I am having difficulty referring to parameterless functions in Fable.
With this example:
let f1 () =
1
let someRefTof1 = f1
I'd expect the generated js to look something like this:
function f1() {
return 1;
}
var someRefTof1 = f1;
but what I actually get is:
function f1() {
return 1;
}
var someRefTof1 = exports.someRefTof1 = function someRefTof1(arg00_) {
return f1(arg00_);
};
I'm unclear on the purpose of arg00_ or how to avoid it being generated?
(As a bit of background, I am struggling to call a function in an external js library which expects a function to be passed as a parameter)
Edit:
Background
The above is what i believe to be a minimal, verifiable, reproduction of my question but, after comments, I thought it may be useful to provide a touch more context on why this is causing issues. What I am actually trying to do is use angularjs from Fable.
So my example looks more like this:
let app = AngularFable.NgFable.angular.``module``("app",[||])
type TestCtrl() =
member this.Val1() = "boom";
app?controller("test", TestCtrl)
which gets compiled to:
var app = exports.app = angular.module("app", []);
var TestCtrl = exports.TestCtrl = function () {
function TestCtrl() {
_classCallCheck(this, TestCtrl);
}
TestCtrl.prototype.Val1 = function Val1() {
return "boom";
};
return TestCtrl;
}();
_fableCore.Util.setInterfaces(TestCtrl.prototype, [], "App.TestCtrl");
app.controller("test", function (unitVar) {
return new TestCtrl();
});
with unitVar being the problematic parameter introduced in this example. When I use this in my html with something like:
<div ng-app="app">
<div ng-controller="test as vm">
{{vm.Val1()}}
</div>
</div>
I run into an unknown provider error whereas if I simply change the compiled javascript to remove the unitVar parameter from the last line like this:
app.controller("test", function () {
return new TestCtrl();
});
then my example works as expected.
I'd really like to know if there is a way to avoid having the Fable compiler generate this parameter. I'm 99% sure this reduces to the same problem as in my original question but I've included this additional context to better explain why this is an issue
Thank you very much for your question and detailed explanations. There're two things here that are a bit tricky and are caused by optimisations both of the F# compiler and Fable.
In the AST provided by the F# compiler, methods (functions that are members of a type or module) are compiled as usual methods as in C#. This is for optimization.
However, when you create an anonymous lambda or make a reference to a method, the F# compiler will keep F# semantics, that is, all functions have a single argument (as John Palmer says, unit is an argument too) and can be curried.
Ok, this info is just to make clear why the F# compiler/Fable represent methods and lambdas differently. Let's go with the issue of argumentless functions: the obvious solution would be of course to remove the F# compiler generated argument for functions accepting unit (as it's already done for methods). In fact, I also had problems with libraries like Mocha because of this.
I did try to remove the unit argument at the beginning but I got fails in some scenarios because of this. TBH, I don't remember now exactly which tests were failing but because of the expectation that there'll be always an argument, in some cases function composition or inlining was failing when the unit argument was removed.
Other attempts to modify the semantics of F# functions in the JS runtime have always failed because they don't cover all scenarios. However, we can be more lenient with delegates (System.Func<>) as it's usually safe to assume these ones should behave more like functions in languages like C# or F#. I can try to remove the unit argument just for delegates and see what happens :)
For more info about sending F# functions to JS code you can check the documentation.
UPDATE: Scratch all that, please try fable-compiler#0.6.12 and fable-core#0.6.8. This version eliminates unit arguments, the solution was actually simpler than I thought and (hopefully) shouldn't create issues with existing projects. (The explanation about methods and lambdas compiled differently still applies.)
Related
Consider the following line of code that doesn't compile in Dart -- lack of comma operator, but comparable things are totally fine in JavaScript or C++:
final foo = (ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value), value) * 2;
The closest I could get with an ugly workaround is
final foo = last(ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value), value) * 2;
with function
T last<T>(void op, T ret) => ret;
Is there a better solution?
Dart does not have a comma operator similar to the one in JavaScript.
There is no obviously better solution than what you already have.
The work-around operation you introduced is how I would solve it. I usually call it seq for "sequence" if I write it.
There is sadly no good way to use an extension operator because you need to be generic on the second operand and operators cannot be generic. You could use an extension method like:
extension Seq on void {
T seq<T>(T next) => next;
}
Then you can write ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value).seq(value).
(For what it's worth, the ArgumentError.checkNotNull function has been changed to return its value, but that change was made after releasing Dart 2.7, so it will only be available in the next release after that).
If the overhead doesn't matter, you can use closures without arguments for a similar effect (and also more complex operations than just a sequence of expressions).
final foo = () {
ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value);
return value;
} ();
This is not great for hot paths due to the overhead incurred by creating and calling a closure, but can work reasonably well outside those.
If you need this kind of test-plus-initialization pattern more than once, the cleanest way would arguably be to put it in a function of its own, anyway.
T ensureNotNull<T>(T value) {
ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value);
return value;
}
final foo = ensureNotNull(value);
I am trying to implement some code from parse.com and I notice a keyword in after the void.
I am stumped what is this ? The second line you see the Void in
PFUser.logInWithUsernameInBackground("myname", password:"mypass") {
(user: PFUser?, error: NSError?) -> Void in
if user != nil {
// Do stuff after successful login.
} else {
// The login failed. Check error to see why.
}
}
The docs don't document this. I know the in keyword is used in for loops.
Anyone confirm?
In a named function, we declare the parameters and return type in the func declaration line.
func say(s:String)->() {
// body
}
In an anonymous function, there is no func declaration line - it's anonymous! So we do it with an in line at the start of the body instead.
{
(s:String)->() in
// body
}
(That is the full form of an anonymous function. But then Swift has a series of rules allowing the return type, the parameter types, and even the parameter names and the whole in line to be omitted under certain circumstances.)
Closure expression syntax has the following general form:
The question of what purpose in serves has been well-answered by other users here; in summary: in is a keyword defined in the Swift closure syntax as a separator between the function type and the function body in a closure:
{ /parameters and type/ in /function body/ }
But for those who might be wondering "but why specifically the keyword in?", here's a bit of history shared by Joe Groff, Senior Swift Compiler Engineer at Apple, on the Swift forums:
It's my fault, sorry. In the early days of Swift, we had a closure
syntax that was very similar to traditional Javascript:
func (arg: -> Type, arg: Type) -> Return { ... }
While this is nice and regular syntax, it is of course also very bulky
and awkward if you're trying to support expressive functional APIs,
such as map/filter on collections, or if you want libraries to be able
to provide closure-based APIs that feel like extensions of the
language.
Our earliest adopters at Apple complained about this, and mandated
that we support Ruby-style trailing closure syntax. This is tricky to
fit into a C-style syntax like Swift's, and we tried many different
iterations, including literally Ruby's {|args| } syntax, but many of
them suffered from ambiguities or simply distaste and revolt from our
early adopters. We wanted something that still looked like other parts
of the language, but which could be parsed unambiguously and could
span the breadth of use cases from a fully explicit function signature
to extremely compact.
We had already taken in as a keyword, we couldn't use -> like Java
does because it's already used to denote the return type, and we were
concerned that using => like C# would be too visually confusing. in
made xs.map { x in f(x) } look vaguely like for x in xs { f(x) },
and people hated it less than the alternatives.
*Formatting and emphasis mine. And thanks to Nikita Belov's post on the Swift forums for helping my own understanding.
I'm a hobbyist programmer (cook by trade) that's currently trying to teach myself F# and functional programming in general.
Anyway, I was fooling around with DeflateStream and wrote the following two functions:
let Compress compressMe =
let ds = new DeflateStream(File.Create("compressed.txt"), CompressionMode.Compress)
File.OpenRead(compressMe).CopyTo(ds)
ds.Close()
let Decompress =
let ds = new DeflateStream(File.OpenRead("compressed.txt"), CompressionMode.Decompress)
ds.CopyTo(File.Create("decompressed.txt"))
ds.Close()
In the body of the main function they are called one right after the other like this:
Compress args.[0]
Decompress
However, if compressed.txt doesn't exist when the program is run Decompress throws a FileNotFoundException which is surprising because the only thing that could throw this is the call to File.OpenRead("compress.txt"). After about an hour I figured out that Decompress was implementing IComparable and was being executed before the call to it in the main function. I found that by changing its definition to let Decompress () = [...] it no longer implemented IComparable and my code executed as it was intended to. Can anyone tell me why F# was infering IComparable and why such and inference would cause the function to execute before the main function marked with [<EntryPoint>]? Also, please forgive the imperitive style of my code, I'm incredibly new at this.
Thanks in adavance.
I'm not entirely sure about the IComparable bit, but the issue you have is that without the parentheses, the compiler is treating Decompress as a value not a function. This would be similar to if you had written.
let compressedName = "compressed.txt"
in that case, compressedName is now a value. Adding the parentheses tells the compiler that this is a function whose code must be called each time the function is rather than a value initialized once (before the entry point) by the code you wrote.
When you write something like
let value =
//some long calculation
[<Entrypoint>]
let main args = ...
The compiler executes the long calculation before main. This is because you probably use the value later in your code. To suppress this, as you found, you need to use let value() = ....
I am not sure where Icomparable is coming from, but this is the key to what is happening.
Note, if you write
let a = ...
let b = ...
The compiler will gurantee a is calculated before b executes.
As others have pointed out, the absence of parentheses in the declaration is significant.
let Decompres = ...
declares a variable of type unit. This type is used to represent "data" (even if this data doesn't encode much information), and it implements IComparable like any other data-oriented type.
let Decompress() = ...
declares a function, and functions in F# are not comparable, probably because there is no universally accepted notion of equality on functions.
I can't see that the "IComparable-ness" of Decompress had anything to do with the exception you got.
Given i have the IO function:
// this can either be IO or some other side effect
//that makes the function less pure
printf "HI"
I want to test that IO was called correctly. An imperative solution for testing that IO was called correctly would be to wrap the IO statement in an object, mock the object, pass the object in using dependency injection, and verify the correct method was called with the correct parameters. I wonder if instead of using dependency injection to test F#, a better way would be checking the output of the function (by asserting that the correct value or function is returned) and stub out the IO call; therefore making the function pure again by eliminating the side effect of an IO call.
I am considering wrapping all IO in a special module like so.
let MyPrint print statement = print statement ; statement
so that i can stub out the IO function and assert in my tests that the correct operation occurred like so:
code under test:
let PrintHi = fun(print) -> MyPrint print "HI"
let DoNothing = fun(print) -> ()
let DoIf conditional =
if conditional then PrintHi
else DoNothing
FsUnit:
[<Test>] member test.
let printStub value = ()
``Test Hi Is Printed When TRUE`` ()=
let testedFunc = DoIf true
testedFunc(printStub) |> should equal PrintHi(printStub)
Is this a good way to test IO side effects? Is there a better way? Please keep in mind that my goal is to test any IO, not just a print statement.
Generally speaking, you'll want to separate pure code from impure (side-effecting) code; and keep code as pure as possible.
I recommend reading these articles about it, they're written for other functional languages but the code they use is simple and the concepts are well explained and can be easily applied in F# (and many other languages for that matter):
Introduction to QuickCheck (Haskell wiki)
How to write a functional program with IO, mutation, and other effects
You could write a wrapper function which temporarily redirects stdout during the call to a function and returns the written values along with the function result:
let testPrintf f arg =
let oldOut = System.Console.Out
use out = new System.IO.StringWriter()
System.Console.SetOut(out)
let res = f arg
System.Console.SetOut(oldOut)
(res, out.GetStringBuilder().ToString())
I guess you don't really want to check if printf works as expected (to you?) - I think you want to know if there is some more functional way than DI to get testable results.
The answer is twofold:
First: F# is a mixed languague with a big OOP part - so yes I would do your standard DI pattern with interfaces and all that.
Second: instead of using this pattern you can allways use higher-order functions to pass in functions that does for example the IO - in your case something like
let myFunctionUsingIO (printer : string -> unit) (whateverparamsYouNeed) = ...
and then test this by passing a printer that Asserts whatever your requirements are - but in the end thats the same as having a interface with only one (unnamed) method - so the difference is very small.
PS: if you only interessted in the return value - just do normal unit-testing - if you write your functions pure there is no need to test anything different, but then your example was ... well poor, because printf is the opposite of pure...
I am trying to use System.Data.Sqlite with F#. In C#, I have code like
using (DbTransaction dbTrans = con.BeginTransaction()) {
using (SQLiteCommand cmd = con.CreateCommand()) {
//blahblah
}
dbTrans.Commit();
}
But in F#, when I use the similiar two using above I got error of the type bool is not compatible with the type IDisposable...
EDIT I am really sorry for my question. use would work in F# case. I just dont know how to close/delete my quesetions.
To add some details - if you need to explicitly mark the scope where command is valid (to get exactly the same behavior as in your C# example, where cmd id disposed of before calling Commit) you can write:
use dbTrans = con.BeginTransaction()
( use cmd = con.CreateCommand()
cmd.BlahBlahBlah() )
dbTrans.Commit()
The scope is just a part of expression where the symbol is defined, so you can make it explicit using parentheses.
using is just an F# function that you could use before special syntax using use was added. Just FYI, the syntax looks like this:
using (con.BeginTransaction()) (fun dbTrans ->
using (con.CreateCommand()) (fun cmd ->
cmd.BlahBlahBlah() )
dbTrans.Commit() )
Writing the code using use is definitely a better idea (but you can define your functions like using to encapsulate more interesting behavior - e.g. transaction).
in f# it's
use dbTrans = new con.BeginTransaction ()
and
use cmd = con.CreateCommand()
these will dispose when your function ends