" function to the signature, such as the value int_of_t below:
module type S = sig
type t
val y : t
val int_of_t : t -> int
end
module M2 : S = struct
type t = int
let x = 1
let y = x+2
let int_of_t x = x
end
let test = M2.(int_of_t y) ;;
(* val test : int = 3 *)
Otherwise, if the module M2 is made transparent, you obtain:
module type S = sig
type t
val y : t
end
module M2 (* :S *) = struct
type t = int
let x = 1
let y = x+2
end
let test = M2.y ;;
(* val test : int = 3 *)
Finally, it may be helpful to note that beyond that feature of abstract types, OCaml also provides a feature of private types that can be viewed as a trade-off between concrete and abstract types used in a modular development. For more details on this notion, see for example Chap. 8 of Caml ref man.
I'd like to extend a module but I need access to its private components. Here's an example:
nat.mli:
type t
val zero : t
val succ : t -> t
nat.ml:
type t = int
let zero = 0
let succ x = x + 1
I'd like to define a new module Ext_nat that defines a double function. I was trying to do something like this.
ext_nat.mli:
include (module type of Nat)
val double : t -> t
ext_nat.ml:
include Nat
let double x = 2 * x
It's not working as I don't have access to the representation of x in the last line.
Now that I'm thinking about this, it may not be such a good idea anyway because this would break the encapsulation of nat. So what is the best way to do this? I could define a new module nat_public where type t = int in the signature, and define nat and ext_nat with a private type t. What do you think?
You need to use with type statement. It is possible to write the code below in many different ways, but the idea is always the same.
module type NatSig =
sig
type t
val zero : t
val succ : t -> t
end
module type ExtNatSig =
sig
include NatSig
val double : t -> t
end
module ExtNat : ExtNatSig =
struct
type t = int
let zero = 0
let succ = fun x -> x + 1
let double = fun x -> x * 2
end
module Nat = (ExtNat : NatSig with type t = ExtNat.t)
let z = Nat.zero
let _ = ExtNat.double z
The problem is that as far as I remember it's impossible to achieve this behavior with your file structure: you define your module implicitly with signature in .mli file and structure itself in .ml, so you don't have enough control over you module, that's why I suggest you to reorganize your code a little bit (if it's not a problem).
I have stumbled across a rather simple OCaml problem, but I can't seem to find an elegant solution. I'm working with functors that are applied to relatively simple modules (they usually define a type and a few functions on that type) and extend those simple modules by adding additional more complex functions, types and modules. A simplified version would be:
module type SIMPLE = sig
type t
val to_string : t -> string
val of_string : string -> t
end
module Complex = functor (S:SIMPLE) -> struct
include S
let write db id t = db # write id (S.to_string t)
let read db id = db # read id |> BatOption.map S.of_string
end
There is no need to give the simple module a name because all its functionality is present in the extended module, and the functions in the simple module are generated by camlp4 based on the type. The idiomatic use of these functors is:
module Int = Complex(struct
type t = int
end)
The problem appears when I'm working with records:
module Point2D = Complex(struct
type t = { x : int ; y : int }
end)
let (Some location) = Point2D.read db "location"
There seems to be no simple way of accessing the x and y fields defined above from outside the Point2D module, such as location.x or location.Point2D.x. How can I achieve this?
EDIT: as requested, here's a complete minimal example that displays the issue:
module type TYPE = sig
type t
val default : t
end
module Make = functor(Arg : TYPE) -> struct
include Arg
let get = function None -> default | Some x -> (x : t)
end
module Made = Make(struct
type t = {a : int}
let default = { a = 0 } (* <-- Generated by camlp4 based on type t above *)
end)
let _ = (Made.get None).a (* <-- ERROR *)
Let's look at the signature of some of the modules involved. These are the signatures generated by Ocaml, and they're principal signatures, i.e. they are the most general signatures allowed by the theory.
module Make : functor (Arg : TYPE) -> sig
type t = Arg.t
val default : t
val get : t option -> t
end
module Made : sig
type t
val default : t
val get : t option -> t
end
Notice how the equation Make(A).t = A.t is retained (so Make(A).t is a transparent type abbreviation), yet Made.t is abstract. This is because Made is the result of applying the functor to an anonymous structure, so there is no canonical name for the argument type in this case.
Record types are generative. At the level of the underlying type theory, all generative types behave like abstract types with some syntactic sugar for constructors and destructors. The only way to designate a generative type is to give its name, either the original name or one that expands to the original name via a series of type equations.
Consider what happens if you duplicate the definition of Made:
module Made1 = Make(struct
type t = {a : int}
let default = { a = 0 } (* <-- Generated by camlp4 based on type t above *)
end)
module Made2 = Make(struct
type t = {a : int}
let default = { a = 0 } (* <-- Generated by camlp4 based on type t above *)
end)
You get two different types Made1.t and Made2.t, even though the right-hand sides of the definitions are the same. That's what generativity is all about.
Since Made.t is abstract, it's not a record type. It doesn't have any constructor. The constructors were lost when the structure argument was closed, for a lack of a name.
It so happens that with records, one often wants the syntactic sugar but not the generativity. But Ocaml doesn't have any structural record types. It has generative record types, and it has objects, which from a type theoretical view subsume records but in practice can be a little more work to use and have a small performance penalty.
module Made_object = Make(struct
type t = <a : int>
let default = object method a = 0 end
end)
Or, if you want to keep the same type definition, you need to provide a name for the type and its constructors, which means naming the structure.
module A = struct
type t = {a : int}
let default = { a = 0 } (* <-- Generated by camlp4 based on type t above *)
end
module MadeA = Make(A)
Note that if you build Make(A) twice, you get the same types all around.
module MadeA1 = Make(A)
module MadeA2 = Make(A)
(Ok, this isn't remarkable here, but you'd still get the same abstract types in MadeA1 and MakeA2, unlike the Made1 and Made2 case above. That's because now there's a name for these types: MadeA1.t = Make(A).t.)
First of all, in your last code sample, last line, you probably mean .a rather than .x.
The problem with your code is that, with the way you define your Make functor, the type t is abstract in Made: indeed, the functors use the TYPE signature which seals {a : int} as an abstract type.
The following design circumvent the issue, but, well, its a different design.
module type TYPE = sig
type t
val default : t
end
module Extend = functor(Arg : TYPE) -> struct
open Arg
let get = function None -> default | Some x -> (x : t)
end
module T = struct
type t = {a : int}
let default = { a = 0 }
end
module Made = struct
include T
include Extend(T)
end
let _ = Made.((get None).a)
The problem is that OCaml doesn't have a name to refer to the qualified components of the type t (in this case a record, but the same problem would be present with normal variants) outside Made. Naming the unnamed solves the problem:
module F = struct
type t = {a : int}
let default = { a = 0 }
end
module Made = Make(F)
let _ = (Made.get None).F.a (* <-- WORKS *)
You can also declare explicitly the type outside the functorial application:
type rcd = {a : int}
module Made = Make(struct
type t = rcd
let default = { a = 0 }
end)
let _ = (Made.get None).a (* <-- WORKS *)
module type ELEMENT =
sig
type element_i
end
module Element:ELEMENT =
struct
type element_i = N of int | CNN of cnn
end
module type SEMIRING =
functor (E:ELEMENT)->
sig
type elements
end
module Semiring:SEMIRING =
functor(Element:ELEMENT) ->
struct
let zero = (Element.element_i 0) (*ERROR: Unbounded Value; Same with N 0*)
end
How can I create objects of the type element_i inside Semiring module here?
You can allow the programmer to create values of type element_i inside Semiring by not hiding the constructors of this type, as you are currently doing.
Instead, define the signature ELEMENT as:
module type ELEMENT =
sig
type element_i = N of int | CNN of cnn
end
This makes your functor Semiring expect more of its Element argument: instead of any type Element.element_i, it now only accepts a type with exactly these constructors. But on the plus side it can now apply the constructors to build values of this type, for instance Element.N 12
There's actually two problems with your example. The first is pointed out by Pascal (i.e., the constructors of element_i are hidden by the signature). The second is that the module Element in the functor is not the same as module Element you declared above. The Element argument to the functor is a "hiding" the definition of Element the same way a function parameter would "hide" a variable:
let x = 0
let f = fun x -> (* x here is a different x... *)
module type T = sig (* ... *) end
module M : T = struct (* ... *) end
module F = functor (M : T) -> (* M here is a different M... *)