Not entirely sure the title describes it ok, but I do have about the following code:
paket.dependencies:
source https://www.nuget.org/api/v2
nuget fsharpx.extras
nuget mongodb.driver
some.fsx:
#r #".\packages\MongoDB.Bson\lib\net45\MongoDB.Bson.dll"
#r #".\packages\MongoDB.Driver\lib\net45\MongoDB.Driver.dll"
#r #".\packages\MongoDB.Driver.Core\lib\net45\MongoDB.Driver.Core.dll"
#r #".\packages\FSharpX.Extras\lib\net45\FSharpX.Extras.dll"
open MongoDB
open MongoDB.Driver
open MongoDB.Bson
open MongoDB.Bson.Serialization
open FSharpx.Choice
let private createClient (connectString:string) = MongoClient(connectString)
let CreateClient = protect createClient
let private getDb name (client:IMongoClient) = client.GetDatabase(name)
let GetDB1 name client =
choose {
let! c = client
return! (protect (getDb name) c)
}
let GetDB2 name (client:Choice<IMongoClient, exn>) =
protect (getDb name)
<!> client
The point for this "excersise" was to write GetDB2 so that it does the same as GetDB1 but use operators (applicatives?), but I am at the moment not able to turn my head to manage this.
The above code compiles, but the signatures for
GetDB1 and GetDB2 are not equal, and Im obviously doing something not right.
val GetDB1 :
name:string ->
client:Choice<#MongoDB.Driver.IMongoClient,exn> ->
Choice<MongoDB.Driver.IMongoDatabase,exn>
val GetDB2 :
name:string ->
client:Choice<MongoDB.Driver.IMongoClient,exn> ->
Choice<Choice<MongoDB.Driver.IMongoDatabase,exn>,exn>
I have tried several versions and orders of doing things in GetDB2 but I more or less always end at same signature as above.
The general idea I initially had was to write small function doing the stuff they should and then add exception handling (protect) and then "wrap" and "unwrap" accordingly.
That might of course not be entirely right idea too.
Are someone able to point me in some directions here for further studies, code examples or anything? Any comments of any type are in fact welcome at this point ;-)
FSharpx doc
Addendum
I think the following should be about same as above, but without the mongodb dependencies.
#r #".\packages\FSharpX.Extras\lib\net45\FSharpX.Extras.dll"
type DataBase =
{
Name: string
}
type Client =
{
connectString: string
} with member this.GetDatabase name = {
Name = name
}
open FSharpx.Choice
let private createClient (connectString:string) = {
connectString= connectString
}
let CreateClient = protect createClient
let private getDb name (client:Client) = client.GetDatabase name
let GetDB1 name client =
choose {
let! c = client
return! (protect (getDb name) c)
}
let GetDB2 name client =
protect (getDb name)
<!> client
You are getting the compounding of types here because you have used the <!> operator, which is map. That is defined something like this:
let map f = function
| Choice1Of2 value = Choice1Of2 (f value)
| Choice2Of2 fail = Choice2Of2 fail
This has the signature ('T -> 'U) -> Choice<'T,'Failure> -> Choice<'U,'Failure>, i.e. the function f is used as a map inside the choice type. For example:
map (sprintf "%d")
has type Choice<int, 'Failure> -> Choice<string, 'Failure>. This is good for applying functions which do not use the Choice type - there is only one possible point of failure, and that happened before the call to map.
Your next function, however, produces a Choice type, but it takes a non-Choice type. This means that you want the errors to propagate through - if there is an error in the value, then choose that. If the value is fine, but there's an error in the function, then use that. If everything is successful, use that. This requires the two error types to be the same, which for you they are (exn).
This is describing the bind operation, defined like this:
let bind f = function
| Choice1Of2 value = f value
| Choice2Of2 fail = Choice2Of2 fail
with signature ('T -> Choice<'U,'Failure>) -> Choice<'T,'Failure> -> Choice<'U,'Failure>.
Note that bind is very similar to map, except that the latter raises the result into a Choice1Of2 - the mapped function is always successful.
In FSharpX, you can access bind by the |>-like operator >>=, or the <|-like operator <<=.
Finally, protect is a fancy way of catching a thrown exception into a Choice2Of2 exn. It is similar to map in that the passed function is of type 'T -> 'U, but the function can also throw an exception and the passed type is not a Choice. protect is defined something like this:
let protect f x =
try
Choice1Of2 (f x)
with
exn -> Choice2Of2 exn
so its signature is ('T -> 'U) -> 'T -> Choice<'U, exn>.
For more information on how everything is implemented, see the source of this computation expression.
Putting this all together, we can see why your example went wrong.
getDb name is a function Client -> DataBase
protect (getDb name) is a function Client -> Choice<DataBase, exn>
map (protect (getDb name)) is therefore a function Choice<Client, exn> -> Choice<Choice<DataBase, exn>, 'Failure>, because map works inside Choice.
What you want, though, is
let GetDB name client =
bind (protect (getDb name)) client
or in operator form,
let GetDB name client = client >>= protect (getDb name)
In general, if your mapping function has signature 'T -> 'U you want map. If it has 'T -> Choice<'U, 'Failure>, you want bind.
Related
This code snippet reproduces a problem I am having with some production code. The function containsProperty represents a real world function that is actually in a library, so that I have no say in what the signature is.
The problem is that I can't figure out how to create a wrapper function that can take a normal function as argument, and then pass that on to containsProperty. I can call containsProperty directly with a function as a lambda expression, but I can't call it with a function that comes from some other source.
The function addToGroup is the best I've come up with so far, and it uses quotations. There are two problems with that approach, which I am trying to figure out. First, how do I get rid of the Func cast in the quotation? Perhaps somehow move it into addToGroup? Second, can I build on this in order to just pass a function? I haven't succeeded in finding something that doesn't produce either a compile time error or a runtime error.
The function addToGroup2 is what I'd like to do, but it doesn't compile. The error message is "No constructors are available for the type 'Quotations.Expr<'a>'".
Why do I bother to struggle with this? Because as long as I can't treat the passed in function as a first class value, I can't create the design I'm after. I want these functions to come along from a collection of records.
If you paste this snippet into LINQPad or something, comment out addToGroup2 and the calls to it, in order to make the snippet compile and run.
open System
open System.ComponentModel
open System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations // Reference to this assembly required.
type CfgSettings = {
mutable ConnectionString: string
mutable Port: int
}
and CfgSettingsMetadata() =
static member containsProperty<'TProperty>(propertyExpression: Linq.Expressions.Expression<Func<CfgSettings,'TProperty>>) =
Console.WriteLine "good!"
static member addToGroup f =
CfgSettingsMetadata.containsProperty(FSharp.Linq.RuntimeHelpers.LeafExpressionConverter.QuotationToLambdaExpression f) |> ignore
static member addToGroup2 (f: CfgSettings -> 'TProperty) =
CfgSettingsMetadata.containsProperty(FSharp.Linq.RuntimeHelpers.LeafExpressionConverter.QuotationToLambdaExpression (Quotations.Expr<Func<CfgSettings,'TProperty>>f)) |> ignore
static member BuildMetadata () =
CfgSettingsMetadata.containsProperty(fun x -> x.ConnectionString)
CfgSettingsMetadata.containsProperty(fun x -> x.Port)
CfgSettingsMetadata.addToGroup <# Func<_,_>(fun x -> x.ConnectionString) #>
CfgSettingsMetadata.addToGroup <# Func<_,_>(fun x -> x.Port) #>
CfgSettingsMetadata.addToGroup2 (fun x -> x.ConnectionString)
CfgSettingsMetadata.addToGroup2 (fun x -> x.Port)
CfgSettingsMetadata.BuildMetadata()
Both answers in question Expression<Func<T, bool>> from a F# func helped me somewhat, but I haven't found a solution yet.
So, there are two questions here.
How to pass a function without having to wrap it in <# ... #>?
For this, you just need to add the [<ReflectedDefinition>] attribute to your method's parameter. It implicitly wraps the argument passed to it in a quotation.
type CfgSettingsMetadata() =
static member addToGroup([<ReflectedDefinition>] f: Expr<CfgSettings -> 'TProperty>) =
CfgSettingsMetadata.containsProperty(LeafExpressionConverter.QuotationToLambdaExpression f) |> ignore
// Example use:
CfgSettingsMetadata.addToGroup(Func<_, _>(fun x -> x.ConnectionString))
How to convert from Expr<a -> b> to Expression<Func<a, b>>?
This is indeed explained in the question you linked, although the API has changed a bit since then.
type CfgSettingsMetadata() =
static member addToGroup ([<ReflectedDefinition>] (f: Expr<CfgSettings -> 'TProperty>)) =
let call = LeafExpressionConverter.QuotationToExpression f :?> MethodCallExpression
let lambda = call.Arguments.[0] :?> LambdaExpression
let e = Expression.Lambda<Func<CfgSettings, 'TProperty>>(lambda.Body, lambda.Parameters)
CfgSettingsMetadata.containsProperty(e) |> ignore
// Example use:
CfgSettingsMetadata.addToGroup(fun x -> x.ConnectionString)
Previously had a very compact and comprehensive answer for my question.
I had it working for my custom type but now due to some reason I had to change it to string type which is now causing type mismatch errors.
module AsyncResult =
let bind (binder : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'c>>) (asyncFun : Async<Result<'a, 'c>>) : Async<Result<'b, 'c>> =
async {
let! result = asyncFun
match result with
| Error e -> return Error e
| Ok x -> return! binder x
}
let compose (f : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'e>>) (g : 'b -> Async<Result<'c, 'e>>) = fun x -> bind g (f x)
let (>>=) a f = bind f a
let (>=>) f g = compose f g
Railway Oriented functions
let create (json: string) : Async<Result<string, Error>> =
let url = "http://api.example.com"
let request = WebRequest.CreateHttp(Uri url)
request.Method <- "GET"
async {
try
// http call
return Ok "result"
with :? WebException as e ->
return Error {Code = 500; Message = "Internal Server Error"}
}
test
type mismatch error for the AsyncResult.bind line
let chain = create
>> AsyncResult.bind (fun (result: string) -> (async {return Ok "more results"}))
match chain "initial data" |> Async.RunSynchronously with
| Ok data -> Assert.IsTrue(true)
| Error error -> Assert.IsTrue(false)
Error details:
EntityTests.fs(101, 25): [FS0001] Type mismatch. Expecting a '(string -> string -> Async<Result<string,Error>>) -> 'a' but given a 'Async<Result<'b,'c>> -> Async<Result<'d,'c>>' The type 'string -> string -> Async<Result<string,Error>>' does not match the type 'Async<Result<'a,'b>>'.
EntityTests.fs(101, 25): [FS0001] Type mismatch. Expecting a '(string -> string -> Async<Result<string,Error>>) -> 'a' but given a 'Async<Result<string,'b>> -> Async<Result<string,'b>>' The type 'string -> string -> Async<Result<string,Error>>' does not match the type 'Async<Result<string,'a>>'.
Edit
Curried or partial application
In context of above example, is it the problem with curried functions? for instance if create function has this signature.
let create (token: string) (json: string) : Async<Result<string, Error>> =
and then later build chain with curried function
let chain = create "token" >> AsyncResult.bind (fun (result: string) -> (async {return Ok "more results"}))
Edit 2
Is there a problem with following case?
signature
let create (token: Token) (entityName: string) (entityType: string) (publicationId: string) : Async<Result<string, Error>> =
test
let chain = create token >> AsyncResult.bind ( fun (result: string) -> async {return Ok "more results"} )
match chain "test" "article" "pubid" |> Async.RunSynchronously with
Update: At the front of the answer, even, since your edit 2 changes everything.
In your edit 2, you have finally revealed your actual code, and your problem is very simple: you're misunderstanding how the types work in a curried F# function.
When your create function looked like let create (json: string) = ..., it was a function of one parameter. It took a string, and returned a result type (in this case, Async<Result<string, Error>>). So the function signature was string -> Async<Result<string, Error>>.
But the create function you've just shown us is a different type entirely. It takes four parameters (one Token and three strings), not one. That means its signature is:
Token -> string -> string -> string -> Async<Result<string, Error>>
Remember how currying works: any function of multiple parameters can be thought of as a series of functions of one parameter, which return the "next" function in that chain. E.g., let add3 a b c = a + b + c is of type int -> int -> int -> int; this means that add3 1 returns a function that's equivalent to let add2 b c = 1 + b + c. And so on.
Now, keeping currying in mind, look at your function type. When you pass a single Token value to it as you do in your example (where it's called as create token, you get a function of type:
string -> string -> string -> Async<Result<string, Error>>
This is a function that takes a string, which returns another function that takes a string, which returns a third function which takes a string and returns an Async<Result<whatever>>. Now compare that to the type of the binder parameter in your bind function:
(binder : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'c>>)
Here, 'a is string, so is 'b, and 'c is Error. So when the generic bind function is applied to your specific case, it's looking for a function of type string -> Async<Result<'b, 'c>>. But you're giving it a function of type string -> string -> string -> Async<Result<string, Error>>. Those two function types are not the same!
That's the fundamental cause of your type error. You're trying to apply a function that returns a function that returns function that returns a result of type X to a design pattern (the bind design pattern) that expects a function that returns a result of type X. What you need is the design pattern called apply. I have to leave quite soon so I don't have time to write you an explanation of how to use apply, but fortunately Scott Wlaschin has already written a good one. It covers a lot, not just "apply", but you'll find the details about apply in there as well. And that's the cause of your problem: you used bind when you needed to use apply.
Original answer follows:
I don't yet know for a fact what's causing your problem, but I have a suspicion. But first, I want to comment that the parameter names for your AsyncResult.bind are wrong. Here's what you wrote:
let bind (binder : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'c>>)
(asyncFun : Async<Result<'a, 'c>>) : Async<Result<'b, 'c>> =
(I moved the second parameter in line with the first parameter so it wouldn't scroll on Stack Overflow's smallish column size, but that would compile correctly if the types were right: since the two parameters are lined up vertically, F# would know that they are both belonging to the same "parent", in this case a function.)
Look at your second parameter. You've named it asyncFun, but there's no arrow in its type description. That's not a function, it's a value. A function would look like something -> somethingElse. You should name it something like asyncValue, not asyncFun. By naming it asyncFun, you're setting yourself up for confusion later.
Now for the answer to the question you asked. I think your problem is this line, where you've fallen afoul of the F# "offside rule":
let chain = create
>> AsyncResult.bind (fun (result: string) -> (async {return Ok "more results"}))
Note the position of the >> operator, which is to the left of its first operand. Yes, the F# syntax appears to allow that in most situations, but I suspect that if you simply change that function definition to the following, your code will work:
let chain =
create
>> AsyncResult.bind (fun (result: string) -> (async {return Ok "more results"}))
Or, better yet because it's good style to make the |> (and >>) operators line up with their first operand:
let chain =
create
>> AsyncResult.bind (fun (result: string) -> (async {return Ok "more results"}))
If you look carefully at the rules that Scott Wlaschin lays out in https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/fsharp-syntax/, you'll note that his examples where he shows exceptions to the "offside rule", he writes them like this:
let f g h = g // defines a new line at col 15
>> h // ">>" allowed to be outside the line
Note how the >> character is still to the right of the = in the function definition. I don't know exactly what the F# spec says about the combination of function definitions and the offside rule (Scott Wlaschin is great, but he's not the spec so he could be wrong, and I don't have time to look up the spec right now), but I've seen it do funny things that I didn't quite expect when I wrote functions with part of the function definition on the same line as the function, and the rest on the next line.
E.g., I once wrote something like this, which didn't work:
let f a = if a = 0 then
printfn "Zero"
else
printfn "Non-zero"
But then I changed it to this, which did work:
let f a =
if a = 0 then
printfn "Zero"
else
printfn "Non-zero"
I notice that in Snapshot's answer, he made your chain function be defined on a single line, and that worked for him. So I suspect that that's your problem.
Rule of thumb: If your function has anything after the = on the same line, make the function all on one line. If your function is going to be two lines, put nothing after the =. E.g.:
let f a b = a + b // This is fine
let g c d =
c * d // This is also fine
let h x y = x
+ y // This is asking for trouble
I would suspect that the error stems from a minor change in indentation since adding a single space to an FSharp program changes its meaning, the FSharp compiler than quickly reports phantom errors because it interprets the input differently. I just pasted it in and added bogus classes and removed some spaces and now it is working just fine.
module AsyncResult =
[<StructuralEquality; StructuralComparison>]
type Result<'T,'TError> =
| Ok of ResultValue:'T
| Error of ErrorValue:'TError
let bind (binder : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'c>>) (asyncFun : Async<Result<'a, 'c>>) : Async<Result<'b, 'c>> =
async {
let! result = asyncFun
match result with
| Error e -> return Error e
| Ok x -> return! binder x
}
let compose (f : 'a -> Async<Result<'b, 'e>>) (g : 'b -> Async<Result<'c, 'e>>) = fun x -> bind g (f x)
let (>>=) a f = bind f a
let (>=>) f g = compose f g
open AsyncResult
open System.Net
type Assert =
static member IsTrue (conditional:bool) = System.Diagnostics.Debug.Assert(conditional)
type Error = {Code:int; Message:string}
[<EntryPoint>]
let main args =
let create (json: string) : Async<Result<string, Error>> =
let url = "http://api.example.com"
let request = WebRequest.CreateHttp(Uri url)
request.Method <- "GET"
async {
try
// http call
return Ok "result"
with :? WebException as e ->
return Error {Code = 500; Message = "Internal Server Error"}
}
let chain = create >> AsyncResult.bind (fun (result: string) -> (async {return Ok "more results"}))
match chain "initial data" |> Async.RunSynchronously with
| Ok data -> Assert.IsTrue(true)
| Error error -> Assert.IsTrue(false)
0
I want to write an application that read ip address from xml file. The file looks like
<range>
<start>192.168.40.1</start>
<end>192.168.50.255</end>
<subnet>255.255.255.0</subnet>
<gateway>192.168.50.1</gateway>
</range>
I create an records type to save the ip address
type Scope = { Start: IPAddress; End: IPAddress; Subnetmask: IPAddress; Gateway: IPAddress }
I wrote a unit function, that output the ip's.
loc
|> Seq.iter (fun e -> match e.Name.LocalName with
|"start" -> printfn "Start %s" e.Value
|"end" -> printfn "End %s" e.Value
|"subnet" -> printfn "Subnet %s" e.Value
|"gateway" -> printfn "Gateway %s" e.Value
| _ -> ())
How can I return the scope records type instead of unit?
As mentioned in the comments, the XML type provider makes this a lot easier. You can just point it at a sample file, it will infer the structur and let you read the file easily:
type RangeFile = XmlProvider<"sample.xml">
let range = RangeFile.Load("file-you-want-to-read.xml")
let scope =
{ Start = IPAddress.Parse(range.Start)
End = IPAddress.Parse(range.End)
Subnetmask = IPAddress.Parse(range.Subnet)
Gateway = IPAddress.Parse(range.Gateway) }
That said, you can certainly implement this yourself too. The code you wrote is a good start - there is a number of ways to do this, but in any case, you'll need to do some lookup based on the local name of the element (to find start, end, etc.).
One option is to load all the properties into a dictionary:
let lookup =
loc
|> Seq.map (fun e -> e.Name.LocalName, IPAddress.Parse(e.Value)
|> dict
Now you have a lookup table that contains IPAddress for each of the keys, so you can create Scope value using just:
let scope =
{ Start = lookup.["start"]; End = lookup.["end"];
Subnetmask = lookup.["subnet"]; Gateway = lookup.["gateway"] }
That said, the nice thing about the XML type provider is that it removes the need to do lookup based on string values and so you are less likely to make mistakes caused by typos.
According to the post http://cs.hubfs.net/forums/thread/3616.aspx,
I need to use a function like the following to cast an object to an interface, I have run a test, this is still true, the bug of :?> is still not fixed.
let cast<'a> o = (box o) :?> 'a
let ci = { new Customer(18, Name = "fred") with
override x.ToString() = x.Name
interface ITalk with
member x.Talk() =
printfn "talk1111111" }
let italk = cast<ITalk> ci
if not (italk = null) then
italk.Talk()
Is there a more elegant way to write the above code. I am thinking to create another operator to replace :?>, but I can not get the generic type parameter passed in like the :?>
Your cast function does not behave like the C# as operator - if the object can't be cast to the specified type, it will throw an exception rather than returning null. Therefore, checking to see if italk = null accomplishes nothing. If you want to make the cast function return null when the cast fails instead of throwing an exception, you could write it like this:
let cast<'a when 'a : null> o =
match box o with
| :? 'a as output -> output
| _ -> null
However, this will only work on nullable types, which does not include structs or (by default) F# types. I might leave your cast function the way it is, and make a tryCast that uses options.
let tryCast<'a> o =
match box o with
| :? 'a as output -> Some output
| _ -> None
Then you could use it like this:
ci |> tryCast<ITalk> |> Option.iter (fun it -> it.Talk())
In this case, Option.iter takes the place of your null test.
Pattern matching provides a more idiomatic way to write this:
match box ci with
| :? ITalk as italk -> italk.Talk()
| _ -> ()
Or, even:
let bci = box ci
if bci :? ITalk then (bci :?> ITalk).Talk()
I keep a function like the following around, for when I know the type test will hold:
let coerce value = (box >> unbox) value
(coerce ci : ITalk).Talk()
I have a function that takes a parameter of type object and needs to downcast it to an option<obj>.
member s.Bind(x : obj, rest) =
let x = x :?> Option<obj>
If I pass (for example) an Option<string> as x, the last line throws the exception: Unable to cast object of type 'Microsoft.FSharp.Core.FSharpOption'1[System.String]' to type 'Microsoft.FSharp.Core.FSharpOption'1[System.Object]'.
Or, if I try a type test:
member s.Bind(x : obj, rest) =
match x with
| :? option<obj> as x1 -> ... // Do stuff with x1
| _ -> failwith "Invalid type"
then x never matches option<obj>.
In order to make this work, I currently have to specify the type the option contains (e.g. if the function is passed an option<string>, and I downcast the parameter to that rather than option<obj>, the function works.
Is there a way I can downcast the parameter to option<obj> without specifying what type the option contains? I've tried option<_>, option<#obj>, and option<'a> with the same results.
By way of background, the parameter needs to be of type obj because I'm writing an interface for a monad, so Bind needs to bind values of different types depending on the monad that implements the interface. This particular monad is a continuation monad, so it just wants to make sure the parameter is Some(x) and not None, then pass x on to rest. (The reason I need the interface is because I'm writing a monad transformer and I need a way to tell it that its parameter monads implement bind and return.)
Update: I managed to get around this by upcasting the contents of the option before it becomes a parameter to this function, but I'm still curious to know if I can type-test or cast an object (or generic parameter) to an option without worrying about what type the option contains (assuming of course the cast is valid, i.e. the object really is an option).
There isn't any nice way to solve this problem currently.
The issue is that you'd need to introduce a new generic type parameter in the pattern matching (when matching against option<'a>), but F# only allows you to define generic type parameters in function declarations. So, your only solution is to use some Reflection tricks. For example, you can define an active pattern that hides this:
let (|SomeObj|_|) =
let ty = typedefof<option<_>>
fun (a:obj) ->
let aty = a.GetType()
let v = aty.GetProperty("Value")
if aty.IsGenericType && aty.GetGenericTypeDefinition() = ty then
if a = null then None
else Some(v.GetValue(a, [| |]))
else None
This will give you None or Some containing obj for any option type:
let bind (x : obj) rest =
match x with
| SomeObj(x1) -> rest x1
| _ -> failwith "Invalid type"
bind(Some 1) (fun n -> 10 * (n :?> int))
I am not certain why you need to get your input as obj, but if your input is an Option<_>, then it is easy:
member t.Bind (x : 'a option, rest : obj option -> 'b) =
let x = // val x : obj option
x
|> Option.bind (box >> Some)
rest x
To answer your last question: you can use a slight variation of Tomas' code if you need a general-purpose way to check for options without boxing values beforehand:
let (|Option|_|) value =
if obj.ReferenceEquals(value, null) then None
else
let typ = value.GetType()
if typ.IsGenericType && typ.GetGenericTypeDefinition() = typedefof<option<_>> then
let opt : option<_> = (box >> unbox) value
Some opt.Value
else None
//val ( |Option|_| ) : 'a -> 'b option
let getValue = function
| Option x -> x
| _ -> failwith "Not an option"
let a1 : int = getValue (Some 42)
let a2 : string = getValue (Some "foo")
let a3 : string = getValue (Some 42) //InvalidCastException
let a4 : int = getValue 42 //Failure("Not an option")