OK:
let em inp=sprintf"<em>%A</em>"inp
let bold inp=sprintf"<b>%A</b>"inp
printfn"%s"<|em"blabla"///<em>blabla</em>
Trying to define together (with compiling error):
let em2,bold2=
let tag a b=sprintf"<%s>%A</%s>"a b a
(fun inp->tag"em"inp),tag"b"
Error:
Value restriction. The value 'em2' has been inferred to have generic type
val em2 : ('_a -> string -> string)
Either make the arguments to 'em2' explicit or, if you do not intend for it to be generic, add a type annotation.F# Compiler(30)
I don't think this is going to work, because the F# compiler doesn't consider a tuple to be a "simple immutable value":
The compiler performs automatic generalization only on complete function definitions that have explicit arguments, and on simple immutable values.
This means that the compiler issues an error if you try to compile code that is not sufficiently constrained to be a specific type, but is also not generalizable. The error message for this problem refers to this restriction on automatic generalization for values as the value restriction.
Instead, I think you have to define them separately, like this:
let tag a b=sprintf"<%s>%A</%s>"a b a
let em2 inp=tag"em"inp
let bold2 b=tag"b"b
If your desire here is to hide the definition of tag, you can make it private.
I like the idea of centralizing the logic (here: HTML formatting) in a single factory function, to enforce the DRY principle.
Instead of fully hiding the tag factory function in a closure, we can hide it just from other modules, making it private which is usually enough encapsulation. After some renaming:
let private inside tag content = // 'a -> '-b -> string
$"<{tag}>{content}</{tag}>" // 👈 F# 5 interpolated string
Then, the usual way in F# to generate the specific function is through partial application. Since the current inside function is generic, we can't use the point free notation (meaning implicit parameter content) without loosing the generic type:
let em = inside "em" // ⚠️ obj -> string
We have 2 solutions:
Have explicit content parameter: let em content = inside "em" content but it's less elegant.
Change the signature of inside function and make all parameters of type string. In fact, the function inside does not care about the type of its parameters - it only cares about strings since it casts them to string implicitly using the ToString() method which can lead to bad surprises when calling this function.
let private inside tag content = // string -> string -> string
$"<%s{tag}>%s{content}</{tag}>" // 👈 %s to indicate parameters are strings
let em = inside "em" // string -> string
let strong = inside "strong"
Related
In the book, "Swift Programming Language 3.0", it mentioned that types of closure include:
Global functions are closures that have a name and do not capture
any values
Nested function are closures that have a name and can
capture values from their enclosing function
Closure expression are
unnamed closure written in a lightweight syntax that can capture
values from their surrounding context
I was just wondering does a function that exist in class scope count as a closure? One can certainly pass around such function as an argument to other function, but is it a closure?
Yes! Absolutely! Here's an example that uses the lowercased() method of String.
let aClosure: (String) -> () -> String = String.lowercased
let anUpperCasedString = "A B C"
print(anUpperCasedString)
let aLowerCaseString = aClosure(anUpperCasedString)()
print(aLowerCaseString)
You can see that the type of this closure is (String) -> () -> String. This is because String.lowercased is completely unapplied, it has no clue what instance it's operating on.
Calling aClosure(anUpperCasedString) will return a closure that's now () -> String. Baked into it is the instance it'll operate on. Only when you call this new closure with no params (()), will it actually execute the body of lowercased(), operating on the instance you gave it in the previous step, and return you the String result.
As a consequence, this is also valid:
let aLowerCaseString = String.lowercased("QWERTY")()
It just does all the steps above in one inlined step.
This technique is called function currying. This post talks more about this technique (called function currying) as it applies to instance methods in Swift.
If I write the following F# code, the compiler issues an error.
let a = 123
let a = 123
The error produced is:
error FS0037: Duplicate definition of value 'a'
If I write the same code in a function like this:
let fctn =
let a =123
let a =123
a
it doesn't produce any error.
I don't understand the difference. Can anyone please explain?
Edit : first code I write in module level.
I agree this is confusing. The problem is that let behaves differently when it is used as a local variable (within a function) and when it is used as a global definition (within a module).
Global definitions (in a module) are compiled as static members of a static class and so a name can be used only once. This means that top-level use of:
let a = 10
let a = 11
... is an error, because F# would have to produce two static members of the same name.
Local definitions (inside a function or some other nested scope) are compiled to Common IL and the variable name essentially disappears (the IL uses the stack instead). In this case, F# allows you to shadow variables, that is, you can hide a previous variable by re-using an existing name. This can be inside a function, or even just a do block inside a module, type or other function:
do
let a = 10
let a = 11
()
This is a bit confusing, because variable shadowing only works inside local scopes but not at the top level. It makes sense when you know how things are compiled though.
As an aside, while IL allows overloads of members by the same name, such overloads cannot be defined at module level in F#. Instead, you'd need to define them specifically as static member on a class (type in F#).
on scope and shadowing
as CaringDev mentioned (but not explained) you will probably see what the shadowing is about when you make the scope a bit more obvious (using the let ... in ... construct #light let you shorten a bit - but you still can use it even without #light off)
Try this:
> let a = 233 in let a = 555 in a;;
val it : int = 555
as you can see the expression evaluates to the shadowed value of a - but the original is not lost:
> let a = 233 in (let a = 555 in a), a;;
val it : int * int = (555, 233)
it's just not in scope in the inner let ... in ...
btw: you can rewrite your example to:
let fctn =
let a = 123 in
(let a =123 in a)
(I added the parentheses just to make this more obvious)
the other on the module level really defines a value for the scope of the module and is not really an expression but a definition
The first snippet defines two public values with the same name.
The second hides (shadows) a value.
With the first you would have externally visible change of state (a behaves like mutable) whereas with the second you can't (you have two as in different scopes).
If you write your statements in #light off ML syntax it becomes obvious immediately.
I wrote a function that takes a non-optional String as a parameter.
I declared a variable property of type String, which is also not an optional.
When I try to call my function with this property as an argument, I get the following error.
Cannot invoke 'localesForCountryCode' with an argument list of type '(String)'
Notice that the error lists the type as '(String)' not 'String'. What do the parens signify? I thought they meant that the type was optional, but nothing is declared as an optional anywhere.
My Function (An extension of NSLocale):
func localesForCountryCode(countryCode: String) -> [NSLocale] {
let localeIdentifiers = localeIdentifiersForCountryCode(countryCode)
var locales = [NSLocale]()
for localeIdentifier in localeIdentifiers {
let localeForIdentifier = NSLocale(localeIdentifier: localeIdentifier)
locales.append(localeForIdentifier)
}
return locales
}
Code That Calls My Function
let currentCountryCode = "US"
var localesForCurrentCountry = [NSLocale]()
func updateWithNewLocation(newLocation: CLLocation) {
geoCoder.reverseGeocodeLocation(newLocation, completionHandler: { (placemarks, error) -> Void in
if placemarks.count > 0 {
let placemark = placemarks.first as! CLPlacemark
self.currentCountry = placemark.country
self.localesForCurrentCountry = NSLocale.localesForCountryCode(self.currentCountryCode)
}
})
}
Update 1
When I move my function code from the NSLocale extension to the view controller from which I am calling the function, the error goes away. Any ideas why this may be the case? Absolutely no changes to the function were made.
Update 2
I continue to run into this problem. The following is another example. Again, it seems to happen only when a function is called as a class method.
I was rereading your question and realized that your question is not really your question. Your problem has nothing to do with parentheses (see below about why). You're just calling the wrong method. NSDateComponentsFormatter is a class. stringFromTimeInterval() is an instance method. You have to crate an actual date formatter to work with. If you want a default one, you can do this:
return NSDateComponentsFormatter().stringFromTimeInterval(unwrappedTimespan)
Note the extra set of parentheses. Your probably don't want the default one, though. You probably want to configure one. See Date Formatters for an introduction to that topic. Note that date formatters can be pretty expensive to create, so you usually want to reuse them.
You're doing the same thing with localesForCountryCode. This is an instance method, not a class method. You have to create an NSLocale first.
This does open up an interesting topic, though. Why does NSDateComponentsFormatter.stringFromTimeInterval() act like a function that you're just passing the wrong arguments to? Why doesn't it say "hey, you're calling a class method?" It's because it is a function that you're just passing the wrong arguments to.
Every method is really just a curried function that takes the target object as the first parameter. See Ole Begemann's quick intro to the topic: Instance Methods are Curried Functions in Swift.
Some more on your explicit question about parentheses:
As others have noted, a (String) is a one-tuple of String. The important point is that in Swift, any type is trivially convertible to a one-tuple of that type, so the extra parentheses here are unimportant. There is no meaningful distinction between String and (String) in Swift.
All Swift functions technically take one value and return one value. So one can correctly think of:
func f(x: Int, y: Int) -> Int
as a function that takes a tuple (Int,y:Int) and returns an Int (or possibly (Int); I believe Swift actually does the former, though). This is subtly connected to how currying works in Swift. In a simpler case:
func f(x: Int)
This is a function that technically takes (Int) and returns (). That's why sometimes you will see (Type) show up in error messages. But it is not a meaningful distinction.
String - it's simple String type.
But (String) - it's a compound type called Tuple.
That means you passing to you function Tuple, not String.
A compound type is a type without a name, defined in the Swift language itself. There are two compound types: function types and tuple types. A compound type may contain named types and other compound types. For instance, the tuple type (Int, (Int, Int)) contains two elements: The first is the named type Int, and the second is another compound type (Int, Int).
In general the error message says (String) because that is the tuple / list of parameters. If you method would expect a String and afterwards an Int an error message might mention (String, paramName: Int)
So basically so far everything looks fine. You need to show us the code for us to be able to fix your exact problem. Because String and (String) normally should match in the given scenario.
Consider the following example:
func k (a:String, b:Int) {}
k(12, b:"123")
which will cause the error
Cannot invoke 'k' with an argument list of type (Int, b:String)
While
k("12", b:123)
does what you would expect.
Updated below...
I recently started experimenting with ServiceStack in F#, so naturally I started with porting the Hello World sample:
open ServiceStack.ServiceHost
open ServiceStack.ServiceInterface
open ServiceStack.WebHost.Endpoints
[<CLIMutable; Route("/hello"); Route("/hello/{Name}")>]
type Hello = { Name : string }
[<CLIMutable>]
type HelloResponse = { Result : string }
type HelloService() =
inherit Service()
member x.Any(req:Hello) =
box { Result = sprintf "Hello, %s!" req.Name }
type HelloAppHost() =
inherit AppHostBase("Hello Web Services", typeof<HelloService>.Assembly)
override x.Configure container = ()
type Global() =
inherit System.Web.HttpApplication()
member x.Application_Start() =
let appHost = new HelloAppHost()
appHost.Init()
That works great. It's very concise, easy to work with, I love it. However, I noticed that the routes defined in the sample allow for the Name parameter to not be included. Of course, Hello, ! looks kind of lame as output. I could use String.IsNullOrEmpty, but it is idiomatic in F# to be explicit about things that are optional by using the Option type. So I modified my Hello type accordingly to see what would happen:
[<CLIMutable; Route("/hello"); Route("/hello/{Name}")>]
type Hello = { Name : string option }
As soon as I did this, the F# type system forced me to deal with the fact that Name might not have a value, so I changed HelloService to this to get everything to compile:
type HelloService() =
inherit Service()
member x.Any(req:Hello) =
box { Result =
match req.Name with
| Some name -> sprintf "Hello, %s!" name
| None -> "Hello!" }
This compiles, and runs perfectly when I don't supply a Name parameter. However, when I do supply a name...
KeyValueDataContractDeserializer: Error converting to type: Type
definitions should start with a '{', expecting serialized type
'FSharpOption`1', got string starting with: World
This wasn't a complete surprise of course, but it brings me to my question:
It would be trivial for me to write a function that can wrap an instance of type T into an instance of type FSharpOption<T>. Are there any hooks in ServiceStack that would let me provide such a function for use during deserialization? I looked, but I couldn't find any, and I'm hoping I was just looking in the wrong place.
This is more important for F# use than it might seem at first, because classes defined in F# are by default not allowed to be null. So the only (satisfying, non-hacky) way of having one class as an optional property of another class is with, you guessed it, the Option type.
Update:
I was able to sort-of get this working by making the following changes:
In the ServiceStack source, I made this type public:
ServiceStack.Text.Common.ParseFactoryDelegate
...and I also made this field public:
ServiceStack.Text.Jsv.JsvReader.ParseFnCache
With those two things public, I was able to write this code in F# to modify the ParseFnCache dictionary. I had to run this code prior to creating an instance of my AppHost - it didn't work if I ran it inside the AppHost's Configure method.
JsvReader.ParseFnCache.[typeof<Option<string>>] <-
ParseFactoryDelegate(fun () ->
ParseStringDelegate(fun s -> (if String.IsNullOrEmpty s then None else Some s) |> box))
This works for my original test case, but aside from the fact that I had to make brittle changes to the internals of ServiceStack, it sucks because I have to do it once for each type I want to be able to wrap in an Option<T>.
What would be better is if I could do this in a generic way. In C# terms, it would be awesome if I could provide to ServiceStack a Func<T, Option<T>> and ServiceStack would, when deserializing a property whose generic type definition matches that of the return type of my function, deserialize T and then pass the result into my function.
Something like that would be amazingly convenient, but I could live with the once-per-wrapped-type approach if it were actually part of ServiceStack and not my ugly hack that probably breaks something somewhere else.
So there are a couple of extensibility points in ServiceStack, on the framework level you can add your own Custom Request Binder this allows you to provide your own model binder that's used, e.g:
base.RequestBinders.Add(typeof(Hello), httpReq => {
var requestDto = ...;
return requestDto;
});
But then you would need to handle the model binding for the different Content-Types yourself, see CreateContentTypeRequest for how ServiceStack does it.
Then there are hooks at the JSON Serializer level, e.g:
JsConfig<Hello>.OnDeserializedFn = dto => newDto;
This lets you modify the instance of the type returned, but it still needs to be the same type but it looks like the F# option modifier changes the structural definition of the type?
But I'm open to adding any hooks that would make ServiceStack more palatable for F#.
What does the code look like to generically convert a normal Hello type to an F# Hello type with option?
The only thing I can think of is to replace the option type with your own type, one that has an implicit conversion from string to myOption, and anything else you need.
Not all that nice, but workable. Your type would probably also need to be serializable.
type myOption =
| None
| Some of string
static member public op_Implicit (s:string) = if s <> null then Some s else None
member public this.Value = match this with
| Some s -> s
| _ -> null
member this.Opt = match this with
| Some s -> Option.Some s
| None -> Option.None
Your record type would then be
[<CLIMutable>]
type Hello =
{ Name : myOption }
On the other hand, ServiceStack is open source, so maybe something could be done there.
Under normal circumstances, F# functions can be converted to delegates by calling new DelegateType and passing in the function as an argument. But when the delegate contains byref parameter, this is not possible directly. For example the code:
type ActionByRef<'a> = delegate of 'a byref -> unit
let f (x:double byref) =
x <- 6.0
let x = ref 42.0
let d = new ActionByRef<_>(f)
won't compile, giving the following error:
This function value is being used to construct a delegate type whose signature includes a byref argument. You must use an explicit lambda expression taking 1 arguments.
Following the error, modifying the code to use
let d = new ActionByRef<_>(fun x -> f(&x))
works. But my question is: why is this necessary? Why won't F# allow the conversion from named function to this delegate, but conversion from lambda is fine?
I came upon this behavior when researching another question. I realize byref is meant only for compatibility with other .Net languages.
I think the problem is that byref<'T> is not an actual type in F# - it looks like a type (to make the language simpler), but it gets compiled to a parameter marked with the out flag. This means that byref<'T> can be only used in a place where the compiler can actually use the out flag.
The problem with function values is that you can construct function e.g. by partial application:
let foo (n:int) (b:byref<int>) =
b <- n
When you pass foo as an argument to a delegate constructor, it is a specific case of partial application (with no arguments), but partial application actually needs to construct a new method and then give that to the delegate:
type IntRefAction = delegate of byref<int> -> unit
let ac = IntRefAction(foo 5)
The compiler could be clever and generate new method with byref parameter (or out flag) and then pass that by reference to the actual function, but in general, there will be other compiler-generated method when you don't use the fun ... -> ... syntax. Handling this would add complexity and I think that's a relatively rare case, so the F# compiler doesn't do that and asks you to be more explicit...