I'm adding a static builder method to a record type like this:
type ThingConfig = { url: string; token : string; } with
static member FromSettings (getSetting : (string -> string)) : ThingConfig =
{
url = getSetting "apiUrl";
token = getSetting "apiToken";
}
I can call it like this:
let config = ThingConfig.FromSettings mySettingsAccessor
Now the tricky part: I'd like to add a second overloaded builder for use from C# (ignore the duplicated implementation for now):
static member FromSettings (getSetting : System.Func<string,string>) : ThingConfig =
{
url = getSetting.Invoke "apiUrl";
token = getSetting.Invoke "apiToken";
}
This works for C#, but breaks my earlier F# call with
error FS0041: A unique overload for method 'FromSettings' could not be determined based on type information prior to this program point. A type annotation may be needed. Candidates: static member ThingConfig.FromSettings : getSetting:(string -> string) -> ThingConfig, static member ThingConfig.FromSettings : getSetting:Func -> ThingConfig
Why can't F# figure out which one to call?
What would that type annotation look like? (Can I annotate the parameter type from the call site?)
Is there a better pattern for this kind of interop? (overloads accepting lambdas from both C# and F#)
Why can't F# figure out which one to call?
Overload resolution in F# is generally more limited than C#. The F# compiler will often, in the interest of safety, reject overloads that C# compiler sees as valid.
However, this specific case is a genuine ambiguity. In the interest of .NET interop, F# compiler has a special provision for lambda expressions: regularly, a lambda expression will be compiled to an F# function, but if the expected type is known to be Func<_,_>, the compiler will convert the lambda to a .NET delegate. This allows us to use .NET APIs built on higher-order functions, such as IEnumerable<_> (aka LINQ), without manually converting every single lambda.
So in your case, the compiler is genuinely confused: did you mean to keep the lambda expression as an F# function and call your F# overload, or did you mean to convert it to Func<_,_> and call the C# overload?
What would the type annotation look like?
To help the compiler out, you can explicitly state the type of the lambda expression to be string -> string, like so:
let cfg = ThingConfig.FromSettings( (fun s -> foo) : string -> string )
A slightly nicer approach would be to define the function outside of the FromSettings call:
let getSetting s = foo
let cfg = ThingConfig.FromSettings( getSetting )
This works fine, because automatic conversion to Func<_,_> only applies to lambda expressions written inline. The compiler will not convert just any function to a .NET delegate. Therefore, declaring getSetting outside of the FromSettings call makes its type unambiguously string -> string, and the overload resolution works.
EDIT: it turns out that the above no longer actually works. The current F# compiler will convert any function to a .NET delegate automatically, so even specifying the type as string -> string doesn't remove the ambiguity. Read on for other options.
Speaking of type annotations - you can choose the other overload in a similar way:
let cfg = ThingConfig.FromSettings( (fun s -> foo) : Func<_,_> )
Or using the Func constructor:
let cfg = ThingConfig.FromSettings( Func<_,_>(fun s -> foo) )
In both cases, the compiler knows that the type of the parameter is Func<_,_>, and so can choose the overload.
Is there a better pattern?
Overloads are generally bad. They, to some extent, obscure what is happening, making for programs that are harder to debug. I've lost count of bugs where C# overload resolution was picking IEnumerable instead of IQueryable, thus pulling the whole database to the .NET side.
What I usually do in these cases, I declare two methods with different names, then use CompiledNameAttribute to give them alternative names when viewed from C#. For example:
type ThingConfig = ...
[<CompiledName "FromSettingsFSharp">]
static member FromSettings (getSetting : (string -> string)) = ...
[<CompiledName "FromSettings">]
static member FromSettingsCSharp (getSetting : Func<string, string>) = ...
This way, the F# code will see two methods, FromSettings and FromSettingsCSharp, while C# code will see the same two methods, but named FromSettingsFSharp and FromSettings respectively. The intellisense experience will be a bit ugly (yet easily understandable!), but the finished code will look exactly the same in both languages.
Easier alternative: idiomatic naming
In F#, it is idiomatic to name functions with first character in the lower case. See the standard library for examples - Seq.empty, String.concat, etc. So what I would actually do in your situation, I would create two methods, one for F# named fromSettings, the other for C# named FromSettings:
type ThingConfig = ...
static member fromSettings (getSetting : string -> string) =
...
static member FromSettings (getSetting : Func<string,string>) =
ThingConfig.fromSettings getSetting.Invoke
(note also that the second method can be implemented in terms of the first one; you don't have to copy&paste the implementation)
Overload resolution is buggy in F#.
I filed already some cases, like this where it is obviously contradicting the spec.
As a workaround you can define the C# overload as an extension method:
module A =
type ThingConfig = { url: string; token : string; } with
static member FromSettings (getSetting : (string -> string)) : ThingConfig =
printfn "F#ish"
{
url = getSetting "apiUrl";
token = getSetting "apiToken";
}
module B =
open A
type ThingConfig with
static member FromSettings (getSetting : System.Func<string,string>) : ThingConfig =
printfn "C#ish"
{
url = getSetting.Invoke "apiUrl";
token = getSetting.Invoke "apiToken";
}
open A
open B
let mySettingsAccessor = fun (x:string) -> x
let mySettingsAccessorAsFunc = System.Func<_,_> (fun (x:string) -> x)
let configA = ThingConfig.FromSettings mySettingsAccessor // prints F#ish
let configB = ThingConfig.FromSettings mySettingsAccessorAsFunc // prints C#ish
Related
I am new to F# and am trying to chain functions to make a Higher Order Function.
A simplified example is
init returns a tuple
validate accepts a tuple and returns bool
let init : string * string =
("1", "2")
let validate ((a: string), (b: string)) : bool =
a.Equals(b)
let test = init >> validate
ERROR
This expression was expected to have type 'a -> 'b' but here has type 'string * string'
As the answer for Piotr explains, you are getting an error because you have a value and a function. To compose those, you can turn init into a function, but you do not really need to use composition in this case.
If you want to pass a value as an argument to a function, it is typically much simpler to just pass it as an argument:
let res = validate init
Alternatively, if you have a number of functions you want to apply to your input in a sequence, you can do this using the piping operator:
let res = init |> validate
Function composition using >> is a nice functional trick, but I think it is actually much less common in standard F# code than most people think. I use |> all the time, but >> only rarely.
You can only compose functions using the >> combinator. Your first assignment is not a function - it is a binding to a value - your tuple.
You can convert it to a function just by adding empty parameter list () (unit) parameter like this:
let init() : string * string =
("1", "2")
let validate ((a: string), (b: string)) : bool =
a.Equals(b)
let test = init >> validate
let res = test()
The answer on Confused about static dictionary in a type, in F# finished with one advice: and just in general: try to use fewer classes and more modules and functions; they're more idiomatic in F# and lead to fewer problems in general
Which is a great point, but my 30 years of OO just don't want to give up classes just yet (although I was fighting against C++ like crazy when we moved away from C...)
so let's take a practical real world object:
type Currency =
{
Ticker: string
Symbol: char
}
and MarginBracket =
{
MinSize: decimal
MaxSize: decimal
Leverage: int
InitialMargin: decimal
MaintenanceMargin: decimal
}
and Instrument =
{
Ticker: string
QuantityTickSize: int
PriceTickSize: int
BaseCurrency: Currency
QuoteCurrency: Currency
MinQuantity: decimal
MaxQuantity: decimal
MaxPriceMultiplier: decimal
MinPriceMultiplier: decimal
MarginBrackets: MarginBracket array
}
// formatting
static member private formatValueNoSign (precision: int) (value: decimal) =
let zeros = String.replicate precision "0"
String.Format($"{{0:#.%s{zeros}}}", value)
static member private formatValueSign (precision: int) (value: decimal) =
let zeros = String.replicate precision "0"
String.Format($"{{0:+#.%s{zeros};-#.%s{zeros}; 0.%s{zeros}}}", value)
member this.BaseSymbol = this.BaseCurrency.Symbol
member this.QuoteSymbol = this.QuoteCurrency.Symbol
member this.QuantityToString (quantity) = $"{this.BaseSymbol}{Instrument.formatValueSign this.QuantityTickSize quantity}"
member this.PriceToString (price) = $"{this.QuoteSymbol}{Instrument.formatValueNoSign this.PriceTickSize price}"
member this.SignedPriceToString (price) = $"{this.QuoteSymbol}{Instrument.formatValueSign this.PriceTickSize price}"
member this.RoundQuantity (quantity: decimal) = Math.Round (quantity, this.QuantityTickSize)
member this.RoundPrice (price : decimal) = Math.Round (price, this.PriceTickSize)
// price deviation allowed from instrument price
member this.LowAllowedPriceDeviation (basePrice: decimal) = this.MinPriceMultiplier * basePrice
member this.HighAllowedPriceDeviation (basePrice: decimal) = this.MaxPriceMultiplier * basePrice
module Instrument =
let private allInstruments = Dictionary<string, Instrument>()
let list () = allInstruments.Values
let register (instrument) = allInstruments.[instrument.Ticker] <- instrument
let exists (ticker: string) = allInstruments.ContainsKey (ticker.ToUpper())
let find (ticker: string) = allInstruments.[ticker.ToUpper()]
In this example, there is an Instrument object with its data and a few helper members and a module which acts as a repository when it's time to find an object by name (a trading ticker in this case, so they're known and formatted, it's not a random string)
I could move the helping member to the module, for example:
member this.LowAllowedPriceDeviation (basePrice: decimal) = this.MinPriceMultiplier * basePrice
could become:
let lowAllowedPriceDeviation basePrice instrument = instrument.MinPriceMultiplier * basePrice
So the object would become simpler and could eventually be turned into a simple storage type without any augmentations.
But I am wondering what are the practical benefits (let's just consider readability, maintainability, etc)?
Also, I don't see how this could be re-structured to not be a class, short of having an 'internal' class in the module and doing all operations through that, but that would just be shifting it.
Your intuition about turning LowAllowedPriceDeviation to a module is correct: it could become a function with the this parameter moved to the end. That is an accepted pattern.
Same goes for all other methods on the Instrument type. And the two private static methods could be come private functions in the module. The exact same approach.
The question "how this could be re-structured to not be a class" confuses me a bit, because this is not actually a class. Instrument is a record, not a class. The fact that you gave it some instance and static methods doesn't make it a class.
And finally (though, technically, this part is opinion-based), regarding "what are the practical benefits" - the answer is "composability". Functions can compose in the way that methods can't.
For example, say you wanted a way to print multiple instruments:
let printAll toString = List.iter (printfn "%s" << toString)
See how it's parametrized with a toString function? That's because I'd like to use it for printing instruments in different ways. For example, I might print their prices:
printAll priceToString (list())
But if PriceToString is a method, I'd have to introduce an anonymous function:
printAll (fun i -> i.PriceToString) (list())
This looks just a little bit more involved than using a function, but in practice it gets very complicated fast. A bigger problem, however, is that this wouldn't even compile because type inference doesn't work on properties (because it can't). In order to get it to compile, you have to add a type annotation, making it even uglier:
printAll (fun (i: Instrument) -> i.PriceToString) (list())
That's just one example of function composability, there are many others. But I'd rather not write a whole blog post on this subject, it's already much longer than I'd like.
Here is a simple composition of functions in F#
let composedFunction = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes >> Array.length
"test" |> composedFunction
Type inference correctly defines the type of composed function string -> int. But compiler cannot pick correct overload of System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes method:
Error FS0041: A unique overload for method 'GetBytes' could not be
determined based on type information prior to this program point. A
type annotation may be needed. Candidates:
System.Text.Encoding.GetBytes(chars: char []) : byte [],
System.Text.Encoding.GetBytes(s: string) : byte []Blockquote
Is there any way to compose correct overload of System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes which accepts string parameter?
Or course, I can do following
// declare function which calls correct overload and then use it for compostion
let getBytes (s: string) = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes s
let composedFunction = getBytes >> Array.length
// start composition with ugly lambda
let composedFunction =
(fun (s: string) -> s) >> System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes >> Array.length
But I wonder if there is any way without additional function declarations to make the compiler pick right overload according to the inferred string -> int type of composed function?
You can always add annotations:
let composedFunction : string -> _ = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes >> Array.length
or
let composedFunction = (System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes : string -> _) >> Array.length
As your example shows, .NET methods do not always compose well - I think the idiomatic approach in such situations is just to use the .NET style when you're dealing with .NET libraries (and use functional style when you're dealing with functional libraries).
In your specific case, I would just define a normal function with type annotation and get the length using the Length member rather than using the function:
let composedFunction (s:string) =
System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(s).Length
The existing answer shows how to get the composition to work with type annotations. Another trick you can do (which I would definitely not use in practice) is that you can add identity function on string to the composition to constrain the types:
let composedFunction = id<string> >> System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes >> Array.length
It's fun that this works, but as I said, I would never actually use this, because a normal function as defined above is much easier to understand.
Using F#, I had the following (simplified), which works fine:
type MyInt =
struct
val Value: int
new v = { Value = v }
end
static member inline name() = "my_int" // relevant line
let inline getName (tp: ^a): string = (^a: (static member name : unit -> string) ())
It seems to me that the statically resolved member signature from the explicit member constraint requires a function. I was wondering if it can also be used with a field instead. I tried a few things:
The following will compile, but won't work and will fail with the error
error FS0001: The type 'MyInt' does not support the operator 'get_name'
type MyInt =
//...
static member inline name = "my_int"
let inline getName (tp: ^a): string = (^a: (static member name : string) ())
Removing the () to prevent it from trying to call the gettor is a syntax error. If I change it to actually implement the gettor, it works (but that's essentially the same as the original code).
type MyInt =
// ...
static member inline name with get() = "my_int"
let inline getName (tp: ^a): string = (^a: (static member name : string) ())
Is there a way to get, using explicit member constraints or similar means, the compiler to find the static field? Or is this simply a limitation of the syntax of constraints?
Update:
Surprisingly, it does work with instance fields, or as in this case, struct fields: using (^a: (member Value: 'b) ()), which will call the member Value.
I'm working with an API in F# (that I have no control over) which declares two constructors like so:
public TheType(string bar, bool foo)
public TheType(IDisposable baz, bool foo)
I need to create an instance of the object using the first constructor, but passing null for bar. The F# compiler of course gets confused about which constructor I am trying to resolve:
//Private field
static let blah : TheType = new TheType(null, false)
I can resolve the issue by casting null to string:
static let blah : TheType = new TheType(null :> string, false)
Which works, but that gives me a compilation warning:
The type 'string' does not have any proper subtypes and need not be used as the target of a static coercion
Which also makes sense. Is there a way to resolve the overload ambiguity without resorting to compilation warnings?
You can specify the type of null:
static let blah : TheType = new TheType((null : string), false)