I am creating a DSL for C4 model diagrams. 1st stab at it is here
I decided it would make more sense to separate software concepts and diagram. What this means is the position on the canvas only need be assigned when creating the diagram.
So when I tried adding position to the custom operation arguments I cannot figure out how to use it in the computation expression.
The new builder looks like this:
type SystemLandscapeDiagramBuilder internal (scope, desc, size) =
member __.Yield(_) : SystemLandscapeDiagram =
SystemLandscapeDiagram.init scope desc size
[<CustomOperation("user")>]
member __.User(diagram, user, pos) : SystemLandscapeDiagram =
diagram |> SystemLandscapeDiagram.addPerson user pos
The compiler error is This control construct may only be used if the computation expression builder defines a 'For' method
Is it possible to have multiple arguments? Ideas on what I am doing wrong?
Related
I seem to often run into cases where I want to generate some complex structure, but a special variation with a member type generated differently.
For example, consider this tree
type Tree<'LeafData,'INodeData> =
| LeafNode of 'LeafData
| InternalNode of 'INodeData * Tree<'LeafData,'INodeData> list
I want to generate cases like
No internal node is childless
There are no leaf-type nodes
Only a limited subset of leaf types are used
These are simple to do if I override all generation of a corresponding child type.
The problem is that it seems register is inherently a thread-level action, and there is no gen-local alternative.
For example, what I want could look like
let limitedLeafs =
gen {
let leafGen = Arb.generate<LeafType> |> Gen.filter isAllowedLeaf
do! registerContextualArb (leafGen |> Arb.fromGen)
return! Arb.generate<Tree<NodeType, LeafType>>
}
This Tree example specifically can work around with some creative type shuffling, but that's not always possible.
It's also possible to use some sort of recursive map that enforces assumptions, but that seems relatively complex if the above is possible. I might be misunderstanding the nature of FsCheck generators though.
Does anyone know how to accomplish this kind of gen-local override?
There's a few options here - I'm assuming you're on FsCheck 2.x but keep scrolling for an option in FsCheck 3.
The first is the most natural one but is more work, which is to break down the generator explicitly to the level you need, and then put humpty dumpty together again. I.e don't rely on the type-based generator derivation so much - if I understand your example correctly that would mean implementing a recursive generator - relying on Arb.generate<LeafType> for the generic types.
Second option - Config has an Arbitrary field which you can use to override Arbitrary instances. These overrides will take effect even if the overridden types are part of the automatically generated ones. So as a sketch you could try:
Check.One ({Config.Quick with Arbitrary = [| typeof<MyLeafArbitrary>) |]) (fun safeTree -> ...)
More extensive example which uses FsCheck.Xunit's PropertyAttribute but the principle is the same, set on the Config instead.
Final option! :) In FsCheck 3 (prerelease) you can configure this via a new (as of yet undocumented) concept ArbMap which makes the map from type to Arbitrary instance explicit, instead of this static global nonsense in 2.x (my bad of course. seemed like a good idea at the time.) The implementation is here which may not tell you all that much - the idea is that you put an ArbMap instance together which contains your "safe" generators for the subparts, then you ArbMap.mergeWith that safe map with ArbMap.defaults (thus overriding the default generators with your safe ones, in the resulting ArbMap) and then you use ArbMap.arbitrary or ArbMap.generate with the resulting map.
Sorry for the long winded explanation - but all in all that should give you the best of both worlds - you can reuse the generic union type generator in FsCheck, while surgically overriding certain types in that context.
FsCheck guidance on this is:
To define a generator that generates a subset of the normal range of values for an existing type, say all the even ints, it makes properties more readable if you define a single-case union case, and register a generator for the new type:
As an example, they suggest you could define arbitrary even integers like this:
type EvenInt = EvenInt of int with
static member op_Explicit(EvenInt i) = i
type ArbitraryModifiers =
static member EvenInt() =
Arb.from<int>
|> Arb.filter (fun i -> i % 2 = 0)
|> Arb.convert EvenInt int
Arb.register<ArbitraryModifiers>() |> ignore
You could then generate and test trees whose leaves are even integers like this:
let ``leaves are even`` (tree : Tree<EvenInt, string>) =
let rec leaves = function
| LeafNode leaf -> [leaf]
| InternalNode (_, children) ->
children |> List.collect leaves
leaves tree
|> Seq.forall (fun (EvenInt leaf) ->
leaf % 2 = 0)
Check.Quick ``leaves are even`` // output: Ok, passed 100 tests.
To be honest, I like your idea of a "gen-local override" better, but I don't think FsCheck supports it.
The following fragment produces a compilation error:
arma::Mat<double> a(10,10,arma::fill::zeros);
arma::ucolvec w = whatever1;
whatever2 = a.rows(w).each_col() + another-col-vector;
The error is that arma::subview_elem2 has no member named each_col.
In a number of cases in Armadillo, the standard array functions are not always available on expressions or results of other function calls. Clearly the rows() function does not return a Mat object, but a subview_elem2 object, presumably for optimization. Another way to do this would be to declare all the array functions in interfaces/pure abstract classes that Mat and other internal classes, such as subviews, implement. It seems it should be possible to make all Armadillo array expressions interchangeable with array objects aside from write operations for expressions that only generate r-values.
So... I could wish for the following
a) An explanation of which methods are not available for which results.
b) Preferably, enabling all combinations of array methods that make sense.
Absent the above, how can accomplish the desired result, which is to evaluate the expression:
a.rows(w).each_col()
??
Some prior information about armadillo
The armadillo library uses templates heavily and most operations return expression templates. Only when you assign the result to a variable the actual computation is performed. This is why you should not store the result of some computation with armadillo using auto.
For instance, given some matrices A, B and C, something like
auto D = A * B + C;
will not perform the computation and only the expression template is stored in D. On the other hand, using
arma::mat D = A * B + C;
will force the computation to happen and the result is stored in D.
Solution to your problem
Particularly to your question, something like a.rows(w) returns an expression template of type subview_elem2 (this file is defined in the source code armadillo_bits/subview_elem2_bones.hpp). This "temporary type" does not have a .each_col method, which results in the error you got. One way around is to store the result of a.rows(w) in a variable, but since you are not interested in the variable you can use the .eval() method. The .eval() method forces the expression template to perform the actual computation up to that point and thus the subsequent call to .each_col will work. That is, replace
a.rows(w).each_col() + another-col-vector;
with
a.rows(w).eval().each_col() + another-col-vector;
I'd like the example computation expression and values below to return 6. For some the numbers aren't yielding like I'd expect. What's the step I'm missing to get my result? Thanks!
type AddBuilder() =
let mutable x = 0
member _.Yield i = x <- x + i
member _.Zero() = 0
member _.Return() = x
let add = AddBuilder()
(* Compiler tells me that each of the numbers in add don't do anything
and suggests putting '|> ignore' in front of each *)
let result = add { 1; 2; 3 }
(* Currently the result is 0 *)
printfn "%i should be 6" result
Note: This is just for creating my own computation expression to expand my learning. Seq.sum would be a better approach. I'm open to the idea that this example completely misses the value of computation expressions and is no good for learning.
There is a lot wrong here.
First, let's start with mere mechanics.
In order for the Yield method to be called, the code inside the curly braces must use the yield keyword:
let result = add { yield 1; yield 2; yield 3 }
But now the compiler will complain that you also need a Combine method. See, the semantics of yield is that each of them produces a finished computation, a resulting value. And therefore, if you want to have more than one, you need some way to "glue" them together. This is what the Combine method does.
Since your computation builder doesn't actually produce any results, but instead mutates its internal variable, the ultimate result of the computation should be the value of that internal variable. So that's what Combine needs to return:
member _.Combine(a, b) = x
But now the compiler complains again: you need a Delay method. Delay is not strictly necessary, but it's required in order to mitigate performance pitfalls. When the computation consists of many "parts" (like in the case of multiple yields), it's often the case that some of them should be discarded. In these situation, it would be inefficient to evaluate all of them and then discard some. So the compiler inserts a call to Delay: it receives a function, which, when called, would evaluate a "part" of the computation, and Delay has the opportunity to put this function in some sort of deferred container, so that later Combine can decide which of those containers to discard and which to evaluate.
In your case, however, since the result of the computation doesn't matter (remember: you're not returning any results, you're just mutating the internal variable), Delay can just execute the function it receives to have it produce the side effects (which are - mutating the variable):
member _.Delay(f) = f ()
And now the computation finally compiles, and behold: its result is 6. This result comes from whatever Combine is returning. Try modifying it like this:
member _.Combine(a, b) = "foo"
Now suddenly the result of your computation becomes "foo".
And now, let's move on to semantics.
The above modifications will let your program compile and even produce expected result. However, I think you misunderstood the whole idea of the computation expressions in the first place.
The builder isn't supposed to have any internal state. Instead, its methods are supposed to manipulate complex values of some sort, some methods creating new values, some modifying existing ones. For example, the seq builder1 manipulates sequences. That's the type of values it handles. Different methods create new sequences (Yield) or transform them in some way (e.g. Combine), and the ultimate result is also a sequence.
In your case, it looks like the values that your builder needs to manipulate are numbers. And the ultimate result would also be a number.
So let's look at the methods' semantics.
The Yield method is supposed to create one of those values that you're manipulating. Since your values are numbers, that's what Yield should return:
member _.Yield x = x
The Combine method, as explained above, is supposed to combine two of such values that got created by different parts of the expression. In your case, since you want the ultimate result to be a sum, that's what Combine should do:
member _.Combine(a, b) = a + b
Finally, the Delay method should just execute the provided function. In your case, since your values are numbers, it doesn't make sense to discard any of them:
member _.Delay(f) = f()
And that's it! With these three methods, you can add numbers:
type AddBuilder() =
member _.Yield x = x
member _.Combine(a, b) = a + b
member _.Delay(f) = f ()
let add = AddBuilder()
let result = add { yield 1; yield 2; yield 3 }
I think numbers are not a very good example for learning about computation expressions, because numbers lack the inner structure that computation expressions are supposed to handle. Try instead creating a maybe builder to manipulate Option<'a> values.
Added bonus - there are already implementations you can find online and use for reference.
1 seq is not actually a computation expression. It predates computation expressions and is treated in a special way by the compiler. But good enough for examples and comparisons.
While working through Expert F# again, I decided to implement the application for manipulating algebraic expressions. This went well and now I've decided as a next exercise to expand on that by building a more advanced application.
My first idea was to have a setup that allows for a more extendible way of creating functions without having to recompile. To that end I have something like:
type IFunction =
member x.Name : string with get
/// additional members omitted
type Expr =
| Num of decimal
| Var of string
///... omitting some types here that don't matter
| FunctionApplication of IFunction * Expr list
So that say a Sin(x) could be represented a:
let sin = { new IFunction() with member x.Name = "SIN" }
let sinExpr = FunctionApplication(sin,Var("x"))
So far all good, but the next idea that I would like to implement is having additional interfaces to represent function of properties. E.g.
type IDifferentiable =
member Derivative : int -> IFunction // Get the derivative w.r.t a variable index
One of the ideas the things I'm trying to achieve here is that I implement some functions and all the logic for them and then move on to the next part of the logic I would like to implement. However, as it currently stands, that means that with every interface I add, I have to revisit all the IFunctions that I've implemented. Instead, I'd rather have a function:
let makeDifferentiable (f : IFunction) (deriv : int -> IFunction) =
{ f with
interface IDifferentiable with
member x.Derivative = deriv }
but as discussed in this question, that is not possible. The alternative that is possible, doesn't meet my extensibility requirement. My question is what alternatives would work well?
[EDIT] I was asked to expand on the "doesn't meet my extenibility requirement" comment. The way this function would work is by doing something like:
let makeDifferentiable (deriv : int -> IFunction) (f : IFunction)=
{ new IFunction with
member x.Name = f.Name
interface IDifferentiable with
member x.Derivative = deriv }
However, ideally I would keep on adding additional interfaces to an object as I add them. So if I now wanted to add an interface that tell whether on function is even:
type IsEven =
abstract member IsEven : bool with get
then I would like to be able to (but not obliged, as in, if I don't make this change everything should still compile) to change my definition of a sine from
let sin = { new IFunction with ... } >> (makeDifferentiable ...)
to
let sin = { new IFunction with ... } >> (makeDifferentiable ...) >> (makeEven false)
The result of which would be that I could create an object that implements the IFunction interface as well as potentially, but not necessarily a lot of different other interfaces as well; the operations I'd then define on them, would potentially be able to optimize what they are doing based on whether or not a certain function implements an interface. This will also allow me to add additional features/interfaces/operations first without having to change the functions I've defined (though they wouldn't take advantage of the additional features, things wouldn't be broken either.[/EDIT]
The only thing I can think of right now is to create a dictionary for each feature that I'd like to implement, with function names as keys and the details to build an interface on the fly, e.g. along the lines:
let derivative (f : IFunction) =
match derivativeDictionary.TryGetValue(f.Name) with
| false, _ -> None
| true, d -> d.Derivative
This would require me to create one such function per feature that I add in addition to one dictionary per feature. Especially if implemented asynchronously with agents, this might be not that slow, but it still feels a little clunky.
I think the problem that you're trying to solve here is what is called The Expression Problem. You're essentially trying to write code that would be extensible in two directions. Discriminated unions and object-oriented model give you one or the other:
Discriminated union makes it easy to add new operations (just write a function with pattern matching), but it is hard to add a new kind of expression (you have to extend the DU and modify all code
that uses it).
Interfaces make it easy to add new kinds of expressions (just implement the interface), but it is hard to add new operations (you have to modify the interface and change all code that creates it.
In general, I don't think it is all that useful to try to come up with solutions that let you do both (they end up being terribly complicated), so my advice is to pick the one that you'll need more often.
Going back to your problem, I'd probably represent the function just as a function name together with the parameters:
type Expr =
| Num of decimal
| Var of string
| Application of string * Expr list
Really - an expression is just this. The fact that you can take derivatives is another part of the problem you're solving. Now, to make the derivative extensible, you can just keep a dictionary of the derivatives:
let derrivatives =
dict [ "sin", (fun [arg] -> Application("cos", [arg]))
... ]
This way, you have an Expr type that really models just what an expression is and you can write differentiation function that will look for the derivatives in the dictionary.
Are there any documents or examples out there on how one can extend/add new keywords to query expressions? Is this even possible?
For example, I'd like to add a lead/lag operator.
In addition to the query builder for the Rx Framework mentioned by #pad, there is also a talk by Wonseok Chae from the F# team about Computation Expressions that includes query expressions. I'm not sure if the meeting was recorded, but there are very detailed slides with a cool example on query syntax for generating .NET IL code.
The source code of the standard F# query builder is probably the best resource for finding out what types of operations are supported and how to annotate them with attributes.
The key attributes that you'll probably need are demonstrated by the where clause:
[<CustomOperation("where",MaintainsVariableSpace=true,AllowIntoPattern=true)>]
member Where :
: source:QuerySource<'T,'Q> *
[<ProjectionParameter>] predicate:('T -> bool) -> QuerySource<'T,'Q>
The CustomOperation attribute defines the name of the operation. The (quite important) parameter MaintainsVariableSpace allows you to say that the operation returns the same type of values as it takes as the input. In that case, the variables defined earlier are still available after the operation. For example:
query { for p in db.Products do
let name = p.ProductName
where (p.UnitPrice.Value > 100.0M)
select name }
Here, the variables p and name are still accessible after where because where only filters the input, but it does not transform the values in the list.
Finally, the ProjectionParameter allows you to say that p.UnitValue > 100.0M should actually be turned into a function that takes the context (available variables) and evaluates this expression. If you do not specify this attribute, then the operation just gets the value of the argument as in:
query { for p in .. do
take 10 }
Here, the argument 10 is just a simple expression that cannot use values in p.
Pretty cool feature for the language. Just implemented the reverse to query QuerySource.
Simple example, but just a demonstration.
module QueryExtensions
type ExtendedQueryBuilder() =
inherit Linq.QueryBuilder()
/// Defines an operation 'reverse' that reverses the sequence
[<CustomOperation("reverse", MaintainsVariableSpace = true)>]
member __.Reverse (source : Linq.QuerySource<'T,System.Collections.IEnumerable>) =
let reversed = source.Source |> List.ofSeq |> List.rev
new Linq.QuerySource<'T,System.Collections.IEnumerable>(reversed)
let query = ExtendedQueryBuilder()
And now it being used.
let a = [1 .. 100]
let specialReverse =
query {
for i in a do
select i
reverse
}