Is there any particular reason why piping to int works here but the system convert doesn't? Which method should be used?
printfn "%i" ("1_2" |> int)
printfn "%i" (System.Int32.Parse("1_2"))
I am using .NET core 2.2
It looks like the first method calls
FSharp.Core.dll!Microsoft.FSharp.Core.LanguagePrimitives.ParseInt32(string s)
and the second calls
System.Private.CoreLib.dll!int.Parse(string s)
So if anyone is curious, I looked at the difference. the .NET core dll doesnt strip underscores
System.Private.CoreLib.dll uses
private static unsafe void StringToNumber(ReadOnlySpan<char> str, NumberStyles options, ref NumberBuffer number, NumberFormatInfo info, bool parseDecimal)
{
Debug.Assert(info != null);
fixed (char* stringPointer = &MemoryMarshal.GetReference(str))
{
char* p = stringPointer;
if (!ParseNumber(ref p, p + str.Length, options, ref number, info, parseDecimal)
|| (p - stringPointer < str.Length && !TrailingZeros(str, (int)(p - stringPointer))))
{
throw new FormatException(SR.Format_InvalidString);
}
}
}
And FSharp.Core.dll uses
let ParseInt32 (s:string) =
if System.Object.ReferenceEquals(s,null) then
raise( new System.ArgumentNullException("s") )
let s = removeUnderscores (s.Trim())
let l = s.Length
let mutable p = 0
let sign = getSign32 s &p l
let specifier = get0OXB s &p l
if p >= l then formatError() else
match Char.ToLowerInvariant(specifier) with
| 'x' -> sign * (int32OfUInt32 (Convert.ToUInt32(UInt64.Parse(s.Substring(p), NumberStyles.AllowHexSpecifier,CultureInfo.InvariantCulture))))
| 'b' -> sign * (int32OfUInt32 (Convert.ToUInt32(parseBinaryUInt64 (s.Substring(p)))))
| 'o' -> sign * (int32OfUInt32 (Convert.ToUInt32(parseOctalUInt64 (s.Substring(p)))))
| _ -> Int32.Parse(s, NumberStyles.AllowLeadingSign, CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)
As others said two different implementations of parsing an integer is used and doesn't necessarily produce the same result. However, one might wonder why F# allows 1_2 as a valid int?
I browsed the history of the source code and found that it was implemented in this commit: implement Underscore Literals
It was made to support literals in F# like this:
let x = 1_000_000
let y = 1000000
x = y // true
x and y is equal but 1_000_000 is thanks to the underscores somewhat easier to read as 1 million.
Because how it was implemented it also leaked into runtime as now int "1_000_000" parse successfully.
In the first case ("1_2" |> int) you are using int which is an F# primitive.
In the second case (System.Int32.Parse("1_2")) you are using System.Int32 which is a .NET CLR and not specifically an F# type.
The two use different rules for parsing integers as you discovered in the implementations.
Related
I am fairly new to f#, but I want to know if it is possible to make a function that accepts multiple types of variables.
let add x y = x + y
let integer = add 1 2
let word = add "He" "llo"
Once a function use a type of variable it cannot accept another one.
You need to read about statically resolved type parameters and inline functions. It allows to create functions which may take any type that supports operation and/or have member. So your add function should be defined this way:
let inline add x y = x + y
Don't overuse inlined functions because their code inlined in call site and may increase assembly size, but may increase performance (test each case, don't make predictions!). Also inlined function are supported only by F# compiler and may not work with other languages (important when designing libraries).
Example of SRTP magic:
let inline (|Parsed|_|) (str: string) =
let mutable value = Unchecked.defaultof<_>
let parsed = ( ^a : (static member TryParse : string * byref< ^a> -> bool) (str, &value))
if parsed then
Some value
else
None
match "123.3" with
| Parsed 123 -> printfn "int 123"
| Parsed 123.4m -> printfn "decimal 123.4"
| Parsed 123.3 -> printfn "double 123.3"
// | Parsed "123.3" -> printfn "string 123.3" // compile error because string don't have TryParse static member
| s -> printfn "unmatched %s" s
I'm trying to go from:
sprintf "%3.1f" myNumber
to:
sprintf myFormatter myNumber
which is not possible
I have a situation where number precision depends on some settings, so I would like to be able to create my own formatter string.
I know it can be done with String.Format, but I am curious if there is a F# way with sprintf, or ksprinf; can it be done?
Simple answer
EDIT: Diego Esmerio on F# Slack showed me a simpler way that I honestly never thought of while working out the answer below. The trick is to use PrintfFormat directly, like as follows.
// Credit: Diego. This
let formatPrec precision =
PrintfFormat<float -> string,unit,string,string>(sprintf "%%1.%if" precision)
let x = 15.234
let a = sprintf (formatPrec 0) x
let b = sprintf (formatPrec 1) x
let c = sprintf (formatPrec 3) x
Output:
val formatPrec : precision:int -> PrintfFormat<(float -> string),unit,string,string>
val x : float = 15.234
val a : string = "15"
val b : string = "15.2"
val c : string = "15.234"
This approach is arguably much simpler than the Expr-based approach below. For both approaches, be careful with the formatting string, as it will compile just fine, but break at runtime if it is invalid.
Original answer (complex)
This isn't trivial to do, because functions like sprintf and printfn are compile-time special-case functions that turn your string-argument into a function (in this case of type float -> string).
There are some things you can do with kprintf, but it won't allow the formatting-argument to become a dynamic value, since the compiler still wants to type-check that.
However, using quotations we can build such function ourselves. The easy way is to create quotation from your expression and to change the parts we need to change.
The starting point is this:
> <# sprintf "%3.1f" #>
val it : Expr<(float -> string)> =
Let (clo1,
Call (None, PrintFormatToString,
[Coerce (NewObject (PrintfFormat`5, Value ("%3.1f")), PrintfFormat`4)]),
Lambda (arg10, Application (clo1, arg10)))
...
That may look like a whole lot of mess, but since we only need to change one tiny bit, we can do this rather simply:
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations // part of F#
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.Patterns // part of F#
open FSharp.Quotations.Evaluator // NuGet package (with same name)
// this is the function that in turn will create a function dynamically
let withFormat format =
let expr =
match <# sprintf "%3.1f" #> with
| Let(var, expr1, expr2) ->
match expr1 with
| Call(None, methodInfo, [Coerce(NewObject(ctor, [Value _]), mprintFormat)]) ->
Expr.Let(var, Expr.Call(methodInfo, [Expr.Coerce(Expr.NewObject(ctor, [Expr.Value format]), mprintFormat)]), expr2)
| _ -> failwith "oops" // won't happen
| _ -> failwith "oops" // won't happen
expr.CompileUntyped() :?> (float -> string)
To use this, we can now simply do this:
> withFormat "%1.2f" 123.4567899112233445566;;
val it : string = "123.46"
> withFormat "%1.5f" 123.4567899112233445566;;
val it : string = "123.45679"
> withFormat "%1.12f" 123.4567899112233445566;;
val it : string = "123.456789911223"
Or like this:
> let format = "%0.4ef";;
val format : string = "%0.4ef"
> withFormat format 123.4567899112233445566;;
val it : string = "1.2346e+002f"
It doesn't matter whether the format string is now a fixed string during compile time. However, if this is used in performance sensitive area, you may want to cache the resulting functions, as recompiling an expression tree is moderately expensive.
Can somebody help me with article of Tomas Petricek: http://tomasp.net/blog/fsharp-dynamic-lookup.aspx/#dynfslinks?
The problem is that it is severely outdated. I understand that namespaces
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.Typed
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.Raw
are gone. So I removed the openings. But there are still errors. "Typed" is not defined. "RecdGet" is not defined. And I suspect they are not the last. I'm trying to prove to my boss that F# is good to use for database normalization. Dynamic lookup of fields would really helped me to deal with similarly named fields having different prefixes.
There is also post of Tomas on fpish: https://fpish.net/topic/None/57493, which I understand predates the article
Here's a rough equivalent:
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.Patterns
type DynamicMember<'t,'u> = Expr<'t -> 'u>
let getValueReader (expr:DynamicMember<'recdT, 'fieldT>) =
// Match the quotation representing the symbol
match expr with
| Lambda(v, PropertyGet (Some (Var v'), pi, [])) when v = v' ->
// It represents reading of the F# record field..
// .. get a function that reads the record field using F# reflection
let rdr = Reflection.FSharpValue.PreComputeRecordFieldReader pi
// we're not adding any additional processing, so we just
// simply add type conversion to the correct types & return it
((box >> rdr >> unbox) : 'recdT -> 'fieldT)
| _ ->
// Quotation doesn't represent symbol - this is an error
failwith "Invalid expression - not reading record field!"
type SampleRec = { Str : string; Num : int }
let readStrField = getValueReader <# fun (r : SampleRec) -> r.Str #>
let readNumField = getValueReader <# fun (r : SampleRec) -> r.Num #>
let rc = { Str = "Hello world!"; Num = 42 }
let s, n = readStrField rc, readNumField rc
printfn "Extracted: %s, %d" s n
Is it possible to express something like this:
type id = int > 0
I know its not possible to do statically, since this would mean F# has dependent types. In C# I'm used to do this sort of thing with code contracts and get a runtime enforcement. I'm looking for something similiar here.
Thanks
EDIT:
Thank you for all the answers which have various pros and cons. At the monent I'm only using a small subset of F#, a subset of the ocaml core that lends itself easily to program proofs. So no classes.
Contrary to what others said, I would suggest not using classes here, if I understood your problem correctly.
Since the value is immutable, we need applying constraint only once. Any wrapper classes would be an overhead and load GC. Instead, a simple function will do the job:
let inline constrained predicate errormessage value =
if not (predicate value)
then invalidArg "value" errormessage
else value
let positive =
constrained (fun x -> x > 0) "Value must be positive"
let int1 = positive 5 // OK
let int2 = positive -3 // ArgumentException
You can do the same for other types:
let mustBeLong =
constrained (fun (x:string) -> x.Length > 3) "String must be long"
let str1 = mustBeLong "foobar" // OK
let str2 = mustBeLong "baz" // ArgumentException
Using the same within a struct:
type Point2D =
struct
val X: int
val Y: int
new(x: int, y: int) = { X = positive x; Y = positive y }
end
let point1 = Point2D(5, 3) // OK
let point2 = Point2D(5, -2) // ArgumentException
Define it as a union type:
type Id = Id of int
and shadow the constructor with another function:
let Id n =
assert(n > 0)
Id n
In F#, you have to resort to classes and check arguments inside constructors. Other types such as discriminated unions, records and structs have implicit constructors which you can't easily alter.
type Id(i: int) =
do if i <= 0 then
invalidArg "i" "the argument has to be a positive integer"
member x.Value = i
Pattern matching doesn't play nicely with classes. You can remedy the problem using active patterns:
let (|Id|) (id: Id) = id.Value
let id = Id(1)
match id with
| Id 1 -> printfn "matched"
| _ -> printfn "unmatched"
You could create a generic class like so:
type verify<'t>(t:'t,cond) =
let mutable tval = t
let _verify v = if not (cond v) then failwith "bad argument"
do _verify tval
member x.get() = tval
member x.set v =
_verify v
tval <- v
then you can use it with
verify(1,fun t -> t>0)
using .set will recheck the condition.
I'm wondering what others have come up with for dealing with Nullable<'T> in F#. I want to use Nullable<'T> on data types so that serialization works properly (i.e., doesn't write out F# option type to XML). But, I don't want my code stuck dealing with the ugliness of dealing with Nullable<'T> directly. Any suggestions?
Is it better to use active patterns to match directly on Nullable, or just a converter to option and use Some/None matching?
Additionally, I'd love to hear ideas on dealing with nullable references in a nice manner too. If I use, say "string option", then I end up with the F# option type wrapping things. If I don't then I can't distinguish between truly optional strings and strings that shouldn't be null.
Any chance .NET 4 will take on an Option<'T> to help out? (If it's part of the BCL, then we might see better support for it...)
As active patterns as options plays nicely with pattern matching, but is seems by using active patterns (i.e. typeof and ??) your code will eat more ticks.
The base question is how you will deal with your nullable references?
In case your code is long chained computations it's nice to use monadic syntax:
type Maybe<'a> = (unit -> 'a option)
let succeed x : Maybe<'a> = fun () -> Some(x)
let fail : Maybe<'a> = fun () -> None
let run (a: Maybe<'a>) = a()
let bind p rest = match run p with None -> fail | Some r -> (rest r)
let delay f = fun () -> run (f ())
type MaybeBuilder() =
member this.Return(x) = succeed x
member this.Let(p,rest) = rest p
member this.Bind(p,rest) = bind p rest
member this.Delay(f) = delay f
let maybe = new MaybeBuilder()
let add (a:'a) (b:'a) =
maybe {
match TryGetNumericAssociation<'a>() with
| Some v -> return (v.Add(a,b))
| _ -> return! fail
}
let add3 (a:'a) (b:'a) (c:'a) =
maybe {
let! ab = add a b
let! abc = add ab c
return abc
}
> let r1 = add 1 2;;
val r1 : (unit -> int option)
> r1();;
val it : int option = Some 3
> let r2 = add "1" "2";;
val r2 : (unit -> string option)
> r2();;
val it : string option = None
> let r3 = add3 "one" "two" "three";;
val r3 : (unit -> string option)
> r3();;
val it : string option = None