Indentation rules in classes with inheritance? - f#

I am a bit confused by the F# compiler (via Ionide) regarding indentation rules.
Here is my code snippet that triggers warnings:
type MyGame () as this =
inherit Game ()
let graphics = new GraphicsDeviceManager (this)
let mutable spriteBatch = null
let mutable state =
{
Board = Map.empty
Selection = List.empty
}
do
this.IsMouseVisible <- true
// ...
But F# only seems happy when I indent each line one or more characters from the previous, which looks... odd to me:
type MyGame () as this =
inherit Game ()
let graphics = new GraphicsDeviceManager (this)
let mutable spriteBatch = null
let mutable state =
{
Board = Map.empty
Selection = List.empty
}
do
this.IsMouseVisible <- true
// ...
How should code like this be formatted?

It's because your inherit Game () line is not as indented as what comes next. Change the indentation, and the warnings go away:
type MyGame () as this =
inherit Game ()
let graphics = new GraphicsDeviceManager (this)
let mutable spriteBatch = null
let mutable state =
{
Board = Map.empty
Selection = List.empty
}
do
this.IsMouseVisible <- true
// ...
Also note that sometimes that your indentation will be superior to what the compiler suggests.

Related

How can I create a CustomEvent with detail object in Fable?

In Javascript it is possible to create a CustomEvent and include a second argument containing detail data to pass when the event is dispatched. For example:
let evt = new CustomEvent("hello", {
detail: { name: "John" }
});
elem.dispatchEvent(evt);
With Fable I can create a CustomEvent without the detail data as follows:
let evt = CustomEvent.Create "hello"
elem.dispatchEvent evt
The definition in Browser.Events is as follows:
type [<AllowNullLiteral>] CustomEventType =
[<Emit("new $0($1...)")>] abstract Create : typeArg: string * ?eventInitDict: CustomEventInit -> CustomEvent
[<Emit("new $0($1...)")>] abstract Create : typeArg: string * ?eventInitDict: CustomEventInit<'T> -> CustomEvent<'T>
But I can't work out how to create a CustomEventInit as I think this is an interface.
let details:CustomEventInit = { detail = {name = "John"}} //ERROR: This type is not a record type
let evt = CustomEvent.Create ("hello", details)
elem.dispatchEvent evt
Any help on how to achieve this would be greatly appreciated!
CustomEventInit is a class type, so you can instantiate it using an object expression:
let details =
let mutable bubbles = true
let mutable cancelable = true
let mutable composed = true
let mutable detail : obj = "John"
{
new CustomEventInit with
member _.bubbles
with set(value) = bubbles <- value
and get() = bubbles
member _.cancelable
with set(value) = cancelable <- value
and get() = cancelable
member _.composed
with set(value) = bubbles <- value
and get() = bubbles
member _.detail
with set(value) = detail <- value
and get() = detail
}
Or you could create a named subclass if you prefer.

DRY self-replicating type

Is there a succint way to express self-replicating types in F#? — That is, without repeating oneself.
// Manual self-replication
type Foo (par1 : Type1, par2 : Type2, par3 : Type3, par4 : Type4) =
let unique = new UniqueState() // unique for every instance of Foo
member this.SelfReplicate =
new Foo(par1, par2, par3, par4) // repeating myself
let a = new Foo(x, y, z, w)
let b = a.SelfReplicate
Attempt with manually injected self-replicator:
// Semi-automagic self-replication
type Foo' (par1 : Type1, par2 : Type2, par3 : Type3, par4 : Type4, replicate : unit -> Foo') =
let unique = new UniqueState() // unique for every instance of Foo'
member this.SelfReplicate = replicate() // not repeating myself
let rec foo' () = new Foo'(x, y, z, w, foo')
let a = foo'()
let b = a.SelfReplicate
I'm not sure how this can be any more succint without compiler magic. It just seems like there should be a way to capture the current arguments and type without repeating them syntactically.
You could define a type WithUnique<'T> which is a wrapper over a value of type 'T and adds a unique value to this. You may need to think about how you want the equality testing on those types to work - if you use record (as I do below), then two instances with different unique value will not be equal:
let rnd = System.Random()
let uniqueState() = rnd.Next()
type WithUnique<'T> =
{ Value : 'T; Unique : int }
static member Create(v) : WithUnique<'T> =
{ Value = v; Unique = uniqueState() }
member x.Replicate() =
{ Value = x.Value; Unique = uniqueState() }
The value of 'T is just one type, but this can be a tuple (or a record) if you need to wrap multiple things:
let wu1 = WithUnique.Create( (10, "hi") )
let wu2 = wu1.Replicate()
Given the above, wu1=wu2 will be false.

FSCL error on a simple example

I am trying to use openCL with FSCL on F# but I am obtaining some errors that I don't understand
open FSCL.Compiler
open FSCL.Language
open FSCL.Runtime
open Microsoft.FSharp.Linq.RuntimeHelpers
open System.Runtime.InteropServices
[<StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)>]
type gpu_point2 =
struct
val mutable x: float32
val mutable y: float32
new ( q ,w) = {x=q; y=w}
end
[<ReflectedDefinition>]
let PointSum(a:gpu_point2,b:gpu_point2) =
let sx =(a.x+b.x)
let sy =(a.y+b.y)
gpu_point2(sx,sy)
[<ReflectedDefinition;Kernel>]
let Modgpu(b:float32[], c:float32[],wi:WorkItemInfo) =
let gid = wi.GlobalID(0)
let arp = Array.zeroCreate<gpu_point2> b.Length
let newpoint = gpu_point2(b.[gid],c.[gid])
arp.[gid] <- newpoint
arp
[<ReflectedDefinition;Kernel>]
let ModSum(a:gpu_point2[],b:gpu_point2[],wi:WorkItemInfo) =
let gid = wi.GlobalID(0)
let cadd = Array.zeroCreate<gpu_point2> a.Length
let newsum = PointSum(a.[gid],b.[gid])
cadd.[gid] <- newsum
cadd
[<ReflectedDefinition;Kernel>]
let ModSum2(a:gpu_point2[],b:gpu_point2[],wi:WorkItemInfo) =
let gid = wi.GlobalID(0)
let cadd = Array.zeroCreate<gpu_point2> a.Length
let newsum = gpu_point2(a.[gid].x+b.[gid].x,a.[gid].y+b.[gid].y)
cadd.[gid] <- newsum
cadd
let ws = WorkSize(64L)
let arr_s1= <# Modgpu([|0.f..63.f|],[|63.f..(-1.f)..0.f|],ws)#>.Run()
let arr_s2 = <# Modgpu([|63.f..(-1.f)..0.f|],[|0.f..63.f|],ws)#>.Run()
With this code when I try to use ModSum as
let rsum = <# ModSum(arr_s1,arr_s2,ws)#>.Run()
doesn't work, but instead when I use ModSum2 works perfectly
let rsum = <# ModSum2(arr_s1,arr_s2,ws)#>.Run()
The error I obtain the first time I run it is
FSCL.Compiler.CompilerException: Unrecognized construct in kernel body NewObject (gpu_point2, sx, sy)
and if I re-run the fsi console says
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
The only thing I know is that the error doesn't comes from the use of another function since I can define a dot product function that works.
[<ReflectedDefinition>]
let PointProd(a:gpu_point2,b:gpu_point2) =
let f = (a.x*b.x)
let s = (a.y*b.y)
f+s
Thus, I guess the problem comes from the return type of PointSum, but is there a way to create such a function to sum two points and return the point type? And Why is not working?
Edit/Update:
Also with a record happens the same if I define the type as :
[<StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)>]
type gpu_point_2 = {x:float32; y:float32}
If I try to create a function that directly sums two gpu_point_2 on a function works, but if I call a second function it raises the same error as using a struct.
Try to add [<ReflectedDefinition>] on the constructor of gpu_point2:
[<StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)>]
type gpu_point2 =
struct
val mutable x: float32
val mutable y: float32
[<ReflectedDefinition>] new (q, w) = {x=q; y=w}
end
Normally each code that is called from the device need this attribute, constructors included.

The F# equivalent of C#'s 'out'

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)

Extension methods for F# tuples

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.

Resources