Anyone have a decent example, preferably practical/useful, they could post demonstrating the concept?
I came across this term somewhere that I’m unable to find, probably it has to do something with a function returning a function while enclosing on some mutable variable. So there’s no visible mutation.
Probably Haskell community has originated the idea where mutation happens in another area not visible to the scope. I maybe vague here so seeking help to understand more.
It's a good idea to hide mutation, so the consumers of the API won't inadvartently change something unexpectedly. This just means that you have to encapsulate your mutable data/state. This can be done via objects (yes, objects), but what you are referring to in your question can be done with a closure, the canonical example is a counter:
let countUp =
let mutable count = 0
(fun () -> count <- count + 1
count)
countUp() // 1
countUp() // 2
countUp() // 3
You cannot access the mutable count variable directly.
Another example would be using mutable state within a function so that you cannot observe it, and the function is, for all intents and purposes, referentially transparent. Take for example the following function that reverses a string not character-wise, but rather by taking individual text elements (which, depending on language, can be more than one character):
let reverseStringU s =
if Core.string.IsNullOrEmpty s then s else
let rec iter acc (ee : System.Globalization.TextElementEnumerator) =
if not <| ee.MoveNext () then acc else
let e = ee.GetTextElement ()
iter (e :: acc) ee
let inline append x s = (^s : (member Append : ^x -> ^s) (s, x))
let sb = System.Text.StringBuilder s.Length
System.Globalization.StringInfo.GetTextElementEnumerator s
|> iter []
|> List.fold (fun a e -> append e a) sb
|> string
It uses a StringBuilder internally but you cannot observe this externally.
Related
I'm trying to wrap my head around mon-, err, workflows in F# and while I think that I have a pretty solid understanding of the basic "Maybe" workflow, trying to implement a state workflow to generate random numbers has really got me stumped.
My non-completed attempt can be seen here:
let randomInt state =
let random = System.Random(state)
// Generate random number and a new state as well
random.Next(0,1000), random.Next()
type RandomWF (initState) =
member this.Bind(rnd,rest) =
let value, newState = rnd initState
// How to feed "newState" into "rest"??
value |> rest
member this.Return a = a // Should I maybe feed "initState" into the computation here?
RandomWF(0) {
let! a = randomInt
let! b = randomInt
let! c = randomInt
return [a; b; c]
} |> printfn "%A"
Edit: Actually got it to work! Not exactly sure how it works though, so if anyone wants to lay it out in a good answer, it's still up for grabs. Here's my working code:
type RandomWF (initState) =
member this.Bind(rnd,rest) =
fun state ->
let value, nextState = rnd state
rest value nextState
member this.Return a = fun _ -> a
member this.Run x = x initState
There are two things that make it harder to see what your workflow is doing:
You're using a function type for the type of your monad,
Your workflow not only builds up the computation, it also runs it.
I think it's clearer to follow once you see how it would look without those two impediments. Here's the workflow defined using a DU wrapper type:
type Random<'a> =
Comp of (int -> 'a * int)
let run init (Comp f) = f init
type Random<'a> with
member this.Run(state) = fst <| run state this
type RandomBuilder() =
member this.Bind(Comp m, f: 'a -> Random<_>) =
Comp <| fun state ->
let value, nextState = m state
let comp = f value
run nextState comp
member this.Return(a) = Comp (fun s -> a, s)
let random = RandomBuilder()
And here is how you use it:
let randomInt =
Comp <| fun state ->
let rnd = System.Random(state)
rnd.Next(0,1000), rnd.Next()
let rand =
random {
let! a = randomInt
let! b = randomInt
let! c = randomInt
return [a; b; c ]
}
rand.Run(0)
|> printfn "%A"
In this version you separately build up the computation (and store it inside the Random type), and then you run it passing in the initial state. Look at how types on the builder methods are inferred and compare them to what MSDN documentation describes.
Edit: Constructing a builder object once and using the binding as an alias of sorts is mostly convention, but it's well justified in that it makes sense for the builders to be stateless. I can see why having parameterized builders seems like a useful feature, but I can't honestly imagine a convincing use case for it.
The key selling point of monads is the separation of definition and execution of a computation.
In your case - what you want to be able to do is to take a representation of your computation and be able to run it with some state - perhaps 0, perhaps 42. You don't need to know the initial state to define a computation that will use it. By passing in the state to the builder, you end up blurring the line between definition and execution, and this simply makes the workflow less useful.
Compare that with async workflow - when you write an async block, you don't make the code run asynchronously. You only create an Async<'a> object representing a computation that will produce an object of 'a when you run it - but how you do it, is up to you. The builder doesn't need to know.
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.
Is there a way to have mutable function arguments in F#, that would allow something like
let mutable i = 9
let somefun n = n <- 12; ()
somefun i
(* *not* a real-world example *)
I do understand that this can be made to work by wrapping it into a record type
type SomeRec = { mutable i: int }
let ri = { i = 9 }
let someotherfun r = r.i <- 12; ()
and that this can be done in a similar fashion for class members. However, even after browsing through the whole F# Language Specification (yes, I did!), there seems to be no syntax to allow the first case, and the compiler appears to be quite unhappy about my trying this. I was hoping there would be some sort of type annotation, but mutable cannot be used in such.
I also know that I should not be doing this sort of thing in the first place, but the first case (int binding) and the second (record type) are semantically identical, and any such objection would hold for both cases equally.
So I think that I am missing something here.
You can use ref as arguments
let v = ref 0
let mutate r =
r := 100
mutate v
printfn "%d" !v
Or byref keyword
let mutable v = 0
let mutate (r : byref<_>) =
r <- 100
mutate &v
printfn "%d" v
Use byref keyword which is equivalent to C# ref.
See Passing by reference.
Is it just me, or does F# not cater for cyclic lists?
I looked at the FSharpList<T> class via reflector, and noticed, that neither the 'structural equals' or the length methods check for cycles. I can only guess if 2 such primitive functions does not check, that most list functions would not do this either.
If cyclic lists are not supported, why is that?
Thanks
PS: Am I even looking at the right list class?
There are many different lists/collection types in F#.
F# list type. As Chris said, you cannot initialize a recursive value of this type, because the type is not lazy and not mutable (Immutability means that you have to create it at once and the fact that it's not lazy means that you can't use F# recursive values using let rec). As ssp said, you could use Reflection to hack it, but that's probably a case that we don't want to discuss.
Another type is seq (which is actually IEnumerable) or the LazyList type from PowerPack. These are lazy, so you can use let rec to create a cyclic value. However, (as far as I know) none of the functions working with them take cyclic lists into account - if you create a cyclic list, it simply means that you're creating an infinite list, so the result of (e.g.) map will be a potentially infinite list.
Here is an example for LazyList type:
#r "FSharp.PowerPack.dll"
// Valid use of value recursion
let rec ones = LazyList.consDelayed 1 (fun () -> ones)
Seq.take 5 l // Gives [1; 1; 1; 1; 1]
The question is what data types can you define yourself. Chris shows a mutable list and if you write operations that modify it, they will affect the entire list (if you interpret it as an infinite data structure).
You can also define a lazy (potentionally cyclic) data type and implement operations that handle cycles, so when you create a cyclic list and project it into another list, it will create cyclic list as a result (and not a potentionally infinite data structure).
The type declaration may look like this (I'm using object type, so that we can use reference equality when checking for cycles):
type CyclicListValue<'a> =
Nil | Cons of 'a * Lazy<CyclicList<'a>>
and CyclicList<'a>(value:CyclicListValue<'a>) =
member x.Value = value
The following map function handles cycles - if you give it a cyclic list, it will return a newly created list with the same cyclic structure:
let map f (cl:CyclicList<_>) =
// 'start' is the first element of the list (used for cycle checking)
// 'l' is the list we're processing
// 'lazyRes' is a function that returns the first cell of the resulting list
// (which is not available on the first call, but can be accessed
// later, because the list is constructed lazily)
let rec mapAux start (l:CyclicList<_>) lazyRes =
match l.Value with
| Nil -> new CyclicList<_>(Nil)
| Cons(v, rest) when rest.Value = start -> lazyRes()
| Cons(v, rest) ->
let value = Cons(f v, lazy mapAux start rest.Value lazyRes)
new CyclicList<_>(value)
let rec res = mapAux cl cl (fun () -> res)
res
The F# list type is essentially a linked list, where each node has a 'next'. This in theory would allow you to create cycles. However, F# lists are immutable. So you could never 'make' this cycle by mutation, you would have to do it at construction time. (Since you couldn't update the last node to loop around to the front.)
You could write this to do it, however the compiler specifically prevents it:
let rec x = 1 :: 2 :: 3 :: x;;
let rec x = 1 :: 2 :: 3 :: x;;
------------------------^^
stdin(1,25): error FS0260: Recursive values cannot appear directly as a construction of the type 'List`1' within a recursive binding. This feature has been removed from the F# language. Consider using a record instead.
If you do want to create a cycle, you could do the following:
> type CustomListNode = { Value : int; mutable Next : CustomListNode option };;
type CustomListNode =
{Value: int;
mutable Next: CustomListNode option;}
> let head = { Value = 1; Next = None };;
val head : CustomListNode = {Value = 1;
Next = null;}
> let head2 = { Value = 2; Next = Some(head) } ;;
val head2 : CustomListNode = {Value = 2;
Next = Some {Value = 1;
Next = null;};}
> head.Next <- Some(head2);;
val it : unit = ()
> head;;
val it : CustomListNode = {Value = 1;
Next = Some {Value = 2;
Next = Some ...;};}
The answer is same for all languages with tail-call optimization support and first-class functions (function types) support: it's so easy to emulate cyclic structures.
let rec x = seq { yield 1; yield! x};;
It's simplest way to emulate that structure by using laziness of seq.
Of course you can hack list representation as described here.
As was said before, your problem here is that the list type is immutable, and for a list to be cyclic you'd have to have it stick itself into its last element, so that doesn't work. You can use sequences, of course.
If you have an existing list and want to create an infinite sequence on top of it that cycles through the list's elements, here's how you could do it:
let round_robin lst =
let rec inner_rr l =
seq {
match l with
| [] ->
yield! inner_rr lst
| h::t ->
yield h
yield! inner_rr t
}
if lst.IsEmpty then Seq.empty else inner_rr []
let listcycler_sequence = round_robin [1;2;3;4;5;6]
Anyone have a decent example, preferably practical/useful, they could post demonstrating the concept?
(Edit: a small Ocaml FP Koan to start things off)
The Koan of Currying (A koan about food, that is not about food)
A student came to Jacques Garrigue and said, "I do not understand what currying is good for." Jacques replied, "Tell me your favorite meal and your favorite dessert". The puzzled student replied that he liked okonomiyaki and kanten, but while his favorite restaurant served great okonomiyaki, their kanten always gave him a stomach ache the following morning. So Jacques took the student to eat at a restaurant that served okonomiyaki every bit as good as the student's favorite, then took him across town to a shop that made excellent kanten where the student happily applied the remainder of his appetite. The student was sated, but he was not enlightened ... until the next morning when he woke up and his stomach felt fine.
My examples will cover using it for the reuse and encapsulation of code. This is fairly obvious once you look at these and should give you a concrete, simple example that you can think of applying in numerous situations.
We want to do a map over a tree. This function could be curried and applied to each node if it needs more then one argument -- since we'd be applying the one at the node as it's final argument. It doesn't have to be curried, but writing another function (assuming this function is being used in other instances with other variables) would be a waste.
type 'a tree = E of 'a | N of 'a * 'a tree * 'a tree
let rec tree_map f tree = match tree with
| N(x,left,right) -> N(f x, tree_map f left, tree_map f right)
| E(x) -> E(f x)
let sample_tree = N(1,E(3),E(4)
let multiply x y = x * y
let sample_tree2 = tree_map (multiply 3) sample_tree
but this is the same as:
let sample_tree2 = tree_map (fun x -> x * 3) sample_tree
So this simple case isn't convincing. It really is though, and powerful once you use the language more and naturally come across these situations. The other example with some code reuse as currying. A recurrence relation to create prime numbers. Awful lot of similarity in there:
let rec f_recurrence f a seed n =
match n with
| a -> seed
| _ -> let prev = f_recurrence f a seed (n-1) in
prev + (f n prev)
let rowland = f_recurrence gcd 1 7
let cloitre = f_recurrence lcm 1 1
let rowland_prime n = (rowland (n+1)) - (rowland n)
let cloitre_prime n = ((cloitre (n+1))/(cloitre n)) - 1
Ok, now rowland and cloitre are curried functions, since they have free variables, and we can get any index of it's sequence without knowing or worrying about f_recurrence.
While the previous examples answered the question, here are two simpler examples of how Currying can be beneficial for F# programming.
open System.IO
let appendFile (fileName : string) (text : string) =
let file = new StreamWriter(fileName, true)
file.WriteLine(text)
file.Close()
// Call it normally
appendFile #"D:\Log.txt" "Processing Event X..."
// If you curry the function, you don't need to keep specifying the
// log file name.
let curriedAppendFile = appendFile #"D:\Log.txt"
// Adds data to "Log.txt"
curriedAppendFile "Processing Event Y..."
And don't forget you can curry the Printf family of function! In the curried version, notice the distinct lack of a lambda.
// Non curried, Prints 1 2 3
List.iter (fun i -> printf "%d " i) [1 .. 3];;
// Curried, Prints 1 2 3
List.iter (printfn "%d ") [1 .. 3];;
Currying describes the process of transforming a function with multiple arguments into a chain of single-argument functions. Example in C#, for a three-argument function:
Func<T1, Func<T2, Func<T3, T4>>> Curry<T1, T2, T3, T4>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4> f)
{
return a => b => c => f(a, b, c);
}
void UseACurriedFunction()
{
var curryCompare = Curry<string, string, bool, int>(String.Compare);
var a = "SomeString";
var b = "SOMESTRING";
Console.WriteLine(String.Compare(a, b, true));
Console.WriteLine(curryCompare(a)(b)(true));
//partial application
var compareAWithB = curryCompare(a)(b);
Console.WriteLine(compareAWithB(true));
Console.WriteLine(compareAWithB(false));
}
Now, the boolean argument is probably not the argument you'd most likely want to leave open with a partial application. This is one reason why the order of arguments in F# functions can seem a little odd at first. Let's define a different C# curry function:
Func<T3, Func<T2, Func<T1, T4>>> BackwardsCurry<T1, T2, T3, T4>(Func<T1, T2, T3, T4> f)
{
return a => b => c => f(c, b, a);
}
Now, we can do something a little more useful:
void UseADifferentlyCurriedFunction()
{
var curryCompare = BackwardsCurry<string, string, bool, int>(String.Compare);
var caseSensitiveCompare = curryCompare(false);
var caseInsensitiveCompare = curryCompare(true);
var format = Curry<string, string, string, string>(String.Format)("Results of comparing {0} with {1}:");
var strings = new[] {"Hello", "HELLO", "Greetings", "GREETINGS"};
foreach (var s in strings)
{
var caseSensitiveCompareWithS = caseSensitiveCompare(s);
var caseInsensitiveCompareWithS = caseInsensitiveCompare(s);
var formatWithS = format(s);
foreach (var t in strings)
{
Console.WriteLine(formatWithS(t));
Console.WriteLine(caseSensitiveCompareWithS(t));
Console.WriteLine(caseInsensitiveCompareWithS(t));
}
}
}
Why are these examples in C#? Because in F#, function declarations are curried by default. You don't usually need to curry functions; they're already curried. The major exception to this is framework methods and other overloaded functions, which take a tuple containing their multiple arguments. You therefore might want to curry such functions, and, in fact, I came upon this question when I was looking for a library function that would do this. I suppose it is missing (if indeed it is) because it's pretty trivial to implement:
let curry f a b c = f(a, b, c)
//overload resolution failure: there are two overloads with three arguments.
//let curryCompare = curry String.Compare
//This one might be more useful; it works because there's only one 3-argument overload
let backCurry f a b c = f(c, b, a)
let intParse = backCurry Int32.Parse
let intParseCurrentCultureAnyStyle = intParse CultureInfo.CurrentCulture NumberStyles.Any
let myInt = intParseCurrentCultureAnyStyle "23"
let myOtherInt = intParseCurrentCultureAnyStyle "42"
To get around the failure with String.Compare, since as far as I can tell there's no way to specify which 3-argument overload to pick, you can use a non-general solution:
let curryCompare s1 s2 (b:bool) = String.Compare(s1, s2, b)
let backwardsCurryCompare (b:bool) s1 s2 = String.Compare(s1, s2, b)
I won't go into detail about the uses of partial function application in F# because the other answers have covered that already.
It's a fairly simple process. Take a function, bind one of its arguments and return a new function. For example:
let concatStrings left right = left + right
let makeCommandPrompt= appendString "c:\> "
Now by currying the simple concatStrings function, you can easily add a DOS style command prompt to the front of any string! Really useful!
Okay, not really. A more useful case I find is when I want to have a make a function that returns me data in a stream like manner.
let readDWORD array i = array[i] | array[i + 1] << 8 | array[i + 2] << 16 |
array[i + 3] << 24 //I've actually used this function in Python.
The convenient part about it is that rather than creating an entire class for this sort of thing, calling the constructor, calling obj.readDWORD(), you just have a function that can't be mutated out from under you.
You know you can map a function over a list? For example, mapping a function to add one to each element of a list:
> List.map ((+) 1) [1; 2; 3];;
val it : int list = [2; 3; 4]
This is actually already using currying because the (+) operator was used to create a function to add one to its argument but you can squeeze a little more out of this example by altering it to map the same function of a list of lists:
> List.map (List.map ((+) 1)) [[1; 2]; [3]];;
val it : int list = [[2; 3]; [4]]
Without currying you could not partially apply these functions and would have to write something like this instead:
> List.map((fun xs -> List.map((fun n -> n + 1), xs)), [[1; 2]; [3]]);;
val it : int list = [[2; 3]; [4]]
I gave a good example of simulating currying in C# on my blog. The gist is that you can create a function that is closed over a parameter (in my example create a function for calculating the sales tax closed over the value of a given municipality)out of an existing multi-parameter function.
What is appealing here is instead of having to make a separate function specifically for calculating sales tax in Cook County, you can create (and reuse) the function dynamically at runtime.