I have an azure function based on the http post template. I expanded the json from 1 prop to 3.
let versionJ = json.["version"]
let customerIdJ = json.["customerId"]
let stationIdJ = json.["stationId"]
match isNull versionJ with
What is the best way to check for null across all three? Use a tulple?
match isNull versionJ, isNull customerIdJ, isNull stationIdJ with
It depends on what do you want to check for exactly.
If you want to see that there is at least 1 null, then you can do the following:
let allAreNotNull = [versionJ; customerIdJ; stationIdJ]
|> List.map (not << isNull)
|> List.fold (&&) true
If you want to check that all of them are nulls you can do the following:
let allAreNull = [versionJ; customerIdJ; stationIdJ]
|> List.map isNull
|> List.fold (&&) true
update
You can also replace it with List.forall:
[versionJ; customerIdJ; stationIdJ]
|> List.forall (not << isNull)
[versionJ; customerIdJ; stationIdJ]
|> List.forall isNull
In this case, I think using simple if would be cleaners solution,
if you have defined isNull as:
let inline isNull value = (value = null)
then just do:
if isNull versionJ && isNull customerIdJ && isNull stationIdJ then
// your code
Another approach is being inspired by Applicatives that apply createRecord if all elements (<>) null.
let createRecord v c s = v, c, s
let inline ap v f =
match f, v with
| _ , null
| None , _ -> None
| Some f, v -> f v |> Some
let v =
Some createRecord
|> ap json.["version"]
|> ap json.["customerId"]
|> ap json.["stationId"]
Related
A quick question on how to effectively group/filter list/seq.
Filter for only records where the optional field is not None
Remove the "option" parameter to make future processes easier (as None has been filtered out)
Group (this is of no problem I believe)
Am I using the best approach?
Thanks!
type tmp = {
A : string
B : int option }
type tmp2 = {
A : string
B : int }
let inline getOrElse (dft: 'a) (x: 'a option) =
match x with
| Some v -> v
| _ -> dft
let getGrouped (l: tmp list) =
l |> List.filter (fun a -> a.B.IsSome)
|> List.map (fun a -> {A = a.A ; B = (getOrElse 0 (a.B)) })
|> List.groupBy (fun a -> a.A)
The most natural approach for map+filter when option is involved is to use choose, which combines those two operations and drops the option wrapper from the filtered output.
Your example would look something like this:
let getGrouped (l: tmp list) =
l
|> List.choose (fun a ->
a.B
|> Option.map (fun b -> {A = a.A; B = b})
|> List.groupBy (fun a -> a.A)
The simple solution is just use the property that an option can be transformed to list with one or zero elements then you can define a function like:
let t1 ({A=a; B=b} : tmp) =
match b with
| (Some i) -> [{ A = a; B= i}]
| _ -> []
let getGrouped (l: tmp list) =
l |> List.collect t1
|> List.groupBy (fun a -> a.A)
I have the following type:
type Multiset<'a when 'a: comparison> = MSet of Map<'a, int>
I want to declare a function for this type that subtracts two MSets.
Let's say I have the following two Multisets:
let f = MSet (Map.ofList [("a",1);("b",2);("c",1)])
let g = MSet (Map.ofList [("a",1);("b",3);("c",1)])
I have now tried to create this subtract function which takes two Multisets.
let subtract fms sms =
match fms with
| MSet fs -> match sms with
| MSet ss ->
let toList ms = Map.fold (fun keys key value -> keys # [for i = 1 to value do yield key] ) [] ms
let fromList l = match l with
| [] -> MSet(Map.ofList [])
| x::xs -> MSet(Map.ofList (x::xs |> Seq.countBy id |> Seq.toList))
let sfList = toList fs
let ssList = toList ss
fromList (List.filter (fun n -> not (List.contains n sfList)) ssList)
If I run :
subtract f g
It returns :
MSet (map [])
Which is not what I wanted. g contains one more b than f, so I would want it to return:
MSet(map [("b", 1)])
My implementation doesn't account for multiple occurrences of the same key. I am not quite sure how I can fix this, so I get the wanted functionality?
I suspect you just have your arguments reversed, that's all. Try subtract g f.
That said, your solution seems way more complicated than it needs to be. How about just updating the values in the first map by subtracting the counts in the second, then removing non-positive counts?
let sub (MSet a) (MSet b) =
let bCount key = match Map.tryFind key b with | Some c -> c | None -> 0
let positiveCounts, _ =
a
|> Map.map (fun key value -> value - (bCount key))
|> Map.partition (fun _ value -> value > 0)
MSet positiveCounts
Also, the nested match in your implementation doesn't need to be there. If you wanted to match on both arguments, you can just do:
match fms, sms with
| MSet fs, MSet ss -> ...
But even that is an overkill - you can just include the pattern in parameter declarations, like in my implementation above.
As for duplicate keys - in this case, there is no reason to worry: neither of the arguments can have duplicate keys (because they're both Maps), and the algorithm will never produce any.
The underlying issue, also evident in your other question, seems to be the unification of identical keys. This requires an equality constraint and can be easily effected by the high-level function Seq.groupBy. Since comparison isn't strictly necessary, I propose using a dictionary, but the approach would work also with maps.
Given a type
type MultiSet<'T> = MultiSet of System.Collections.Generic.IDictionary<'T, int>
and a helper which maps the keys, sums their values and validates the result;
let internal mapSum f =
Seq.groupBy (fun (KeyValue(k, _)) -> f k)
>> Seq.map (fun (k, kvs) -> k, Seq.sumBy (fun (KeyValue(_, v)) -> v) kvs)
>> Seq.filter (fun (_, v) -> v > 0)
>> dict
>> MultiSet
your operations become:
let map f (MultiSet s) =
mapSum f s
let add (MultiSet fms) (MultiSet sms) =
Seq.append fms sms
|> mapSum id
let subtract (MultiSet fms) (MultiSet sms) =
Seq.map (fun (KeyValue(k, v)) ->
System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair(k, -v)) sms
|> Seq.append fms
|> mapSum id
let f = MultiSet(dict["a", 1; "b", 2; "c", 1])
let g = MultiSet(dict["a", 1; "b", 3; "c", 1])
subtract f g
// val it : MultiSet<string> = MultiSet (seq [])
subtract g f
// val it : MultiSet<string> = MultiSet (seq [[b, 1] {Key = "b";
// Value = 1;}])
Is there a better way to do this if F#?
type T =
| A of int
| B of string
static member chooseA x = match x with A i -> Some i | _ -> None
static member chooseB x = match x with B s -> Some s | _ -> None
The usecase is the following:
let collection = [A 10; B "abc"]
let aItems = collection |> Seq.choose T.chooseA
let bItems = collection |> Seq.choose T.chooseB
Thanks!
Use List.partition to split your source elements:
type T =
| A of int
| B of string
let collection = [A 10; B "abc"; A 40; B "120"]
let result = List.partition (function | A _ -> true | _ -> false) collection
val result : T list * T list = ([A 10; A 40], [B "abc"; B "120"])
Then you can use fst and snd to select the relevant lists.
This is awkward, but I can see why it is not an important case F#'s design. Usually, there is a solution that allows for a complete pattern match instead of multiple, somewhat incomplete ones. For example, the two concrete item sequences can be constructed like this:
let aItems, bItems =
let accA, accB = ResizeArray(), ResizeArray()
collection |> Seq.iter (function A i -> accA.Add i | B s -> accB.Add s)
seq accA, seq accB
A similar solution without mutation can be made if you dislike it, but I see little reason to worry about encapsulated mutation. Note that the results are cast to seq.
This uses pattern matching in the manner it is designed for:
If another case is added to T, a warning will appear in the handling function, which is exactly where editing should continue: determining how to treat the new input case.
The program doesn't needlessly iterate the input multiple times for each kind of input, but rather goes over it once and handles each item when first encountered.
If the above isn't suitable, you can still shorten the question's code a bit by using the function keyword and declaring the chooser function as a lambda. For example:
let aItems = collection |> Seq.choose (function A i -> Some i | _ -> None)
Note that this is lazy, just like the proposal in the question: here, every iteration over aItems will needlessly iterate over all the B cases in the input.
I can offer the following variant:
open System.Reflection
type T =
| A of int
| B of string
let collection = [A 10; B "abc"; A 40; B "120"]
let sp (col: T list) (str:string) =
if col=[] then []
else
let names = "Is" + str
col |> List.filter(fun x-> let t = x.GetType()
if t.GetProperty(names) = null then false
else
t.InvokeMember(names, BindingFlags.GetProperty, null, x, null) :?> bool)
|> List.map(fun y ->
y.GetType().InvokeMember("get_Item", BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, y, null))
sp collection "A" |> printfn "%A\n"
sp collection "B" |> printfn "%A\n"
sp collection "C" |> printfn "%A\n"
Print:
[10; 40]
["abc"; "120"]
[]
http://ideone.com/yAytQk
I'm new to F#, so I think that can be done easier
I want to create an F# function like List.find, but instead of searching for a single value, I want to search for any of the keys of a dictionary and return the corresponding dictionary value.
For example, this is a (poor) implementation of what I am trying to do.
let dict1=dict[(1,"A");(2,"B");(3,"C");(4,"D");(5,"E");(6,"F")]
let findInDict l =
let mutable found=false
let mutable value=""
for elem in l do
let f,v=dict1.TryGetValue(elem)
value<-if f && not found then v else value
found<-if not found then f else found
value
findInDict [9;2;5]
>
val dict1 : System.Collections.Generic.IDictionary<int,string>
val findInDict : l:seq<int> -> string
val it : string = "B"
What would be a functional equivalent?
A function for this almost feels like overkill. You can do this in one line using a list comprehension:
[for x in [9;4;5] do if dict1.ContainsKey x then yield dict1.[x]]
Edit:
After re-reading your question, I realized the above was not quite what you are looking for.
let rec findAValue l =
match l with
| [] -> None
| x::xs -> if dict1.ContainsKey x then Some(dict1.[x]) else findAValue xs
or more succinctly:
let rec findAValue = function
| [] -> None
| x::xs -> if dict1.ContainsKey x then Some(dict1.[x]) else findAValue xs
even more succinctly:
let findAValue = List.tryPick (fun x-> if dict1.ContainsKey x then Some(dict1.[x]) else None)
let highPerformanceFindAValue = List.tryPick (fun x-> match dict1.TryGetValue x with
| true, value->Some(value)
| _ -> None)
In the case where no value is found the result is None otherwise it's Some(value).
let findFirst l (dict: System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<int, string>) =
let o = l |> List.tryFind (fun i -> dict.ContainsKey(i)) |> Option.map (fun k -> dict.[k])
match o with | None -> "" | Some(k) -> k
There are tons of ways to do this.
The obvious solution is to iterate, like you did:
let findInDict (d:IDictionary<'a, 'b>) l =
seq {
for key in l do
let f, v = d.TryGetValue(key)
if f then yield v
}
which is OK, I guess. It more or less mimics the typical step-wise approach.
You could rewrite this in terms of some sequence operators:
let findInDict1 (d:IDictionary<'a, 'b>) l =
Seq.filter (fun elem -> d.ContainsKey(elem)) l |> Seq.map (fun elem -> d.Item(elem))
which feels more functional, but is clearly doing way more work than it should be.
let findInDict2 (d:IDictionary<'a, 'b>) l =
Seq.choose(fun elem ->
let f,v = d.TryGetValue(elem)
if f then Some(v) else None) l
The last one makes the most sense in that we're only ever accessing the dictionary once per key and choose will do all the heavy lifting for us under the hood.
I should split seq<a> into seq<seq<a>> by an attribute of the elements. If this attribute equals by a given value it must be 'splitted' at that point. How can I do that in FSharp?
It should be nice to pass a 'function' to it that returns a bool if must be splitted at that item or no.
Sample:
Input sequence: seq: {1,2,3,4,1,5,6,7,1,9}
It should be splitted at every items when it equals 1, so the result should be:
seq
{
seq{1,2,3,4}
seq{1,5,6,7}
seq{1,9}
}
All you're really doing is grouping--creating a new group each time a value is encountered.
let splitBy f input =
let i = ref 0
input
|> Seq.map (fun x ->
if f x then incr i
!i, x)
|> Seq.groupBy fst
|> Seq.map (fun (_, b) -> Seq.map snd b)
Example
let items = seq [1;2;3;4;1;5;6;7;1;9]
items |> splitBy ((=) 1)
Again, shorter, with Stephen's nice improvements:
let splitBy f input =
let i = ref 0
input
|> Seq.groupBy (fun x ->
if f x then incr i
!i)
|> Seq.map snd
Unfortunately, writing functions that work with sequences (the seq<'T> type) is a bit difficult. They do not nicely work with functional concepts like pattern matching on lists. Instead, you have to use the GetEnumerator method and the resulting IEnumerator<'T> type. This often makes the code quite imperative. In this case, I'd write the following:
let splitUsing special (input:seq<_>) = seq {
use en = input.GetEnumerator()
let finished = ref false
let start = ref true
let rec taking () = seq {
if not (en.MoveNext()) then finished := true
elif en.Current = special then start := true
else
yield en.Current
yield! taking() }
yield taking()
while not (!finished) do
yield Seq.concat [ Seq.singleton special; taking()] }
I wouldn't recommend using the functional style (e.g. using Seq.skip and Seq.head), because this is quite inefficient - it creates a chain of sequences that take value from other sequence and just return it (so there is usually O(N^2) complexity).
Alternatively, you could write this using a computation builder for working with IEnumerator<'T>, but that's not standard. You can find it here, if you want to play with it.
The following is an impure implementation but yields immutable sequences lazily:
let unflatten f s = seq {
let buffer = ResizeArray()
let flush() = seq {
if buffer.Count > 0 then
yield Seq.readonly (buffer.ToArray())
buffer.Clear() }
for item in s do
if f item then yield! flush()
buffer.Add(item)
yield! flush() }
f is the function used to test whether an element should be a split point:
[1;2;3;4;1;5;6;7;1;9] |> unflatten (fun item -> item = 1)
Probably no the most efficient solution, but this works:
let takeAndSkipWhile f s = Seq.takeWhile f s, Seq.skipWhile f s
let takeAndSkipUntil f = takeAndSkipWhile (f >> not)
let rec splitOn f s =
if Seq.isEmpty s then
Seq.empty
else
let pre, post =
if f (Seq.head s) then
takeAndSkipUntil f (Seq.skip 1 s)
|> fun (a, b) ->
Seq.append [Seq.head s] a, b
else
takeAndSkipUntil f s
if Seq.isEmpty pre then
Seq.singleton post
else
Seq.append [pre] (splitOn f post)
splitOn ((=) 1) [1;2;3;4;1;5;6;7;1;9] // int list is compatible with seq<int>
The type of splitOn is ('a -> bool) -> seq<'a> -> seq>. I haven't tested it on many inputs, but it seems to work.
In case you are looking for something which actually works like split as an string split (i.e the item is not included on which the predicate returns true) the below is what I came up with.. tried to be as functional as possible :)
let fromEnum (input : 'a IEnumerator) =
seq {
while input.MoveNext() do
yield input.Current
}
let getMore (input : 'a IEnumerator) =
if input.MoveNext() = false then None
else Some ((input |> fromEnum) |> Seq.append [input.Current])
let splitBy (f : 'a -> bool) (input : 'a seq) =
use s = input.GetEnumerator()
let rec loop (acc : 'a seq seq) =
match s |> getMore with
| None -> acc
| Some x ->[x |> Seq.takeWhile (f >> not) |> Seq.toList |> List.toSeq]
|> Seq.append acc
|> loop
loop Seq.empty |> Seq.filter (Seq.isEmpty >> not)
seq [1;2;3;4;1;5;6;7;1;9;5;5;1]
|> splitBy ( (=) 1) |> printfn "%A"