How to create nullable list in F#? - f#

I have a list of history entries that we retrieve from 3rd party software. This list can either be null or non empty.
In C# I would have written it like this, since list can be null:
List<HistoryEntry>
However I'm struggling in writing it in F#. I've already tried:
* Nullable<HistoryEntry list>
* HistoryEntry list option
* HistoryEntry list?
* HistoryEntry list | null
However none of this works. We use a ListConverter which is pretty much used everywhere, and I dare not change it (since that breaks everything):
type ListConverter() =
inherit JsonConverter()
override __.CanConvert(t : Type) = (t.IsGenericType && t.GetGenericTypeDefinition() = typedefof<list<_>>)
override __.WriteJson(writer, value, serializer) =
let list = value :?> System.Collections.IEnumerable |> Seq.cast
serializer.Serialize(writer, list)
override __.ReadJson(reader, t, _, serializer) =
let itemType = t.GetGenericArguments().[0]
let collectionType = typedefof<IEnumerable<_>>.MakeGenericType(itemType)
let collection = serializer.Deserialize(reader, collectionType) :?> IEnumerable<_>
let listType = typedefof<list<_>>.MakeGenericType(itemType)
let cases = FSharpType.GetUnionCases(listType)
let rec make =
function
| [] -> FSharpValue.MakeUnion(cases.[0], [||])
| head :: tail ->
FSharpValue.MakeUnion(cases.[1],
[| head
(make tail) |])
make (collection |> Seq.toList)
My question is: how to create nullable list that will be understood by this serializer?

I actually think the problem is with the ListConverter, not the type of list you're trying to use. The ListConverter does not account for the entire collection being null, which is perfectly possible in JSON. I think the simplest change would be to use a custom version of Seq.toList that checks for nulls and converts them to an empty list.
let toJsonList s =
if s |> box |> isNull
then []
else s |> Seq.toList
Then just change the last line of the ListConverter to be:
make (collection |> toJsonList)

Related

Dapper generic typehandler for F# Union types

I'm using union types similar to enums on my dapper objects:
type Confidence =
| Low
| Medium
| High
type Goal = {
Confidence: Confidence
...
}
I've created a custom type handler in order to make it work:
type UnionHandler<'T>() =
inherit SqlMapper.TypeHandler<'T>()
override __.SetValue(param, value) =
param.Value <- value.ToString()
()
override x.Parse(value: obj) =
Union.parse <| string value
let registerTypeHandlers() =
SqlMapper.AddTypeHandler (UnionHandler<Confidence>())
This works fine, but it would be even nicer if I didn't have to register a new one for each new union type.
Is it possible to make the type handler generic in such a way that it can handle all union types with only one registration?
This can be done with Reflection:
let internal addUnionTypeHandlers() =
let assembly = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()
let unionHandlerType =
assembly.GetTypes()
|> Seq.filter(fun t -> t.Name.Contains("UnionHandler") && t.IsGenericTypeDefinition)
|> Seq.head
assembly.GetTypes()
|> Seq.filter(fun t -> not t.IsGenericType && FSharpType.IsUnion(t, BindingFlags.Default))
|> Seq.iter(fun t ->
let ctor = unionHandlerType
.MakeGenericType(t)
.GetConstructor(Array.empty)
.Invoke(Array.empty)
(typeof<SqlMapper>.GetMethods()
|> Seq.filter(fun methodInfo ->
if methodInfo.Name = "AddTypeHandler" && methodInfo.IsGenericMethodDefinition then
let gp = methodInfo.GetParameters()
not <| isNull gp && gp.Length = 1 && gp.[0].ParameterType.Name.Contains("TypeHandler")
else false)
|> Seq.head)
.MakeGenericMethod(t)
.Invoke(null, [| ctor |]) |> ignore
)
Note:
It would have been much simpler if Dapper have had the signature of AddTypeHandler in a form ITypeHandler -> unit. But it accepts TypeHandler and in addition has overloaded version. So we need GMD for method AddTypeHandler and instantiate it with method MakeGenericMethod and then call this method with parameter which we obtains from GetConstructor ... Invoke
Playing further with reflection you can decide to mark some discriminated unions with some attribute to ignore adding the mapping. You can extend code to analyse if type has attribute. Also you can do manipulations on module basis I assume using FSharpType.IsModule

How can I determine if a list of discriminated union types are of the same case?

Suppose I have a DU like so:
type DU = Number of int | Word of string
And suppose I create a list of them:
[Number(1); Word("abc"); Number(2)]
How can I write a function that would return true for a list of DUs where all the elements are the same case. For the above list it should return false.
The general approach I'd use here would be to map the union values into tags identifying the cases, and then check if the resulting set of tags has at most one element.
let allTheSameCase (tagger: 'a -> int) (coll: #seq<'a>) =
let cases =
coll
|> Seq.map tagger
|> Set.ofSeq
Set.count cases <= 1
For the tagger function, you can assign the tags by hand:
allTheSameCase (function Number _ -> 0 | Word _ -> 1) lst
or use reflection (note that you might need to set binding flags as necessary):
open Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection
let reflectionTagger (case: obj) =
let typ = case.GetType()
if FSharpType.IsUnion(typ)
then
let info, _ = FSharpValue.GetUnionFields(case, typ)
info.Tag
else -1 // or fail, depending what makes sense in the context.
In case you wanted to check that the elements of a list are of a specific union case, it's straightforward to provide a predicate function.
let isNumbers = List.forall (function Number _ -> true | _ -> false)
If you do not care which union case, as long as they are all the same, you need to spell them all out explicitly. Barring reflection magic to get a property not exposed inside F#, you also need to assign some value to each case. To avoid having to think up arbitrary values, we can employ an active pattern which maps to a different DU behind the scenes.
let (|IsNumber|IsWord|) = function
| Number _ -> IsNumber
| Word _ -> IsWord
let isSameCase src =
src |> Seq.groupBy (|IsNumber|IsWord|) |> Seq.length <= 1
I had the exact same use case recently and the solution can be done much simpler than complicated reflections or explicit pattern matching, GetType does all the magic:
let AreAllElementsOfTheSameType seq = // seq<'a> -> bool
if Seq.isEmpty seq then true else
let t = (Seq.head seq).GetType ()
seq |> Seq.forall (fun e -> (e.GetType ()) = t)

Functional way to add to Lists that are Class-Members

I want to sort items of a class and collect them in Collection-Classes that beside a List-Member also contain further information that are necessary for the sorting process.
The following example is a a very simplified example for my problem. Although it doesn't make sense, I hope it still can help to understand my Question.
type ItemType = Odd|Even //realworld: more than two types possible
type Item(number) =
member this.number = number
member this.Type = if (this.number % 2) = 0 then Even else Odd
type NumberTypeCollection(numberType:ItemType , ?items:List<Item>) =
member this.ItemType = numberType
member val items:List<Item> = defaultArg items List.empty<Item> with get,set
member this.append(item:Item) = this.items <- item::this.items
let addToCollection (collections:List<NumberTypeCollection>) (item:Item) =
let possibleItem =
collections
|> Seq.where (fun c -> c.ItemType = item.Type) //in my realworld code, several groups may be returned
|> Seq.tryFind(fun _ -> true)
match possibleItem with
|Some(f) -> f.append item
collections
|None -> NumberTypeCollection(item.Type, [item]) :: collections
let rec findTypes (collections:List<NumberTypeCollection>) (items:List<Item>) =
match items with
| [] -> collections
| h::t -> let newCollections = ( h|> addToCollection collections)
findTypes newCollections t
let items = [Item(1);Item(2);Item(3);Item(4)]
let finalCollections = findTypes List.empty<NumberTypeCollection> items
I'm unsatisfied with the addToCollection method, since it requires the items in NumberTypeCollection to be mutual. Maybe there are further issues.
What can be a proper functional solution to solve this issue?
Edit: I'm sorry. May code was too simplified. Here is a little more complex example that should hopefully illustrate why I chose the mutual class-member (although this could still be the wrong decision):
open System
type Origin = Afrika|Asia|Australia|Europa|NorthAmerika|SouthAmerica
type Person(income, taxrate, origin:Origin) =
member this.income = income
member this.taxrate = taxrate
member this.origin = origin
type PersonGroup(origin:Origin , ?persons:List<Person>) =
member this.origin = origin
member val persons:List<Person> = defaultArg persons List.empty<Person> with get,set
member this.append(person:Person) = this.persons <- person::this.persons
//just some calculations to group people into some subgroups
let isInGroup (person:Person) (personGroup:PersonGroup) =
let avgIncome =
personGroup.persons
|> Seq.map (fun p -> float(p.income * p.taxrate) / 100.0)
|> Seq.average
Math.Abs ( (avgIncome / float person.income) - 1.0 ) < 0.5
let addToGroup (personGroups:List<PersonGroup>) (person:Person) =
let possibleItem =
personGroups
|> Seq.where (fun p -> p.origin = person.origin)
|> Seq.where (isInGroup person)
|> Seq.tryFind(fun _ -> true)
match possibleItem with
|Some(f) -> f.append person
personGroups
|None -> PersonGroup(person.origin, [person]) :: personGroups
let rec findPersonGroups (persons:List<Person>) (personGroups:List<PersonGroup>) =
match persons with
| [] -> personGroups
| h::t -> let newGroup = ( h|> addToGroup personGroups)
findPersonGroups t newGroup
let persons = [Person(1000,20, Afrika);Person(1300,22,Afrika);Person(500,21,Afrika);Person(400,20,Afrika)]
let c = findPersonGroups persons List.empty<PersonGroup>
What I may need to emphasize: There can be several different groups with the same origin.
Tomas' solution using groupby is the optimal approach if you want to generate your collections only once, it's a simple and concise.
If you want to be able to add/remove items in a functional, referentially transparent style for this type of problem, I suggest you move away from seq and start using Map.
You have a setup which is fundamentally dictionary-like. You have a unique key and a value. The functional F# equivalent to a dictionary is a Map, it is an immutable data structure based on an AVL tree. You can insert, remove and search in O(log n) time. When you append/remove from the Map, the old Map is maintained and you receive a new Map.
Here is your code expressed in this style
type ItemType =
|Odd
|Even
type Item (number) =
member this.Number = number
member this.Type = if (this.Number % 2) = 0 then Even else Odd
type NumTypeCollection = {Items : Map<ItemType, Item list>}
/// Functions on NumTypeCollection
module NumberTypeCollection =
/// Create empty collection
let empty = {Items = Map.empty}
/// Append one item to the collection
let append (item : Item) numTypeCollection =
let key = item.Type
match Map.containsKey key numTypeCollection.Items with
|true ->
let value = numTypeCollection.Items |> Map.find key
let newItems =
numTypeCollection.Items
|> Map.remove key
|> Map.add key (item :: value) // append item
{Items = newItems }
|false -> {Items = numTypeCollection.Items |> Map.add key [item]}
/// Append a list of items to the collections
let appendList (item : Item list) numTypeCollection =
item |> List.fold (fun acc it -> append it acc) numTypeCollection
Then call it using:
let items = [Item(1);Item(2);Item(3);Item(4)]
let finalCollections = NumberTypeCollection.appendList items (NumberTypeCollection.empty)
If I understand your problem correctly, you're trying to group the items by their type. The easiest way to do that is to use the standard library function Seq.groupBy. The following should implement the same logic as your code:
items
|> Seq.groupBy (fun item -> item.Type)
|> Seq.map (fun (key, values) ->
NumberTypeCollection(key, List.ofSeq values))
Maybe there are further issues.
Probably. It's difficult to tell, since it's hard to detect the purpose of the OP code... still:
Why do you even need an Item class? Instead, you could simply have a itemType function:
let itemType i = if i % 2 = 0 then Even else Odd
This function is referentially transparent, which means that you can replace it with its value if you wish. That makes it as good as a property getter method, but now you've already saved yourself from introducing a new type.
Why define a NumberTypeCollection class? Why not a simple record?
type NumberTypeList = { ItemType : ItemType; Numbers : int list }
You can implement addToCollection like something like this:
let addToCollection collections i =
let candidate =
collections
|> Seq.filter (fun c -> c.ItemType = (itemType i))
|> Seq.tryHead
match candidate with
| Some x ->
let x' = { x with Numbers = i :: x.Numbers }
collections |> Seq.filter ((<>) x) |> Seq.append [x']
| None ->
collections |> Seq.append [{ ItemType = (itemType i); Numbers = [i] }]
Being immutable, it doesn't mutate the input collections, but instead returns a new sequence of NumberTypeList.
Also notice the use of Seq.tryHead instead of Seq.tryFind(fun _ -> true).
Still, if you're attempting to group items, then Tomas' suggestion of using Seq.groupBy is more appropriate.

error with f# generic follow Expert Fsharp book example

I'm reading Expert F# book and I found this code
open System.Collections.Generic
let divideIntoEquivalenceClasses keyf seq =
// The dictionary to hold the equivalence classes
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>()
// Build the groupings
seq |> Seq.iter (fun v ->
let key = keyf v
let ok,prev = dict.TryGetValue(key)
if ok then prev.Add(v)
else let prev = new ResizeArray<'T>()
dict.[key] <- prev
prev.Add(v))
dict |> Seq.map (fun group -> group.Key, Seq.readonly group.Value)
and the example use:
> divideIntoEquivalenceClasses (fun n -> n % 3) [ 0 .. 10 ];;
val it : seq<int * seq<int>>
= seq [(0, seq [0; 3; 6; 9]); (1, seq [1; 4; 7; 10]); (2, seq [2; 5; 8])]
first for me this code is really ugly, even if this is safe, It looks more similar to imperative languages than to functional lang..specially compared to clojure. But the problem is not this...I'm having problems with the Dictionary definition
when I type this:
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>();;
I get this:
pruebafs2a.fs(32,5): error FS0030: Value restriction. The value 'dict' has been inferred to have generic type
val dict : Dictionary<'_key,ResizeArray<'_T>> when '_key : equality
Either define 'dict' as a simple data term, make it a function with explicit arguments or, if you do not intend for it to be generic, add a type annotation.
is It ok?...
thanks so much
improve question:
Ok I've been reading about value restriction and I found this helpfull information
In particular, only function definitions and simple immutable data
expressions are automatically generalized
...ok..this explains why
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>();;
doesn't work...and show 4 different techniques, although in my opinion they only resolve the error but aren't solutions for use generic code:
Technique 1: Constrain Values to Be Nongeneric
let empties : int list [] = Array.create 100 []
Technique 3: Add Dummy Arguments to Generic Functions When Necessary
let empties () = Array.create 100 []
let intEmpties : int list [] = empties()
Technique 4: Add Explicit Type Arguments When Necessary (similar to tec 3)
let emptyLists = Seq.init 100 (fun _ -> [])
> emptyLists<int>;;
val it : seq<int list> = seq [[]; []; []; []; ...]
----- and the only one than let me use real generic code ------
Technique 2: Ensure Generic Functions Have Explicit Arguments
let mapFirst = List.map fst //doesn't work
let mapFirst inp = List.map fst inp
Ok, in 3 of 4 techniques I need resolve the generic code before can work with this...now...returning to book example...when the compile knows the value for 'key and 'T
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>()
in the scope the code is very generic for let key be any type, the same happen with 'T
and the biggest dummy question is :
when I enclose the code in a function (technique 3):
let empties = Array.create 100 [] //doesn't work
let empties () = Array.create 100 []
val empties : unit -> 'a list []
I need define the type before begin use it
let intEmpties : int list [] = empties()
for me (admittedly I'm a little dummy with static type languages) this is not real generic because it can't infer the type when I use it, I need define the type and then pass values (not define its type based in the passed values) exist other way define type without be so explicit..
thanks so much..really appreciate any help
This line
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>();;
fails because when you type the ;; the compiler doesn't know what 'key and 'T are. As the error message states you need to add a type annotation, or allow the compiler to infer the type by using it later or make it a function
Examples
Type annotation change
let dict = new Dictionary<int,ResizeArray<int>>();;
Using types later
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>()
dict.[1] <- 2
using a function
let dict() = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>();;
This actually doesn't cause an issue when it's defined all together. That is, select the entire block that you posted and send it to FSI in one go. I get this:
val divideIntoEquivalenceClasses :
('T -> 'key) -> seq<'T> -> seq<'key * seq<'T>> when 'key : equality
However, if you type these individually into FSI then as John Palmer says there is not enough information in that isolated line for the interpreter to determine the type constraints. John's suggestions will work, but the original code is doing it correctly - defining the variable and using it in the same scope so that the types can be inferred.
for me this code is really ugly, even if this is safe, It looks more similar to imperative languages than to functional lang.
I agree completely – it's slightly tangential to your direct question, but I think a more idiomatic (functional) approach would be:
let divideIntoEquivalenceClasses keyf seq =
(System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary(), seq)
||> Seq.fold (fun dict v ->
let key = keyf v
match dict.TryGetValue key with
| false, _ -> dict.Add (key, ResizeArray(Seq.singleton v))
| _, prev -> prev.Add v
dict)
|> Seq.map (function KeyValue (k, v) -> k, Seq.readonly v)
This allows sufficient type inference to obviate the need for your question in the first place.
The workarounds proposed by the other answers are all good. Just to clarify based on your latest updates, let's consider two blocks of code:
let empties = Array.create 100 []
as opposed to:
let empties = Array.create 100 []
empties.[0] <- [1]
In the second case, the compiler can infer that empties : int list [], because we are inserting an int list into the array in the second line, which constrains the element type.
It sounds like you'd like the compiler to infer a generic value empties : 'a list [] in the first case, but this would be unsound. Consider what would happen if the compiler did that and we then entered the following two lines in another batch:
empties.[0] <- [1] // treat 'a list [] as int list []
List.iter (printfn "%s") empties.[0] // treat 'a list [] as string list []
Each of these lines unifies the generic type parameter 'a with a different concrete type (int and string). Either of these unifications is fine in isolation, but they are incompatible with each other and would result in treating the int value 1 inserted by the first line as a string when the second line is executed, which is clearly a violation of type safety.
Contrast this with an empty list, which really is generic:
let empty = []
Then in this case, the compiler does infer empty : 'a list, because it's safe to treat empty as a list of different types in different locations in your code without ever impacting type safety:
let l1 : int list = empty
let l2 : string list = empty
let l3 = 'a' :: empty
In the case where you make empties the return value of a generic function:
let empties() = Array.create 100 []
it is again safe to infer a generic type, since if we try our problematic scenario from before:
empties().[0] <- [1]
List.iter (printfn "%s") (empties().[0])
we are creating a new array on each line, so the types can be different without breaking the type system.
Hopefully this helps explain the reasons behind the limitation a bit more.

How to downcast from obj to option<obj>?

I have a function that takes a parameter of type object and needs to downcast it to an option<obj>.
member s.Bind(x : obj, rest) =
let x = x :?> Option<obj>
If I pass (for example) an Option<string> as x, the last line throws the exception: Unable to cast object of type 'Microsoft.FSharp.Core.FSharpOption'1[System.String]' to type 'Microsoft.FSharp.Core.FSharpOption'1[System.Object]'.
Or, if I try a type test:
member s.Bind(x : obj, rest) =
match x with
| :? option<obj> as x1 -> ... // Do stuff with x1
| _ -> failwith "Invalid type"
then x never matches option<obj>.
In order to make this work, I currently have to specify the type the option contains (e.g. if the function is passed an option<string>, and I downcast the parameter to that rather than option<obj>, the function works.
Is there a way I can downcast the parameter to option<obj> without specifying what type the option contains? I've tried option<_>, option<#obj>, and option<'a> with the same results.
By way of background, the parameter needs to be of type obj because I'm writing an interface for a monad, so Bind needs to bind values of different types depending on the monad that implements the interface. This particular monad is a continuation monad, so it just wants to make sure the parameter is Some(x) and not None, then pass x on to rest. (The reason I need the interface is because I'm writing a monad transformer and I need a way to tell it that its parameter monads implement bind and return.)
Update: I managed to get around this by upcasting the contents of the option before it becomes a parameter to this function, but I'm still curious to know if I can type-test or cast an object (or generic parameter) to an option without worrying about what type the option contains (assuming of course the cast is valid, i.e. the object really is an option).
There isn't any nice way to solve this problem currently.
The issue is that you'd need to introduce a new generic type parameter in the pattern matching (when matching against option<'a>), but F# only allows you to define generic type parameters in function declarations. So, your only solution is to use some Reflection tricks. For example, you can define an active pattern that hides this:
let (|SomeObj|_|) =
let ty = typedefof<option<_>>
fun (a:obj) ->
let aty = a.GetType()
let v = aty.GetProperty("Value")
if aty.IsGenericType && aty.GetGenericTypeDefinition() = ty then
if a = null then None
else Some(v.GetValue(a, [| |]))
else None
This will give you None or Some containing obj for any option type:
let bind (x : obj) rest =
match x with
| SomeObj(x1) -> rest x1
| _ -> failwith "Invalid type"
bind(Some 1) (fun n -> 10 * (n :?> int))
I am not certain why you need to get your input as obj, but if your input is an Option<_>, then it is easy:
member t.Bind (x : 'a option, rest : obj option -> 'b) =
let x = // val x : obj option
x
|> Option.bind (box >> Some)
rest x
To answer your last question: you can use a slight variation of Tomas' code if you need a general-purpose way to check for options without boxing values beforehand:
let (|Option|_|) value =
if obj.ReferenceEquals(value, null) then None
else
let typ = value.GetType()
if typ.IsGenericType && typ.GetGenericTypeDefinition() = typedefof<option<_>> then
let opt : option<_> = (box >> unbox) value
Some opt.Value
else None
//val ( |Option|_| ) : 'a -> 'b option
let getValue = function
| Option x -> x
| _ -> failwith "Not an option"
let a1 : int = getValue (Some 42)
let a2 : string = getValue (Some "foo")
let a3 : string = getValue (Some 42) //InvalidCastException
let a4 : int = getValue 42 //Failure("Not an option")

Resources