To call a Nix function that uses set destructuring, you need to pass it a set with exactly the keys it requires, no more and no less:
nix-repl> ({ a }: a) { a = 4; b = 5; }
error: anonymous function at (string):1:2 called with unexpected argument ‘b’, at (string):1:1
The exception to this is if the function's argument list contains an ellipsis at the end:
nix-repl> ({ a, ... }: a) { a = 4; b = 5; }
4
However, most of the packages in nixpkgs consist of a default.nix file containing a function which is not defined with this ellipsis. Yet, somehow when you use callPackage, it manages to call these functions and pass them only the arguments that they need. How is this implemented?
There is a reflection primop, that can deconstruct function argument:
nix-repl> __functionArgs ( { x ? 1, y }: x )
{ x = true; y = false; }
callPackage then iterates over those attribute names, fetches required packages and constucts the attrset of packages, that is fed later to called function.
Here's a simple example:
nix-repl> callWithExtraArgs = f: args:
let
args' = __intersectAttrs (__functionArgs f) args;
in
f args'
nix-repl> callWithExtraArgs ({ x }: x + 1) { x = 4; y = 7; }
5
To browse Nix primops, go to 15.5. Built-in Functions in the Nix manual (or see the docs of the unstable branch).
Related
Trying to understand callPackage, so looked up its implementation where it uses lib.functionArgs (source), but there is already a builtins.functionArgs primop, an alias of __functionArgs (implemented in C).
lib.functionArgs is defined as
/* Extract the expected function arguments from a function.
This works both with nix-native { a, b ? foo, ... }: style
functions and functions with args set with 'setFunctionArgs'. It
has the same return type and semantics as builtins.functionArgs.
setFunctionArgs : (a → b) → Map String Bool.
*/
functionArgs = f: f.__functionArgs or (builtins.functionArgs f);
and the __functionArgs attribute above is coming from setFunctionArgs (source):
/* Add metadata about expected function arguments to a function.
The metadata should match the format given by
builtins.functionArgs, i.e. a set from expected argument to a bool
representing whether that argument has a default or not.
setFunctionArgs : (a → b) → Map String Bool → (a → b)
This function is necessary because you can't dynamically create a
function of the { a, b ? foo, ... }: format, but some facilities
like callPackage expect to be able to query expected arguments.
*/
setFunctionArgs = f: args:
{
__functor = self: f;
__functionArgs = args;
};
I understand what setFunctionArgs does, and the comment above its declaration tells why it is necessary, but I can't understand it; both clauses of that sentence are clear but not sure how the first statement prevents the second one to be achieved (without setFunctionArgs, that is).
danbst also tried to elucidate this further,
lib.nix adds __functionArgs attr to mimic __functionArgs builtin. It
used to "pass" actual __functionArgs result down to consumers, because
builtin __functionArgs only works on top-most function args
but not sure what the "consumers" are, and couldn't unpack the last clause (i.e., "builtin __functionArgs only works on top-most function args"). Is this a reference to the fact that Nix functions are curried, and
nix-repl> g = a: { b, c }: "lofa"
nix-repl> builtins.functionArgs g
{ }
?
lib.functionArgs also doesn't solve this problem, but I'm probably off the tracks at this point.
Notes to self
__functor is documented in the Nix manual under Sets.
$ nix repl '<nixpkgs>'
Welcome to Nix version 2.3.6. Type :? for help.
Loading '<nixpkgs>'...
Added 11530 variables.
nix-repl> f = { a ? 7, b }: a + b
nix-repl> set_f = lib.setFunctionArgs f { b = 9; }
nix-repl> set_f
{ __functionArgs = { ... }; __functor = «lambda # /nix/store/16blhmppp9k6apz41gjlgr0arp88awyb-nixos-20.03.3258.86fa45b0ff1/nixos/lib/trivial.nix:318:19»; }
nix-repl> set_f.__functionArgs
{ b = 9; }
nix-repl> set_f set_f.__functionArgs
16
nix-repl> set_f { a = 27; b = 9; }
36
lib.functionArgs wraps builtins.functionArgs in order to provide reflective access to generic functions.
This supports reflection with builtins.functionArgs:
f = { a, b, c }: #...
Now consider the eta abstraction of the same function:
f' = attrs: f attrs
This does not support reflection with builtins.functionArgs. With setFunctionArgs, you can restore that information, as long as you also use lib.functionArgs.
I recommend to avoid reflection because everything that I've seen implemented with it can be implemented without it. It expands the definition of a function to include what should normally be considered implementation details.
Anyway, the primary motivation seems to be callPackage, which can be implemented with normal attrset operations if you change all packages to add ... as in { lib, stdenv, ... }:. I do have a morbid interest in this misfeature that is function reflection, so if anyone finds another use case, please comment.
In Python, you can swap the values of two variables using the following syntax
a, b = b, a
How to do this in Dart?
Python style tuple unpacking is not supported in Dart. Neither is the assignment of multiple variables as you have in your example. If it is the swap you are after, you could always just do the following:
var a = 10, b = 5, temp;
temp = a;
a = b;
b = temp;
As Shailen Tuli has mentioned, Python-style tuple unpacking is not supported in Dart. You can use Immediately invoked closures.
(tmp) {
a = b;
b = tmp;
}(a)
Which will do the trick.
Thanks to Mr. Randal Schwartz
I tried this:
swapper(int a,int b)
{
return {
"data":
{
'b' : b,
'a' : a
}
}['data'];
}
Given an F# record:
type R = { X : string ; Y : string }
and two objects:
let a = { X = null ; Y = "##" }
let b = { X = "##" ; Y = null }
and a predicate on strings:
let (!?) : string -> bool = String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace
and a function:
let (-?>) : string -> string -> string = fun x y -> if !? x then y else x
is there a way to use F# quotations to define:
let (><) : R -> R -> R
with behaviour:
let c = a >< b // = { X = a.X -?> b.X ; Y = a.Y -?> b.Y }
in a way that somehow lets (><) work for any arbitrary F# record type, not just for R.
Short: Can quotations be used to generate F# code for a definition of (><) on the fly given an arbitrary record type and a complement function (-?>) applicable to its fields?
If quotations cannot be used, what can?
You could use F# quotations to construct a function for every specific record and then compile it using the quotation compiler available in F# PowerPack. However, as mentioned in the comments, it is definitely easier to use F# reflection:
open Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection
let applyOnFields (recd1:'T) (recd2:'T) f =
let flds1 = FSharpValue.GetRecordFields(recd1)
let flds2 = FSharpValue.GetRecordFields(recd2)
let flds = Array.zip flds1 flds2 |> Array.map f
FSharpValue.MakeRecord(typeof<'T>, flds)
This function takes records, gets their fields dynamically and then applies f to the fields. You can use it to imiplement your operator like this (I'm using a function with a readable name instead):
type R = { X : string ; Y : string }
let a = { X = null ; Y = "##" }
let b = { X = "##" ; Y = null }
let selectNotNull (x:obj, y) =
if String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace (unbox x) then y else x
let c = applyOnFields a b selectNotNull
The solution using Reflection is quite easy to write, but it might be less efficient. It requires running .NET Reflection each time the function applyOnFields is called. You could use quotations to build an AST that represents the function that you could write by hand if you knew the record type. Something like:
let applyOnFields (a:R) (b:R) f = { X = f (a.X, b.X); Y = f (a.Y, b.Y) }
Generating the function using quotations is more difficult, so I won't post a complete sample, but the following example shows at least a part of it:
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
// Get information about fields
let flds = FSharpType.GetRecordFields(typeof<R>) |> List.ofSeq
// Generate two variables to represent the arguments
let aVar = Var.Global("a", typeof<R>)
let bVar = Var.Global("b", typeof<R>)
// For all fields, we want to generate 'f (a.Field, b.Field)` expression
let args = flds |> List.map (fun fld ->
// Create tuple to be used as an argument of 'f'
let arg = Expr.NewTuple [ Expr.PropertyGet(Expr.Var(aVar), fld)
Expr.PropertyGet(Expr.Var(bVar), fld) ]
// Call the function 'f' (which needs to be passed as an input somehow)
Expr.App(???, args)
// Create an expression that builds new record
let body = Expr.NewRecord(typeof<R>, args)
Once you build the right quotation, you can compile it using F# PowerPack. See for example this snippet.
Say I have a recursive function that I want to know how many times the function has called itself per input value. Rather than putting printf expressions or changing the return type to include the number of calls, is it possible to "wrap" the function with another to achive this? I would like the wrapped function to return the number of function calls and the original functions result. It should be reusable across different functions.
Here is what I have and it doesn't work.
open System
open System.IO
open System.Collections.Generic
/// example recursive function
let rec getfilenames dir =
seq {
yield Directory.GetFiles dir
for x in Directory.GetDirectories dir do yield! getfilenames x}
/// function to count the number of calls a recursive function makes to itself
let wrapped (f: 'a -> 'b) =
let d = new Dictionary<'a, int>()
fun x ->
let ok, res = d.TryGetValue(x)
if ok then d.[x] <- d.[x] + 1
else
d.Add(x, 1)
d, f x
> let f = wrapped getfilenames
let calls, res = f "c:\\temp";;
val f : (string -> Dictionary<string,int> * seq<string []>)
val res : seq<string []>
val calls : Dictionary<string,int> = dict [("c:\temp", 1)]
This is not going to work, because getfilenames is defined as calling getfilenames, not any other function and especially not a function defined after that. So, as soon as your wrapper calls the function, the function will ignore your wrapper and start calling itself.
What you need to do is move the recursion out of the getfilenames function and into another function, by providing the function to be called recursively as a parameter.
let body recfun dir =
seq {
yield Directory.GetFiles dir
for x in Directory.GetDirectories dir do yield! recfun x}
let rec getfilenames dir = body getfilenames dir
Now, you can wrap body before plugging it into a recursive function:
let wrap f =
let d = (* ... *) in
d, fun recfun x ->
let ok, res = d.TryGetValue(x)
if ok then d.[x] <- d.[x] + 1
else d.Add(x, 1)
f recfun x
let calls, counted_body = wrap body
let getfilenames dir = counted_body getfilenames dir
Note that the wrap function returns both the wrapped function (with a signature identical to the original function) and the dictionary, for external access. The number of calls will then be found in calls.
As Victor points out, you cannot take a recursive function and "inject" some behavior into the place where the recursive call happens (because the function is already complete). You'll need to provide some extension point for that. In Victor's solution, this is done by taking a function to be called recursively as an argument, which is the most general solution.
A simpler option is to use F# value recursion which allows you to create a function value and use it in its declaration. You can use this to create a recursive function by calling another function that adds some behavior to the function (e.g. counting):
let rec factorial = counted (fun x ->
if x = 0 then 1
else x * (factorial (x - 1)) )
factorial 10
Inside the lambda function, we can directly access the function we're defining, so there is no need for passing function to be called recursively as additional parameter. The function counted simply wraps the given function f and adds some functionality:
let counted f =
let count = ref 0
(fun x ->
count := !count + 1;
printfn "call: %d" (!count)
f x)
Thanks to the value recursion, the functionality will be added to the factorial function (and so when it calls itself, it will call the version with added counting support).
Is it possible to call a method on a returned object using the pipeline infix operator?
Example, I have a .Net class (Class1) with a method (Method1). I can currently code it like this:
let myclass = new Class1()
let val = myclass.Method1()
I know I could also code it as such
let val = new Class1().Method1()
However I would like to do be able to pipeline it (I am using the ? below where I don't know what to do):
new Class1()
|> ?.Method1()
Furthermore, say I had a method which returns an object, and I want to only reference it if that method didn't return null (otherwise bail?)
new Class1()
|> ?.Method1()
|> ?? ?.Method2()
Or to make it clearer, here is some C# code:
public void foo()
{
var myclass = new Class1();
Class2 class2 = myclass.Method1();
if (class2 == null)
{
return;
}
class2.Method2();
}
You can define something similar to your (??) operator fairly easily (but operators can't start with a question mark):
let (~??) f x =
if (x <> null) then
f x
Unfortunately, your pipelined code will need to be a bit more verbose (also, note that you can drop the new keyword for calling constructors):
Class1()
|> fun x -> x.Method1()
Putting it all together:
Class1()
|> fun x -> x.Method1()
|> ~?? (fun x -> x.Method2())
Using a custom operator as 'kvb' suggests is definitely an option. Another approach that you may find interesting in this case is to define your own 'computation expression' that automatically performs the check for null value at every point you specify. The code that uses it would look like this:
open System.Windows.Forms
// this function returns (0) null, or (1) btn whose parent is
// null or (2) button whose parent is not null
let test = function
| 1 -> new Button(Text = "Button")
| 2 -> new Button(Text = "Button", Parent = new Button(Text = "Parent"))
| _ -> null
let res =
safe { let! btn = test(2) // specify number here for testing
// if btn = null, this part of the computation will not execute
// and the computation expression immediately returns null
printfn "Text = %s" btn.Text
let! parent = btn.Parent // safe access to parent
printfn "Parent = %s" parent.Text // will never be null!
return parent }
As you can see, when you want to use a value that can potentially be 'null', you use let! inside the computation expression. The computation expression can be defined so that it immediately returns null if the value is null and runs the rest of the computation otherwise. Here is the code:
type SafeNullBuilder() =
member x.Return(v) = v
member x.Bind(v, f) =
if v = null then null else f(v)
let safe = new SafeNullBuilder()
BTW: If you want to learn more about this, it is very similar to 'Maybe' monad in Haskell (or computation working with F# option type).