UPDATE:
I now realize that the question was stupid, I should have just filed the issue. In hindsight, I don't see why I even asked this question.
The issue is here: https://github.com/fsharp/FSharp.Compiler.Service/issues/544
Original question:
I'm using FSharp Compiler Services for parsing some F# code.
The particular piece of code that I'm facing right now is this:
let f x y = x+y
let g = f 1
let h = (g 2) + 3
This program yields a TAST without the (+) call on the last line. That is, the compiler service returns TAST as if the last line was just let h = g 2.
The question is: is this is a legitimate bug that I ought to report or am I missing something?
Some notes
Here is a repo containing minimal repro (I didn't want to include it in this question, because Compiler Services require quite a bit of dancing around).
Adding more statements after the let h line does not change the outcome.
When compiled to IL (as opposed to parsed with Compiler Services), it seems to work as expected (e.g. see fiddle)
If I make g a value, the program parses correctly.
If I make g a normal function (rather than partially applied one), the program parses correctly.
I have no priori experience with FSharp.Compiler.Services but nevertheless I did a small investigation using Visual Studio's debugger. I analyzed abstract syntax tree of following string:
"""
module X
let f x y = x+y
let g = f 1
let h = (g 2) + 3
"""
I've found out that there's following object inside it:
App (Val (op_Addition,NormalValUse,D:\file.fs (6,32--6,33) IsSynthetic=false),TType_forall ([T1; T2; T3],TType_fun (TType_var T1,TType_fun (...,...))),...,...,...)
As you can see, there's an addition in 6th line between characters 32 and 33.
The most likely explanation why F# Interactive doesn't display it properly is a bug in a library (maybe AST is in an inconsistent state or pretty-printing is broken). I think that you should file a bug in project's issue tracker.
UPDATE:
Aforementioned object can be obtained in a debbuger in a following way:
error.[0]
(option of Microsoft.FSharp.Compiler.SourceCodeServices.FSharpImplementationFileDeclaration.Entity)
.Item2
.[2]
(option of Microsoft.FSharp.Compiler.SourceCodeServices.FSharpImplementationFileDeclaration.MemberOrFunctionOrValue)
.Item3
.f (private member)
.Value
(option of Microsoft.FSharp.Compiler.SourceCodeServices.FSharpExprConvert.ConvExprOnDemand#903)
.expr
Related
Playing with F# and it seems that i cannot find out what is wrong.
FS0003 This value is not a function and cannot be applied. Did you
forget to terminate a declaration?
evaporator 25.0 10.0 10.0
let evaporator (volumeMl:double) (evapPerDaydouble:double) (threshold:double):int =
let mutable counter = 0
let mutable currentVolume = volumeMl
while (currentVolume > (volumeMl * (threshold / 100.))) do
currentVolume <- currentVolume - ((currentVolume * threshold / 100.))
counter <- (counter + 1)
counter
let result = evaporator 25.0 10.0 10.0
printfn "%f" result
Update
modified code with ;;
let result = evaporator 25.0 10.0 10.0;;
And it is working like expected. Strange.
Update 2
The only problem with your initial code is that you've used printfn "%f" instead of printfn "%i".
If your issue is fixed by adding ;; it makes me think you are running this in FSI and seeing the compiler error in FSI. This is fine but perhaps you are typing or pasting code directly in to the FSI prompt?
My advice to everyone starting with F#, and even experienced F# users, is to never type or paste code into FSI. Write code in your editor, select it, and send it to FSI. This way you don't need to worry about remembering semi-colons, and you get compiler errors and suggestions as you type. I have worked in F# day-to-day for years and never had the need to type directly into FSI.
Also, don't forget to re-run all your function and type definitions in FSI if you change them. It's best to reset FSI and start with clean state if you're seeing confusing errors.
This can happen if there is leading whitespace. The following example produces this error.
let x = 1
let y = 2
Removing the leading whitespace resolves the issue.
let x = 1
let y = 2
Setting your editor to show whitespace will help detect this.
The reason adding ;; also helps is because it terminates the blocked code created by the leading whitespace.
Suppose the following F# function:
let f (x:int) (y:int) = 42
I suspect that the reason I need to parenthesize the arguments in example z2 below is because of type inference; my example might not be great, but it's easy to imagine how things could get very hairy:
let z1 = f 2 3
let z2 = f 2 (f 3 5)
However, the following case is less clear to me:
let rng = System.Random()
let z3 = f 1 rng.Next(5)
z3 doesn't work, with a clear error message:
error FS0597: Successive arguments should be separated by spaces or
tupled, and arguments involving function or method applications should
be parenthesized.
Fixing it is trivial (parenthesize all the things), but what I am not clear about is why such an expression is a problem. I assume this has to do with type inference again, but naively, it seems to me that here, methods having a list of arguments surrounded by a parenthesis would actually make things less potentially ambiguous. Does this have to do with the fact that rng.Next(5) is equivalent to rng.Next 5?
Can someone hint, give an example or explain why this rule is needed, or what type of problems would arise if it were not there?
I think that the problem here is that the code could be treated as:
let z3 = f 1 rng.Next (5)
This would be equivalent to omitting the parentheses and so it would be calling f with 3 arguments (the second being a function value). This sounds a bit silly, but the compiler actually does not strictly insist on having a space between parameters. For example:
let second a b = b
add 5(1) // This works fine and calls 'add 5 1'
add id(1) // error FS0597
add rng.Next(5) // error FS0597
add (rng.Next(5)) // This works fine (partial application)
I think the problem is that if you look at the sequence of the 4 examples in the above snippet, it is not clear which behavior should you get in the second and the third case.
The call rng.Next(5) is still treated in a special way, because F# allows you to chain calls if they are formed by single-parameter application without space. For example rng.Next(5).ToString(). But, for example, writing second(1)(2) is allowed, but second(1)(2).ToString() will not work.
In reading John Palmer's answer to What is the difference between mutable values and immutable value redefinition?, John notes that
This sort of redefinition will only work in fsi.
In working with F# Interactive (fsi) I guess I subconsciously knew it, but never paid attention to it.
Now that it is apparent, why the difference?
More specifically please explain how the internals are different between fsi and the compiler such that this occurs by design or result of differences?
If the answer can elaborate on the internal structures that hold the bindings that would be appreciated.
The semantics are consistent with the way FSI compiles interactive submissions to an FSI session: each interactive submission is compiled as module which is open to subsequent interactive submissions.
The following is close to what FSI actual does and illustrates how let binding shadowing works across interactive submissions:
FSI Submission #1: let x = 1;;
module FSI_1 =
let x = 1
open FSI_1 //FSI_1.x is now bound to 1 and available at the top level
FSI Submission #2: let x = 2;;
module FSI_2 =
let x = 2
open FSI_2 //FSI_1.x is now shadowed by FSI_2.x which is bound to 2 and available at the top level
You can see the actual details how how the dynamic FSI assembly is compiled by using reflection on the FSI_ASSEMBLY assembly within the FSI app domain. Each interactive submission is literally emitted as a module (.NET class) with the naming pattern FSI_####. FsEye uses these facts to discover the state of FSI top-level bindings: https://code.google.com/p/fseye/source/browse/tags/2.0.1/FsEye/Fsi/SessionQueries.fs#24
The key takeaway in regard to #JohnPalmer's answer is that top-level FSI definitions cannot be mutated, when they are "redefined" they are merely being shadowed. We can show this as follows:
> let x = 1;; //our original definition of x
val x : int = 1
> let f () = x;; //capture x
val f : unit -> int
> let x = 2;; //shadow our original definition of x
val x : int = 2
> f();; //returns the original x value, which is still 1 rather than 2
val it : int = 1
I am just starting to work with F# and trying to understand typical idoms and effective ways of thinking and working.
The task at hand is a simple transform of a tab-delimited file to one which is comma-delimited. A typical input line will look like:
let line = "#ES# 01/31/2006 13:31:00 1303.00 1303.00 1302.00 1302.00 2514 0"
I started out with looping code like this:
// inFile and outFile defined in preceding code not shown here
for line in File.ReadLines(inFile) do
let typicalArray = line.Split '\t'
let transformedLine = typicalArray |> String.concat ","
outFile.WriteLine(transformedLine)
I then replaced the split/concat pair of operations with a single Regex.Replace():
for line in File.ReadLines(inFile) do
let transformedLine = Regex.Replace(line, "\t",",")
outFile.WriteLine(transformedLine)
And now, finally, have replaced the looping with a pipeline:
File.ReadLines(inFile)
|> Seq.map (fun x -> Regex.Replace(x, "\t", ","))
|> Seq.iter (fun y -> outFile.WriteLine(y))
// other housekeeping code below here not shown
While all versions work, the final version seems to me the most intuitive. Is this how a more experienced F# programmer would accomplish this task?
I think all three versions are perfectly fine, idiomatic code that F# experts would write.
I generally prefer writing code using built-in language features (like for loops and if conditions) if they let me solve the problem I have. These are imperative, but I think using them is a good idea when the API requires imperative code (like outFile.WriteLine). As you mentioned - you started with this version (and I would do the same).
Using higher-order functions is nice too - although I would probably do that only if I wanted to write data transformation and get a new sequence or list of lines - this would be handy if you were using File.WriteAllLines instead of writing lines one-by-one. Although, that could be also done by simply wrapping your second version with sequence expression:
let transformed =
seq { for line in File.ReadLines(inFile) -> Regex.Replace(line, "\t",",") }
File.WriteAllLines(outFilePath, transformed)
I do not think there is any objective reason to prefer one of the versions. My personal stylistic preference is to use for and refactor to sequence expressions (if needed), but others will likely disagree.
A side note that if you want to write to the same file that you are reading from, you need to remember that Seq is doing lazy evaluation.
Using Array as opposed to Seq makes sure file is closed for reading when it is needed for writing.
This works:
let lines =
file |> File.ReadAllLines
|> Array.map(fun line -> ..modify line..)
File.WriteAllLines(file, lines)
This does not (causes file access file violation)
let lines =
file |> File.ReadLines
|> Seq.map(fun line -> ..modify line..)
File.WriteAllLines(file, lines)
(potential overlap with another discussion here, where intermediate variable helps with the same problem)
Extremely just-started-yesterday new to F#.
What I want: To write code that parses the string "2 + 2" into (using as an example code from the tutorial project) Expr.Add(Expr.Num 2, Expr.Num 2) for evaluation. Some help to at least point me in the right direction or tell me it's too complex for my first F# project. (This is how I learn things: By bashing my head against stuff that's hard)
What I have: My best guess at code to extract the numbers. Probably horribly off base. Also, a lack of clue.
let script = "2 + 2";
let rec scriptParse xs =
match xs with
| [] -> (double)0
| y::ys -> (double)y
let split = (script.Split([|' '|]))
let f x = (split[x]) // "This code is not a function and cannot be applied."
let list = [ for x in 0..script.Length -> f x ]
let result = scriptParse
Thanks.
The immediate issue that you're running into is that split is an array of strings. To access an element of this array, the syntax is split.[x], not split[x] (which would apply split to the singleton list [x], assuming it were a function).
Here are a few other issues:
Your definition of list is probably wrong: x ranges up to the length of script, not the length of the array split. If you want to convert an array or other sequence to a list you can just use List.ofSeq or Seq.toList instead of an explicit list comprehension [...].
Your "casts" to double are a bit odd - that's not the right syntax for performing conversions in F#, although it will work in this case. double is a function, so the parentheses are unnecessary and what you are doing is really calling double 0 and double y. You should just use 0.0 for the first case, and in the second case, it's unclear what you are converting from.
In general, it would probably be better to do a bit more design up front to decide what your overall strategy will be, since it's not clear to me that you'll be able to piece together a working parser based on your current approach. There are several well known techniques for writing a parser - are you trying to use a particular approach?