I am rewriting a C# library to F# and I need to translate the following code
bool success;
instance.GetValue(0x10, out success);
what is the equivalent of the out keyword in F#?
Neither wasatz's answer nor Max Malook's is complete. There are three ways of calling methods with out parameters. The second and third ways also work with ref parameters.
For the examples, assume the following type:
open System.Runtime.InteropServices //for OutAttribute
type SomeType() =
member this.GetValue (key, [<Out>] success : bool byref) =
if key = 10 then
success <- true
"Ten"
else
success <- false
null
Assume also that we have an instance of that type:
let o = SomeType()
Option 1
You can let the F# compiler handle the out parameter by tupling it with the return value:
let result1, success1 = o.GetValue 10
let result2, success2 = o.GetValue 11
Running the above lines in F# interactive yields
val success1 : bool = true
val result1 : string = "Ten"
val success2 : bool = false
val result2 : string = null
Option 2
You can use a mutable value, passing its address with the & operator:
let mutable success3 = false
let result3 = o.GetValue (10, &success3)
let mutable success4 = false
let result4 = o.GetValue (11, &success4)
In F# interactive, the result is
val mutable success3 : bool = true
val result3 : string = "Ten"
val mutable success4 : bool = false
val result4 : string = null
This option is best when you are delegating to another method, since you can pass the calling method's out parameter directly to the called method. For example, if you are implementing a wrapper around IDictionary<_,_>, you can code the TryGetValue method as
//...
interface IDictionary<'TKey, 'TValue> with
member this.TryGetValue (key, value) = inner.TryGetValue (key, &value)
//...
Option 3
You can use a reference cell:
let success5 = ref false
let result5 = o.GetValue (10, success5)
let success6 = ref false
let result6 = o.GetValue (11, success6)
The output:
val success5 : bool ref = {contents = true;}
val result5 : string = "Ten"
val success6 : bool ref = {contents = false;}
val result6 : string = null
Warning!
Be careful not to use the ref keyword as you would in C# for an in/out parameter. For example, the following does not yield the desired result:
let success7 = false
let result7 = o.GetValue (10, ref success7)
The output:
val success7 : bool = false
val result7 : string = "Ten"
Why does success7 hold the value false? Because success7 is an immutable variable.
In C#, ref calls attention to the fact that you are passing a reference to a variable as the argument for a ref parameter. It simply serves as insurance that the programmer of the caller is aware that the variable may be modified by the called method. In F# however, ref creates a new reference cell holding a copy of the value of the following expression.
In this case, we are making a reference cell that holds the value copied from the success7 variable, but not assigning that new reference cell to any variable. We then pass that reference cell to the GetValue method, which modifies the content of the reference cell. Because the calling method has no variable pointing to the modified cell, it has no way of reading the new value of the reference cell.
You should probably return an option or a tuple instead. Because F# has pattern matching you really don't need out parameters since there are better ways to return more than one value from a function.
So, something like this would be more idiomatic
let (value, success) = instance.GetValue(0x10)
where instance.GetValue is a
unit -> ('a, bool)
Or you could return an option and do something like
match instance.GetValue(0x10) with
| Some value -> doStuff value
| None -> failwith "Oops!"
You have to use a reference cell.
let success = ref false
instance.GetValue(0x10, success)
// access the value
!success
I think it's also worth mentioning here that the value of the out parameter doesn't have to be initialized.
It is possible to do the following:
let mutable success3 = Unchecked.defaultof<bool>
let result3 = o.GetValue (10, &success3)
This might be usefull in scenarios where you are calling a .NET library function with arrays as output parameters, i.e:
let mutable currFeatures = Unchecked.defaultof<PointF[]>
let mutable status = Unchecked.defaultof<byte[]>
let mutable trackError = Unchecked.defaultof<float32[]>
CvInvoke.CalcOpticalFlowPyrLK(
previousFrame,
nextFrame,
previousPoints,
Size(15,15),
2,
MCvTermCriteria(10, 0.03),
//Out params
&currFeatures,
&status,
&trackError,
//---------
LKFlowFlag.UserInitialFlow)
I have a set of records:
type Person =
{
Name : string
Age : int
}
let oldPeople =
set [ { Name = "The Doctor"; Age = 1500 };
{ Name = "Yoda"; Age = 900 } ]
Unlike the hardcoded example above, the set of data actually comes from a data source (over which I have very little control). Now I need to subtract a set of data from another data source. In general, the data in this second source matches, but occasionally there is a difference in captialization:
let peopleWhoAreConfusedAboutTheirAge =
set [ { Name = "THE DOCTOR"; Age = 1500 } ]
When I attempt to subtract the second set from the first, it fails because the string comparison is case sensitive:
let peopleWhoKnowHowOldTheyAre =
oldPeople - peopleWhoAreConfusedAboutTheirAge
val peopleWhoKnowHowOldTheyAre : Set<Person> =
set [{Name = "The Doctor";
Age = 1500;}; {Name = "Yoda";
Age = 900;}]
Is there a way to perform a case-insensitive comparison for the Name field of the People record?
This is what I've implemented so far, though there may be a better way to do it.
My solution was to override the Equals function on the People record so as to perform a case-insensitive comparison. Set subtraction uses the Equals function to determine if two records match one another. By overriding Equals, I was forced (via warning and error) to override GetHashCode and implement IComparable (as well as set the CustomEquality and CustomComparison attributes):
[<CustomEquality; CustomComparison>]
type Person =
{
Name : string
Age : int
}
member private this._internalId =
this.Name.ToLower() + this.Age.ToString()
interface System.IComparable with
member this.CompareTo obj =
let other : Person = downcast obj
this._internalId.CompareTo( other._internalId )
override this.Equals( other ) =
match other with
| :? Person as other ->
System.String.Compare( this._internalId, other._internalId ) = 0
| _ -> false
override this.GetHashCode() =
this._internalId.GetHashCode()
This, however, seems to do the trick:
let oldPeople =
set [ { Name = "The Doctor"; Age = 1500 };
{ Name = "Yoda"; Age = 900 } ]
let peopleWhoAreConfusedAboutTheirAge =
set [ { Name = "THE DOCTOR"; Age = 1500 } ]
let peopleWhoKnowHowOldTheyAre =
oldPeople - peopleWhoAreConfusedAboutTheirAge
val peopleWhoKnowHowOldTheyAre : Set<Person> = set [{Name = "Yoda";
Age = 900;}]
If you know a better solution (involving less code), please post it rather than comment on this answer. I will happily accept a less verbose, awkward solution.
Here's another approach:
type Name(value) =
member val Value = value
override this.Equals(that) =
match that with
| :? Name as name -> StringComparer.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase.Equals(this.Value, name.Value)
| _ -> false
override this.GetHashCode() =
StringComparer.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase.GetHashCode(this.Value)
type Person =
{
Name: Name
Age: int
}
{Name=Name("John"); Age=21} = {Name=Name("john"); Age=21} //true
What is the best way to create an instance of System.Type representing an F# record or union at runtime? That is, I am looking for an equivalent of FSharpType.MakeTupleType for records and unions.
Just to clarify, I am not interested in creating an instance (i.e. FSharpValue.MakeRecord or FSharpValue.MakeUnion).
I am not aware of an equivalent to FSharpType.MakeTupleType for records and unions in the F# library.
One way to create record or union type like structures at runtime is to use Reflection.Emit. A record type is analogous to a sealed class and a union type is an abstract base class with sealed classes for each case.
For example the following function generates a minimal F# record type:
open System
open System.Reflection
open System.Reflection.Emit
let MakeRecord(typeName:string, fields:(string * Type)[]) =
let name = "GeneratedAssembly"
let domain = AppDomain.CurrentDomain
let assembly = domain.DefineDynamicAssembly(AssemblyName(name), AssemblyBuilderAccess.RunAndSave)
let name = "GeneratedModule"
let dm = assembly.DefineDynamicModule(name, name+".dll")
let attributes = TypeAttributes.Public ||| TypeAttributes.Class ||| TypeAttributes.Sealed
let typeBuilder = dm.DefineType(typeName, attributes)
let con = typeof<CompilationMappingAttribute>.GetConstructor([|typeof<SourceConstructFlags>|])
let customBuilder = CustomAttributeBuilder(con, [|SourceConstructFlags.RecordType|])
typeBuilder.SetCustomAttribute(customBuilder)
let makeField name t =
let attributes = FieldAttributes.Assembly
let fieldBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineField(name+"#", t, attributes)
let attributes = PropertyAttributes.None
let propertyBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineProperty(name, attributes, t, [||])
let customBuilder = CustomAttributeBuilder(con, [|SourceConstructFlags.Field|])
propertyBuilder.SetCustomAttribute(customBuilder)
let attributes = MethodAttributes.Public ||| MethodAttributes.HideBySig ||| MethodAttributes.SpecialName
let methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod("get_"+name, attributes, t, [||])
let il = methodBuilder.GetILGenerator()
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0)
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldfld, fieldBuilder)
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret)
propertyBuilder.SetGetMethod(methodBuilder)
fieldBuilder
let types = fields |> Array.map snd
let cb = typeBuilder.DefineConstructor(MethodAttributes.Public, CallingConventions.Standard, types)
let il = cb.GetILGenerator()
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0)
il.Emit(OpCodes.Call, typeof<obj>.GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes))
fields |> Array.iteri (fun i (name, t) ->
let paramName = name.Substring(0,1).ToLower()+name.Substring(1)
let param = cb.DefineParameter(i+1, ParameterAttributes.In, paramName)
let fieldBuilder = makeField name t
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0)
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg, param.Position)
il.Emit(OpCodes.Stfld, fieldBuilder)
)
il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret)
let t = typeBuilder.CreateType()
assembly.Save("GeneratedModule.dll")
t
let r = MakeRecord("MyRecord", [|"Alpha",typeof<int>;"Beta",typeof<string>|])
Note the expected interfaces for a Record type may also need to be generated, i.e. implementations of IEquatable, IStructuralEquatable, IComparable and IStructuralComparable are missing.
Update
Extension methods MakeTupleType and MakeUnionType based on the code sample above are now available in the open source Fil (F# to IL Compiler) project (alpha).
Is it possible to write extension methods for F# tuples? For example, to add instance methods .Item1 and .Item2 (like System.Tuple) which are equivalent to calling fst and snd for 2-tuples?
The System.Tuple<'T1, 'T2> type that internally represents (2-element) tuples in F# actually already has properties Item1 and Item2, but these are hidden by the F# compiler. An obvious method to add extension members to a tuple does not do the trick, so I would not expect this to work (but there may be some workaround I'm not aware of).
Generally, I think pattern matching is preferable to members such as Item1, Item2 etc. (and C# 3.0 programmers often ask for pattern matching support when working with tuples :-)).
The reason is that pattern matching forces you to name things. Compare these two code snippets:
let (width, height) = tuple
width * height
and a version using properties:
tuple.Item1 * tuple.Item2
The second is a bit shorter, but definitely less readable.
Not perfect but I'm using this. (I borrowed original code from http://www.fssnip.net/6V and added small modification.)
[<AutoOpen>]
module TupleExtensions =
type System.Tuple with
static member Item1(t) = let (x,_) = t in x
static member Item1(t) = let (x,_,_) = t in x
static member Item1(t) = let (x,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item1(t) = let (x,_,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item1(t) = let (x,_,_,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item1(t) = let (x,_,_,_,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item2(t) = let (_,x) = t in x
static member Item2(t) = let (_,x,_) = t in x
static member Item2(t) = let (_,x,_,_) = t in x
static member Item2(t) = let (_,x,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item2(t) = let (_,x,_,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item2(t) = let (_,x,_,_,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item3(t) = let (_,_,x) = t in x
static member Item3(t) = let (_,_,x,_) = t in x
static member Item3(t) = let (_,_,x,_,_) = t in x
static member Item3(t) = let (_,_,x,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item3(t) = let (_,_,x,_,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item4(t) = let (_,_,_,x) = t in x
static member Item4(t) = let (_,_,_,x,_) = t in x
static member Item4(t) = let (_,_,_,x,_,_) = t in x
static member Item4(t) = let (_,_,_,x,_,_,_) = t in x
static member Item5(t) = let (_,_,_,_,x) = t in x
static member Item5(t) = let (_,_,_,_,x,_) = t in x
static member Item5(t) = let (_,_,_,_,x,_,_) = t in x
static member Item6(t) = let (_,_,_,_,_,x) = t in x
static member Item6(t) = let (_,_,_,_,_,x,_) = t in x
static member Item7(t) = let (_,_,_,_,_,_,x) = t in x
How to use it:
let t = (1, 2, 3)
let item1 = Tuple.Item1(t)
Tuple.Item1 defined here has advantage over fst: It is polymorphic for number of items. Once we write function which uses n tuple using these extension methods, we can extend it for n+1 tuple without modifying function body. Instead we have to modify argument type declaration. It is more effortless.
I think, what you're asking is not very functional way. You can make your own type with instance methods, but at the same time you are losing many aspects of functional programming, e.g. pattern matching.
Other than that, a DU seems to be the way to go:
type MyTuple<'T, 'U> =
| MyTuple of 'T * 'U
with
member this.MyItem1 = match this with | MyTuple(x,y) -> x
member this.MyItem2 = match this with | MyTuple(x,y) -> y
let x = MyTuple(42, "foo")
let y1 = x.MyItem1 // 42
let y2 = x.MyItem2 // "foo"
As #Tomas Petricek noted, you can't name the properties Item1 and Item2 since they already exist in System.Tuple<'T1, 'T2>. Attempting to do that will cause an error:
error FS2014: A problem occurred writing the binary [filename]: Error in pass2 for type [...], error: Error in pass2 for type MyTuple`2, error: duplicate entry 'Item1' in property table
You could also use the fst and snd functions to get the values you want (and obviously write your own for third, fourth, etc. if you really wanted to).
The workaround is to use C# style extension definitions.
This will work just fine:
open System.Runtime.CompilerServices
[<Extension>]
type TupleExtensions () =
[<Extension>] static member First((a,b)) = a
[<Extension>] static member First((a,b,c)) = a
let x = (1,2).First()
let y = (1,2,3).First()
But I agree in that it's not a good idea to access the elements of a tuple through methods, pattern matching is the best way.
Let's consider the following enum in C#
public enum ScrollMode : byte
{
None = 0,
Left = 1,
Right = 2,
Up = 3,
Down = 4
}
The F# code receives a byte and has to return an instance of the enum
I have tried
let mode = 1uy
let x = (ScrollMode)mode
(Of course in the real application I do not get to set 'mode',
it is received as part of network data).
The example above does not compile, any suggestions?
For enums whose underlying type is 'int', the 'enum' function will do the conversion, but for non-int enums, you need 'LanguagePrimitives.EnumOfValue', a la:
// define an enumerated type with an sbyte implementation
type EnumType =
| Zero = 0y
| Ten = 10y
// examples to convert to and from
let x = sbyte EnumType.Zero
let y : EnumType = LanguagePrimitives.EnumOfValue 10y
(EnumOfValue is listed here
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/fsharp/manual/FSharp.Core/Microsoft.FSharp.Core.LanguagePrimitives.html
(now http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee340276(VS.100).aspx )
whereas enum is listed here
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/fsharp/manual/FSharp.Core/Microsoft.FSharp.Core.Operators.html
(now http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee353754(VS.100).aspx )
)
let x : ScrollMode = enum mode