I'm pretty new to functional programming and I've started looking at the documentation for match statements and in the example I came across here gitpages and cut and pasted to my question below:
let rec fib n =
match n with
| 0 -> 0
| 1 -> 1
| _ -> fib (n - 1) + fib (n - 2)
I understand that let is for static binding in this case for a recursive function called fib which takes a parameter n. It tries to match n with 3 cases. If it's 0, 1 or anything else.
What I don't understand is what the | symbol is called in this context or why it is used? Anything I search for pertaining to f-sharp pipe takes me to this |> which is the piping character in f sharp.
What is this | used for in this case? Is it required or optional? And when should be and shouldn't I be using |?
The | symbol is used for several things in F#, but in this case, it serves as a separator of cases of the match construct.
The match construct lets you pattern match on some input and handle different values in different ways - in your example, you have one case for 0, one for 1 and one for all other values.
Generally, the syntax of match looks like this:
match <input> with <case_1> | ... | <case_n>
Where each <case> has the following structure:
<case> = <pattern> -> <expression>
Here, the | symbol simply separates multiple cases of the pattern matching expression. Each case then has a pattern and an expression that is evaluated when the input matches the pattern.
To expand on Tomas's excellent answer, here are some more of the various uses of | in F#:
Match expressions
In match expressions, | separates the various patterns, as Tomas has pointed. While you can write the entire match expression on a single line, it's conventional to write each pattern on a separate line, lining up the | characters, so that they form a visual indicator of the scope of the match statement:
match n with
| 0 -> "zero"
| 1 -> "one"
| 2 -> "two"
| 3 -> "three"
| _ -> "something else"
Discriminated Unions
Discriminated Unions (or DUs, since that's a lot shorter to type) are very similar to match expressions in style: defining them means listing the possibilities, and | is used to separate the possibilities. As with match expressions, you can (if you want to) write DUs on a single line:
type Option<'T> = None | Some of 'T
but unless your DU has just two possibilities, it's usually better to write it on multiple lines:
type ContactInfo =
| Email of string
| PhoneNumber of areaCode : string * number : string
| Facebook of string
| Twitter of string
Here, too, the | ends up forming a vertical line that draws the eye to the possibilities of the DU, and makes it very clear where the DU definition ends.
Active patterns
Active patterns also use | to separate the possibilities, but they also are wrapped inside an opening-and-closing pair of | characters:
let (Even|Odd) n = if n % 2 = 0 then Even else Odd // <-- Wrong!
let (|Even|Odd|) n = if n % 2 = 0 then Even else Odd // <-- Right!
Active patterns are usually written in the way I just showed, with the | coming immediately inside the parentheses, which is why some people talk about "banana clips" (because the (| and |) pairs look like bananas if you use your imagination). But in fact, it's not necessary to write the (| and |) characters together: it's perfectly valid to have spaces separating the parentheses from the | characters:
let (|Even|Odd|) n = if n % 2 = 0 then Even else Odd // <-- Right!
let ( |Even|Odd| ) n = if n % 2 = 0 then Even else Odd // <-- ALSO right!
Unrelated things
The pipe operator |> and the Boolean-OR operator || are not at all the same thing as uses of the | operator. F# allows operators to be any combination of symbols, and they can have very different meanings from an operator that looks almost the same. For example, >= is a standard operator that means "greater than". And many F# programs will define a custom operator >>=. But although >>= is not defined in the F# core library, it has a standard meaning, and that standard meaning is NOT "a lot greater than". Rather, >>= is the standard way to write an operator for the bind function. I won't get into what bind does right now, as that's a concept that could take a whole answer all on its own to go through. But if you're curious about how bind works, you can read Scott Wlaschin's series on computation expressions, which explains it all very well.
Related
I looked at how to make a tree from a given data with F# and https://citizen428.net/blog/learning-fsharp-binary-search-tree/
Basically what I am attempting to do is to implementing a function for building an extremely simple AST using discriminated unions (DU) to represent the tree.
I want to use tokens/symbols to build the tree. I think these could also be represented by DU. I am struggling to implement the insert function.
Let's just say we use the following to represent the tree. The basic idea is that for addition and subtraction of integers I'll only need binary tree. The Expression could either be an operator or a constant. This might be the wrong way of implementing the tree, but I'm not sure.
type Tree =
| Node of Tree * Expression * Tree
| Empty
and Expression =
| Operator //could be a token or another type
| Constant of int
And let's use the following for representing tokens. There's probably a smarter way of doing this. This is just an example.
type Token =
| Integer
| Add
| Subtract
How should I implement the insert function? I've written the function below and tried different ways of inserting elements.
let rec insert tree element =
match element, tree with
//use Empty to initalize
| x, Empty -> Node(Empty, x, Empty)
| x, Node(Empty,y,Empty) when (*x is something here*) -> Node((*something*))
| _, _ -> failwith "Missing case"
If you got any advice or maybe a link then I would appreciate it.
I think that thinking about the problem in terms of tree insertion is not very helpful, because what you really want to do is to parse a sequence of tokens. So, a plain tree insertion is not very useful. You instead need to construct the tree (expression) in a more specific way.
For example, say I have:
let input = [Integer 1; Add; Integer 2; Subtract; Integer 1;]
Say I want to parse this sequence of tokens to get a representation of 1 + (2 - 1) (which has parentheses in the wrong way, but it makes it easier to explain the idea).
My approach would be to define a recursive Expression type rather than using a general tree:
type Token =
| Integer of int
| Add
| Subtract
type Operator =
| AddOp | SubtractOp
type Expression =
| Binary of Operator * Expression * Expression
| Constant of int
To parse a sequence of tokens, you can write something like:
let rec parse input =
match input with
| Integer i::Add::rest ->
Binary(AddOp, Constant i, parse rest)
| Integer i::Subtract::rest ->
Binary(SubtractOp, Constant i, parse rest)
| Integer i::[] ->
Constant i
| _ -> failwith "Unexpected token"
This looks for lists starting with Integer i; Add; ... or similar with subtract and constructs a tree recursively. Using the above input, you get:
> parse input;;
val it : Expression =
Binary (AddOp, Constant 1,
Binary (SubtractOp, Constant 2, Constant 1))
I came across an oddity in the F# pattern matching syntax today, which can lead to apparent failures in the exhaustivity check.
type Thing =
| This
| That
| Other
let useThing =
function
| This -> "A"
| That -> "A"
| That -> "B" // compiler complains
| Other -> "B"
In the above scenario the compiler helpfully tells me that the second That rule will never be matched. However, if I had tried to make the code a bit more compact and had written
let useThing =
function
| This | That -> "A"
| That | Other -> "B"
I do not get any help from the compiler. I think the reason is that | This | That ->. "A" is not a shortcut for | This -> "A" | That -> "A", even though it looks very much like it is (and I've seen many code samples that treat it as such). Instead, from what I can find, the pipe symbol is used both to separate individual patterns, and also as OR pattern.
This is not a big issue for most DUs, but I encountered the problem when mapping a DU with a large number of cases into another DU with a small number of cases. My attempt to use the shortcut syntax caused a bug.
So my questions are:
Is my interpretation correct?
Is there any workaround apart from listing each pattern on a separate line?
Your interpretation is correct.
By leaving out the actions for the first This and second That you are creating an OR pattern as described in Pattern Matching (F#)
To me this is slightly confusing, too, since the logical 'or' is || in F#.
And while it is easy to see the first bar as new alternative and second bar as or in your formatting it becomes less obvious in
let useThing =
function
| This
| That -> "A"
| That
| Other -> "B"
However the compiler can tell whether a whole pattern is useless but it cannot simplify a pattern.
That | Other has a valid match and is therefore not redundant as considered by the compiler.
You can think of much more involved patterns where it would be not at all clear if parts can be left out or how to simplify them.
I'm learning F# by writing a recursive descent parser using active patterns.
Since all my rules or partial active patterns I need to combine them in different manners, but I'm getting really frustrated with the syntax of passing active patterns as parameters.
The following example shows the trouble I'm having:
// Combines two patterns by chaining them.
let (|Chain|_|) (|Pattern1|_|) (* Should I use pipes here? *) (|Pattern2|_|) data =
match data with
|Pattern1 result ->
match result with
|Pattern2 result2 -> Some result2
|_ -> None
|_ -> None
// Stupid test patterns
let (|IfBiggerThan10ThenDouble|_|) value = if value > 10 then Some (value*2) else None
let (|IfLessThan100ThenDouble|_ |) value = if value < 100 then Some (value*2) else None
match 20 with
// Do I need pipes here?
|Chain (IfBiggerThan10ThenDouble IfLessThan100ThenDouble) value -> printfn "%A" value // Should print 80
| _ -> printfn "Did not match"
My main confusion seems to be about the '|' operator. Sometimes it seems to be a part of the type of the pattern and sometimes part of the name.
You do not really need to implement your own chaining of patterns, because you can directly nest the patterns which gives you the required result:
match 20 with
| IfBiggerThan10ThenDouble(IfLessThan100ThenDouble value) -> printfn "%A" value
| _ -> printfn "Did not match"
This will first call the IfBiggerThan10ThenDouble pattern which calculates 20*2 and passes the value to the nested pattern IfLessThan100ThenDouble. This again doubles the value and binds it to the value symbol (when it succeeds).
That said, your implementation of the Chain pattern actually works and can be called like this:
match 20 with
| Chain (|IfBiggerThan10ThenDouble|_|) (|IfLessThan100ThenDouble|_|) value ->
printfn "%A" value // Should print 80
| _ -> printfn "Did not match"
In general, active pattern (|P|_|) is really just a function with a special name. You can treat it as an ordinary function and call it by writing (|P|_|) argument or you can treat it as a value and pass it as an argument to other functions or parameterized active patterns. Your code would work if you implemented Chain as a pattern taking ordinary functions:
let (|Chain|_|) f g data =
f data |> Option.bind (fun r -> g data)
Then Chain <arg1> <arg2> <pat> is just calling the parameterized active pattern with two functions as an argument. When called, it binds the result to the pattern <pat>. In the above example, the two arguments are function values representing the patterns (these could be ordinary functions, but not lambda functions because of syntactic restrictions).
Have a look at this F#/OCaml code:
type AllPossible =
| A of int
| B of int*int
| ...
| Z of ...
let foo x =
....
match x with
| A(value) | B(value,_) -> (* LINE 1 *)
(* do something with the first (or only, in the case of A) value *)
...
(* now do something that is different in the case of B *)
let possibleData =
match x with
| A(a) -> bar1(a)
| B(a,b) -> bar2(a+b)
| _ -> raise Exception (* the problem - read below *)
(* work with possibleData *)
...
| Z -> ...
So what is the problem?
In function foo, we pattern match against a big list of types.
Some of the types share functionality - e.g. they have common
work to do, so we use "|A | B ->" in LINE 1, above.
We read the only integer (in the case of A), or the first integer
(in the case of B) and do something with it.
Next, we want to do something that is completely different, depending
on whether we work on A or B (i.e. call bar1 or bar2).
We now have to pattern match again, and here's the problem: In this
nested pattern match, unless we add a 'catchAll' rule (i.e. '_'),
the compiler complains that we are missing cases - i.e. it doesn't
take into account that only A and B can happen here.
But if we add the catchAll rule, then we have a far worse problem:
if at some point we add more types in the list of LINE1
(i.e. in the line '|A | B ->' ... then the compiler will NOT help
us in the nested match - the '_' will catch them, and a bug will
be detected at RUNTIME. One of the most important powers of
pattern matching - i.e. detecting such errors at compile-time - is lost.
Is there a better way to write this kind of code, without having
to repeat whatever work is shared amongst A and B in two separate
rules for A and B? (or putting the A-and-B common work in a function
solely created for the purpose of "local code sharing" between A and B?)
EDIT: Note that one could argue that the F# compiler's behaviour is buggy in this case -
it should be able to detect that there's no need for matching beyond A and B
in the nested match.
If the datatype is set in stone - I would also prefer local function.
Otherwise, in OCaml you could also enjoy open (aka polymorphic) variants :
type t = [`A | `B | `C]
let f = function
| (`A | `B as x) ->
let s = match x with `A -> "a" | `B -> "b" in
print_endline s
| `C -> print_endline "ugh"
I would just put the common logic in a local function, should be both faster and more readable. Matches nested that way is pretty hard to follow, and putting the common logic in a local function allows you to ditch the extra matching in favour of something that'll get inlined anyway.
Hmm looks like you need to design the data type a bit differently such as:
type AorB =
| A of int
| B of int * int
type AllPossible =
| AB of AorB
| C of int
.... other values
let foo x =
match x with
| AB(v) ->
match v with
| A(i) -> () //Do whatever need for A
| B(i,v) -> () // Do whatever need for B
| _ -> ()
Perhaps the better solution is that rather than
type All =
|A of int
|B of int*int
you have
type All =
|AorB of int * (int Option)
If you bind the data in different ways later on you might be better off using an active pattern rather than a type, but the result would be basically the same
I don't really agree that this should be seen as a bug - although it would definitely be convenient if the case was handled by the compiler.
The C# compiler doesn't complain to the following and you wouldn't expect it to:
var b = true;
if (b)
if (!b)
Console.WriteLine("Can never be reached");
How can I write a no-op statement in F#?
Specifically, how can I improve the second clause of the following match statement:
match list with
| [] -> printfn "Empty!"
| _ -> ignore 0
Use unit for empty side effect:
match list with
| [] -> printfn "Empty!"
| _ -> ()
The answer from Stringer is, of course, correct. I thought it may be useful to clarify how this works, because "()" insn't really an empty statement or empty side effect...
In F#, every valid piece of code is an expression. Constructs like let and match consist of some keywords, patterns and several sub-expressions. The F# grammar for let and match looks like this:
<expr> ::= let <pattern> = <expr>
<expr>
::= match <expr> with
| <pat> -> <expr>
This means that the body of let or the body of clause of match must be some expression. It can be some function call such as ignore 0 or it can be some value - in your case it must be some expression of type unit, because printfn ".." is also of type unit.
The unit type is a type that has only one value, which is written as () (and it also means empty tuple with no elements). This is, indeed, somewhat similar to void in C# with the exception that void doesn't have any values.
BTW: The following code may look like a sequence of statements, but it is also an expression:
printf "Hello "
printf "world"
The F# compiler implicitly adds ; between the two lines and ; is a sequencing operator, which has the following structure: <expr>; <expr>. It requires that the first expression returns unit and returns the result of the second expression.
This is a bit surprising when you're coming from C# background, but it makes the langauge surprisingly elegant and consise. It doesn't limit you in any way - you can for example write:
if (a < 10 && (printfn "demo"; true)) then // ...
(This example isn't really useful - just a demonstration of the flexibility)