type GenericResult =
| Ok
| Error of string
type LoginResult =
| Ok
| UserNotFound
| WrongPassword
let check something:GenericResult =
match something with
//| true -> Ok // error:This expression was expected to be of type "GenericREsult" but here has type "LoginResult"
| true -> GenericResult.Ok // I'm forced to specify GenericResult.Ok
| false -> Error "aargg!"
let checkLogin something:LoginResult =
match something with
| true -> Ok // here I don't need to specify the DU because this is defined after
| _ -> WrongPassword
I'd like to use just "Ok" in both the methods, without the need to specify the DU.
I see that in case of clashing of the value the last one is the "predefined".
Ideally I'd like to have a sort of inheritance
to reuse part of a DU in another DU.
For example:
type GenericResult =
| Ok
| Error of string
type LoginResult =
//| GenericResult.Ok
| UserNotFound
| WrongPassword
type SaveResult =
| Created
| Updated
//| GenericResult.Error
let checkLogin something: LoginResult | GenericResult.Ok =
match something with
| true -> Ok
| _ -> WrongPassword
[EDIT]
The real scenario where I feel the need for this feature is this with 3 different results from 3 different logic classes.
There will be in the future more cases so the multiplication of duplicated DU values will increase.
// DUs ordered from the most specific to the most generic
type BalanceUpdateResult =
| Created
| Updated
| InvalidRequest of string
type DeleteResult =
| Ok
| InvalidRequest of string
type Result<'T> =
| Ok of 'T
| NotValid of string
| Error of string
The goal is to have a clean match syntax in the consumer, where the value of the DU will evenctually be used to raise an exception or to return the created value, for example.
// balance update function (result is BalanceUpdateResult):
match result with
| Created -> this.createOkWithStatus 201
| Updated -> this.createOkWithStatus 200
| InvalidRequest error -> this.createErrorForConflict error
// company creation function (result is Result<Company>):
match result with
| Result.Ok newItem ->
context.Logger.Log $"Company created. New Id:{newItem.Id}, Name:{newItem.Name}."
this.createCreated newItem
| NotValid error -> base.createErrorForConflict error
| Error error -> base.createError error
Here, for example, InvalidRequest is not accepted in the second case because it belongs to the wrong DU.
Having to specify the DU everywhere results in a mess like the following example (see the many Result<_>.):
interface ICompanyLogic with
member this.Create(company:Company):Result<Company> =
match normalize company |> validate with
| NotValid msg -> Result<_>.NotValid msg
| Valid validCompany ->
match companyRepository.Exists(validCompany.Name) with
| true -> Result<_>.NotValid($"A company with name \"{validCompany.Name}\" already exists.")
| _ ->
let newCompany = assignNewId validCompany
companyRepository.Create(newCompany)
Result<_>.Ok(newCompany)
member this.Update (company:Company):Result<Company> =
let checkNameExists company =
match companyRepository.GetByName company.Name with
| Some c when c.Id <> company.Id -> NotValid $"A company with name \"{company.Name}\" already exists."
| _ -> Valid company
match normalize company |> validate with
| NotValid msg -> Result<_>.NotValid msg
| Valid c -> match checkNameExists c with
| Valid c -> companyRepository.Update c; Result<_>.Ok c
| NotValid msg -> Result<_>.NotValid msg
I think the best way to achieve what you are trying to do would be to start with a generic Result type that has a type parameter representing the error type:
type Result<'TError> =
| Ok
| Error of 'TError
This allows you to use different types for representing errors, including string, but also another DU to capture more specific error types. You can then define GenericResult and LoginResult as two type aliases:
type LoginError =
| UserNotFound
| WrongPassword
type GenericResult = Result<string>
type LoginResult = Result<LoginError>
To report a login error, you would now use Error WrongPassword to wrap the specific error in the generic Error constructor. The implementation of your two functions looks as follows:
let check something:GenericResult =
match something with
| true -> Ok
| false -> Error "aargg!"
let checkLogin something:LoginResult =
match something with
| true -> Ok
| _ -> Error WrongPassword
Unlike TypeScript union type, F# DU are meant to be composed and not extensible - see Thomas answer for a solution using this approach.
Since F# does not offer a direct solution, you may consider renaming cases like InvalidRequest in order to be more specific and to help differentiate them when reading the code. With these specific names, you can also merge all result types into a big Event DU like what's usually done in an event sourced system:
type Event =
// BalanceUpdateResult
| BalanceCreated
| BalanceUpdated
| BalanceUpdateError of string
// DeleteResult
| DeleteOk
| DeleteError of string
// ...
Ok, as explained by Romain multiple DUs cannot solve my problem.
I decided to use the built-in type Result<'T,'TError>.
It allows me to avoid create many DUs that inevitably will have clash of names, forcing the use the full DU prefix in the code.
I solved the problem that drove me to create custom DUs with the inspiring example from Thomas reply.
(with Result<,>) I have the possibility to have dinstinct Errors or Oks.
(note the Result<unit,_> and the Result<BalanceUpdateRequest,_>)
type ICompanyLogic =
abstract member Create:Company -> Result<Company, string> // CreateResult
abstract member Update:Company -> Result<Company, string> // UpdateResult
abstract member Delete:string -> Result<unit,string> // DeleteResult
type BalanceUpdateResult =
| Created
| Updated
type IBalanceLogic =
abstract member CreateOrUpdate: request:BalanceUpdateRequest -> Result<BalanceUpdateResult, string>
Apart BalanceUpdateResult all the other DUs where replaced buy the Result<'T,'TError>.
I just maintained a couple one for specific tasks:
type CompanyValidation = Valid of Company | NotValid of string
type ValidateResult = Valid | NotValid of string
In the end with this solution:
I don't need to define many DUs
I can customize the Result... within as many values I want (storing a sub-DU in the Ok or Error union case)
I don't need to use prefix or use synonims to avoid clash (code result much cleaner)
Given the follwing code:
type Creature =
{ Strength: int
Toughness: int }
type CardType =
| Creature of Creature
| Land
| Instant
type Card =
{ Types: CardType list }
module Card =
let isType t card = List.contains t card.Types
I am able to write
Card.isType Land
When trying to check if card is a creature, i get the following error:
This expression was expected to have type
'CardType'
but here has type
'Creature -> CardType'
Is it even possible to have a "isType" function like this or am I stuck with pattern matching on a separate "isCreature" function instead?
Unless you want to resort to various reflection-based hacks, you are stuck with pattern matching. I would probably define a bit more general function using List.exist rather than List.contains (taking a predicate). Then you can easily define three functions for your specific card types:
module Card =
let isType t card =
List.exists t card.Types
let isCreature =
isType (function Creature _ -> true | _ -> false)
let isLand = isType ((=) Land)
let isInstant = isType ((=) Instant)
For Land and Instant, you can just check if the value equals the specific one you're looking for. For Creature, this requires pattern matching - but can be done quite nicely using function.
Suppose I have a DU like this:
type Fruit =
| Apple of int
| Banana of string
| Cherry of int * string
Now, I want to talk about the cases of the DU (not concrete items in the DU):
[<RequireQualifiedAccess>]
type FruitType =
| Apple
| Banana
| Cherry
module FruitType =
let ofFruit =
function
| Apple _ -> FruitType.Apple
| Banana _ -> FruitType.Banana
| Cherry _ -> FruitType.Cherry
type FruitSaladRecipe =
{
FruitsRequired : Set<FruitType>
}
As you can see, there is some code duplication here: every case of Fruit has an equivalent case in FruitType, and vice-versa.
Is there a more elegant way to write this?
Bonus points for not using reflection, this should be possible at compile-time.
This problem has come up a few times for me, but I will try to give a more concrete example.
Let's say you were building a form designer where the user can add custom elements like:
Drop downs
Text inputs
Sliders
In the menu for creating a new element, the first stage might be to pick a FormElementType:
[<RequireQualifiedAccess>]
type FormElementType =
| DropDown
| TextInput
| Slider
let! chooseFormElementType : UserInteraction<FormElementType> = ...
After choosing a FormElementType, the user will design an actual FormElement:
type FormElement =
| DropDown of string list
| TextInput of string option
| Slider of int * int
let createFormElement formElementType : UserInteraction<FormElement> =
match formElementType with
| FormElementType.DropDown ->
createDropDown
| FormElementType.TextInput ->
createTextInput
| FormElementType.Slider ->
createSlider
And then the new element can be added to a collection:
let form = Form.append formElement form
I am a newbie in F# and have been following guides to try to make a piece of code work but it hasn't.
I create types of single and coop sports through inheritance.
Then I use pattern matching to know the type and, if it is a coop sport, get also the number of players. Then rank each accordingly.
However, I have been getting errors. I followed Microsoft examples on this and I don't really understand the errors. I don't have a functional programming background.
type Sport (name: string) =
member x.Name = name
type Individual(name: string) =
inherit Sport(name)
type Team(name: string, numberOfPlayers : int) =
inherit Sport(name)
member x.numberOfPlayers = numberOfPlayers
let MK = new Individual("Combate Mortal")
let SF = new Individual("Lutadores de Rua")
let Tk = new Individual("Tekken Chupa")
let MvC = new Team("Marvel Contra Capcom", 3)
let Dbz = new Team("Bolas do Dragao", 3)
let interpretSport (sport:string) (players:int) =
match sport with
| "Combate Mortal" -> printfn "Rank1"
| "Lutadores de Rua" -> printfn "Rank2"
| "Tekken Chupa" -> printfn "Rank3"
| "Bolas do Dragao" -> printfn "Rank4. No of players: %d " players
| "Marvel Contra Capcom" -> printfn "Rank5. No of players: %d" players
| _ -> printfn "not a sport in our list..."
let matchSport (sport:Sport) =
match sport with
| :? Individual -> interpretSport(sport.Name)
| :? Team as teamSport -> interpretSport(teamSport.Name,teamSport.numberOfPlayers)
| _ -> printfn "not a sport"
matchSport(MK)
matchSport(SF)
matchSport(Tk)
matchSport(MvC)
matchSport(Dbz)
1st error when calling function with more than 1 argument:
2nd error when printing:
The question has already been answered, but because the asker says he is a newby in F#, maybe it's worth to iterate a little.
To begin, you define a function with two parameters:
let interpreteSport (sport:string) (player:int) =
In F#, there is no notion of optional parameters in the same sense that they exist in C#, so if you declare a function with two parameters, and you want to invoke it, and get its return value, you must supply all the parameters you put in its definition.
So in the first branch of your match expression, when you write:
:? Individual -> interpretSport(sport.Name)
you are making an error, passing only one parameter to a function that takes two.
But wait! Why the compiler don't alert you with an error saying you are calling a function with one parameter when it expects two?
Because it turns out that what you write, even if it does not call the interpreteSport function as you believed, it's a perfect valid expression in F#.
What it returns is an expression called "partially applied function", that is, a function that has received its first parameter, and is waiting for another one.
If you assign the result of such an expression to a value, let's say:
let parzFun = interpretSport sport.Name
you can then pass this value around in your code and, when you are ready to supply the missing parameter, evaluate it like this:
let result = parzFun 1
That's what the compiler is telling you when it talks about 'int -> unit': function signatures in F# are given in this form:
a -> b -> c -> d -> retval, where a, b, c, d etc. are the types of the parameters, and retVal the return value.
Your interpreteSport function has a signature of: string -> int -> unit, where unit is the special type that means 'no value', similar to C# void, but with the big difference that unit is an expression that you can correctly assign to a value, while void is just a keyword, and you cannot assign a variable to void in C#.
OK, so, when you call your function passing only the first parameter (a string), what you obtain is an expression of type int -> unit, that is another function that expects and integer and returns unit.
Because this expression is in a branch of a match expression, and because all the branches of a match expression must return the same type, the other 2 branches are also expected to return an int -> unit function, what it's not, and that explain your second error.
More on this in a moment, but before, we must look at the first error reported by the compiler, caused by this line of code:
:? Team as teamSport -> interpretSport(teamSport.Name,teamSport.numberOfPlayers)
Here, you are thinking your are calling your function with 2 parameters, but your are actually not: when you put 2 values in parenthesis, separated by a comma, you are creating a tuple, that is, a single value composed of two or more values. It's like your are passing again only the first parameter, but now with the wrong type: the first parameter of you function is a string, and you are instead passing a tuple: ('a * 'b) is how F# represents tuples: that means a single value composed of a value of type 'a (generic, in your case string) and another of type 'b (generic, in your case integer).
To call your function correctly you must call it so:
:? Team as teamSport -> interpretSport teamSport.Name teamSport.numberOfPlayers
But even if you limit yourself to this correction you will have all the same the second error because, remember, the first expression of your match returns a partially applied funcion, so int -> unit (a function that expects an integer and returns a unit) while your second and your third expressions are now of type unit, because they actually call two functions that return unit (interpreteSport and printfn). To completely fix your code, as has already been said in other answers, you must supply the missing integer parameter to the first call, so:
let matchSport (sport:Sport) =
match sport with
| :? Individual -> interpretSport sport.Name 1
| :? Team as teamSport -> interpretSport teamSport.Name teamSport.numberOfPlayers
| _ -> printfn "not a sport"
If this is a F# learning exercise then it's best to avoid classes and inheritance completely. The fundamental idiomatic F# types are records and discriminated unions.
The intent of your code is not clear to me at all, but I have attempted to refactor to remove the use of classes:
type Players =
| Individual
| Team of numberOfPlayers:int
type Sport = { Name : string; Players : Players }
let MK = { Name = "Combate Mortal"; Players = Individual }
let SF = { Name = "Lutadores de Rua"; Players = Individual }
let Tk = { Name = "Tekken Chupa"; Players = Individual }
let MvC = { Name = "Marvel Contra Capcom"; Players = Team 3 }
let Dbz = { Name = "Bolas do Dragao"; Players = Team 3 }
let interpretSport (sport:Sport) =
let players =
match sport.Players with
| Individual -> ""
| Team numberOfPlayers -> sprintf ". No of players: %d" numberOfPlayers
let rank =
match sport.Name with
| "Combate Mortal" -> Some 1
| "Lutadores de Rua" -> Some 2
| "Tekken Chupa" -> Some 3
| "Bolas do Dragao" -> Some 4
| "Marvel Contra Capcom" -> Some 5
| _ -> None
match rank with
| Some r -> printfn "Rank%d%s" r players
| None -> printfn "not a sport in our list..."
Your function interpretSport has two arguments but your first call to it has only one. Try calling it like so:
| :? Individual -> interpretSport sport.Name 1
Also, the second call uses tupled parameters but the function is declared to take curried parameters. Try calling it like so:
| :? Team as teamSport -> interpretSport teamSport.Name teamSport.numberOfPlayers
There are several small problems with your code. The most obvious is in matchSport, you are calling interpretSport in an uncurried style, with an argument tuple. The call should look like:
Team as teamSport -> interpretSport teamSport.Name teamSport.numberOfPlayers
However, that's a problem, because on the first case of the pattern matching you call interpretSport with only one argument, so you partially apply it and you get a type int -> unit, but when you fully apply it on the second case you get unit, and of course all types of the pattern matching cases must match. The cheapest solution would be to add a 1 to your call on the first case like this:
Individual -> interpretSport sport.Name 1
But you probably want to use the sports you bound before (maybe in a list you give as a parameter) to do the checking. It is in general a bad idea (in functional programming and elsewhere) to hard-code that many strings, you probably want to do some kind of association List, or Map of the Sports to the Ranks, then fold over the sports List and match when found with individual or team and then print whatever the Map gives you for that case. This would be shorter and more extensible.
I want create an instance of Person. Person is a type of Animal. When I try to create a Person, the IDE says me "This expression was expected to have type 'Person', but here has type 'Animal'".
type Person(name) =
member this.Name: string = name
type Animal =
| Person of Person
| Cat
| Dog
let person: Person = Person(name = "John")
The problem is that Person refers to both the type and the case of the Discriminated union.
You can invert the definitions so it will resolve to the last one:
type Animal =
| Person of Person
| Cat
| Dog
and
Person (name) =
member this.Name: string = name
let person: Person = Person(name = "John")
// then to create an animal
let animal = Animal.Person (Person(name = "John"))
Alternatives solutions are to use new keyword as #MarcinJuraszek suggested in the comments or considering a different name for the DU case and the type.
In F# names acts as bindings to types and values and at any time you can redefine what a name "points" to. E.g.
// lets define type A
type A(name) = member this.Name : string = name
let x = A("test")
// lets "bind" the type name 'A' to a new type
type A(number) = member this.Number : int = number
let y = A(10)
printfn "type name of x: %s" (x.GetType().Name) // prints 'type name of x: A'
printfn "type name of y: %s" (y.GetType().Name) // prints 'type name of y: A'
So x and y are both of a type named A, but not the same. The same logic applies to Person and Animal.Person, and dependent on the order you define them in, the last defined will be the one referenced when typing Person.
As mentioned, you can use new or definition order to access both. You could also decide to put the Person class in a different module than Animal.
module Inner =
type Person(name) ...
This way you can access your types by prepending the module name.