I have the following computation expression builder:
type ExprBuilder() =
member this.Return(x) =
Some x
let expr = new ExprBuilder()
I understand the purpose of methods Return, Zero and Combine, but I don't understand what is the difference between expressions shown below:
let a = expr{
printfn "Hello"
return 1
} // result is Some 1
let c = expr{
return 1
printfn "Hello"
} // do not compile. Combine method required
I also don't understand why in the first case Zero method in not required for printfn statement?
In the first expression, you perform some computation that results in value 1, and that's it. You don't need a Zero in it, because Zero is only needed for return-less expressions (that's why it's called "zero" - it's what is there when nothing is there), and your expression does have a return.
To specifically answer your question, Zero is not required "for the printfn statement", because not every line within the expression gets transformed. When compiling computation expressions, the compiler breaks them up at "special" points, such as let!, do!, return, etc., leaving all the rest of the code between those points intact. In this case, your printfn call just becomes part of the code that executes before the return.
In the second expression, you perform two computations: the first one results in value 1, and second one results in Zero (which is implicitly assumed when expression lacks a return). But the whole computation expression can't have two return values, it must have one. So in order to bring results of the two computations together (one might say, combine them), you need the Combine method.
Besides Combine and Zero, you'd also need to implement Delay for this to work. Multipart (i.e. "combined") computations are also wrapped in Delay in order to allow the builder to defer evaluation and possibly drop some parts within the Combine implementation.
I recommend reading through this introduction by Scott Wlaschin, specifically part 3 about Delay and Run.
Related
I'd like the example computation expression and values below to return 6. For some the numbers aren't yielding like I'd expect. What's the step I'm missing to get my result? Thanks!
type AddBuilder() =
let mutable x = 0
member _.Yield i = x <- x + i
member _.Zero() = 0
member _.Return() = x
let add = AddBuilder()
(* Compiler tells me that each of the numbers in add don't do anything
and suggests putting '|> ignore' in front of each *)
let result = add { 1; 2; 3 }
(* Currently the result is 0 *)
printfn "%i should be 6" result
Note: This is just for creating my own computation expression to expand my learning. Seq.sum would be a better approach. I'm open to the idea that this example completely misses the value of computation expressions and is no good for learning.
There is a lot wrong here.
First, let's start with mere mechanics.
In order for the Yield method to be called, the code inside the curly braces must use the yield keyword:
let result = add { yield 1; yield 2; yield 3 }
But now the compiler will complain that you also need a Combine method. See, the semantics of yield is that each of them produces a finished computation, a resulting value. And therefore, if you want to have more than one, you need some way to "glue" them together. This is what the Combine method does.
Since your computation builder doesn't actually produce any results, but instead mutates its internal variable, the ultimate result of the computation should be the value of that internal variable. So that's what Combine needs to return:
member _.Combine(a, b) = x
But now the compiler complains again: you need a Delay method. Delay is not strictly necessary, but it's required in order to mitigate performance pitfalls. When the computation consists of many "parts" (like in the case of multiple yields), it's often the case that some of them should be discarded. In these situation, it would be inefficient to evaluate all of them and then discard some. So the compiler inserts a call to Delay: it receives a function, which, when called, would evaluate a "part" of the computation, and Delay has the opportunity to put this function in some sort of deferred container, so that later Combine can decide which of those containers to discard and which to evaluate.
In your case, however, since the result of the computation doesn't matter (remember: you're not returning any results, you're just mutating the internal variable), Delay can just execute the function it receives to have it produce the side effects (which are - mutating the variable):
member _.Delay(f) = f ()
And now the computation finally compiles, and behold: its result is 6. This result comes from whatever Combine is returning. Try modifying it like this:
member _.Combine(a, b) = "foo"
Now suddenly the result of your computation becomes "foo".
And now, let's move on to semantics.
The above modifications will let your program compile and even produce expected result. However, I think you misunderstood the whole idea of the computation expressions in the first place.
The builder isn't supposed to have any internal state. Instead, its methods are supposed to manipulate complex values of some sort, some methods creating new values, some modifying existing ones. For example, the seq builder1 manipulates sequences. That's the type of values it handles. Different methods create new sequences (Yield) or transform them in some way (e.g. Combine), and the ultimate result is also a sequence.
In your case, it looks like the values that your builder needs to manipulate are numbers. And the ultimate result would also be a number.
So let's look at the methods' semantics.
The Yield method is supposed to create one of those values that you're manipulating. Since your values are numbers, that's what Yield should return:
member _.Yield x = x
The Combine method, as explained above, is supposed to combine two of such values that got created by different parts of the expression. In your case, since you want the ultimate result to be a sum, that's what Combine should do:
member _.Combine(a, b) = a + b
Finally, the Delay method should just execute the provided function. In your case, since your values are numbers, it doesn't make sense to discard any of them:
member _.Delay(f) = f()
And that's it! With these three methods, you can add numbers:
type AddBuilder() =
member _.Yield x = x
member _.Combine(a, b) = a + b
member _.Delay(f) = f ()
let add = AddBuilder()
let result = add { yield 1; yield 2; yield 3 }
I think numbers are not a very good example for learning about computation expressions, because numbers lack the inner structure that computation expressions are supposed to handle. Try instead creating a maybe builder to manipulate Option<'a> values.
Added bonus - there are already implementations you can find online and use for reference.
1 seq is not actually a computation expression. It predates computation expressions and is treated in a special way by the compiler. But good enough for examples and comparisons.
I'm learning about f# and I understand you don't need to use parentheses when calling a function.
Ex
let addOne arg1 =
arg1 + 1
addOne 1
vs
this.GetType()
Why do I have to use parentheses on the second function?
There is a bit of a mismatch between working with .NET libraries and working with F# libraries when it comes to parameters, but you can generally see () not as parentheses, but as a special value of type unit that means "no useful information".
This means that when you say:
addOne 1
You are calling addOne with a value - number 1 - as a parameter. Now, when you apply the same reading to the second example:
this.GetType()
You can read this as calling this.GetType with a value - the special () unit value as a parameter. If you wanted to be consistent, you could write this with space too:
this.GetType ()
In practice, most people will omit the space when calling .NET libraries. When you do not write the space, F# also supports method chaining so you can write e.g. foo().bar().
Many F# functions taking multiple parameters will use the "curried" form, which means that the parameters need to be separated by spaces. For example:
let add a b = a + b
let mul a b = a * b
add 10 (mul 20 3)
Here, you need parentheses around the second expression, so that the compiler knows how to parse the code. This is in contrast with typical .NET methods, which take parameters as a tuple. F# tuples are written as (10, "hello") and so you can see a method call as an ordinary call accepting a tuple:
some.Operation (10, "Hello")
Again, typically you wouldn't write the space here, because you know this is actually a .NET method call, rather than "passing tuple to a function", but conceptually, you can think of it in both ways.
This is the summary - there are a few corner cases where method calls do not really behave like tuples (e.g. when it comes to named parameters), but this way of thinking about it should give you an idea about how things work.
Are the following two examples equivalent?
Example 1:
let x = String::new();
let y = &x[..];
Example 2:
let x = String::new();
let y = &*x;
Is one more efficient than the other or are they basically the same?
In the case of String and Vec, they do the same thing. In general, however, they aren't quite equivalent.
First, you have to understand Deref. This trait is implemented in cases where a type is logically "wrapping" some lower-level, simpler value. For example, all of the "smart pointer" types (Box, Rc, Arc) implement Deref to give you access to their contents.
It is also implemented for String and Vec: String "derefs" to the simpler str, Vec<T> derefs to the simpler [T].
Writing *s is just manually invoking Deref::deref to turn s into its "simpler form". It is almost always written &*s, however: although the Deref::deref signature says it returns a borrowed pointer (&Target), the compiler inserts a second automatic deref. This is so that, for example, { let x = Box::new(42i32); *x } results in an i32 rather than a &i32.
So &*s is really just shorthand for Deref::deref(&s).
s[..] is syntactic sugar for s.index(RangeFull), implemented by the Index trait. This means to slice the "whole range" of the thing being indexed; for both String and Vec, this gives you a slice of the entire contents. Again, the result is technically a borrowed pointer, but Rust auto-derefs this one as well, so it's also almost always written &s[..].
So what's the difference? Hold that thought; let's talk about Deref chaining.
To take a specific example, because you can view a String as a str, it would be really helpful to have all the methods available on strs automatically available on Strings as well. Rather than inheritance, Rust does this by Deref chaining.
The way it works is that when you ask for a particular method on a value, Rust first looks at the methods defined for that specific type. Let's say it doesn't find the method you asked for; before giving up, Rust will check for a Deref implementation. If it finds one, it invokes it and then tries again.
This means that when you call s.chars() where s is a String, what's actually happening is that you're calling s.deref().chars(), because String doesn't have a method called chars, but str does (scroll up to see that String only gets this method because it implements Deref<Target=str>).
Getting back to the original question, the difference between &*s and &s[..] is in what happens when s is not just String or Vec<T>. Let's take a few examples:
s: String; &*s: &str, &s[..]: &str.
s: &String: &*s: &String, &s[..]: &str.
s: Box<String>: &*s: &String, &s[..]: &str.
s: Box<Rc<&String>>: &*s: &Rc<&String>, &s[..]: &str.
&*s only ever peels away one layer of indirection. &s[..] peels away all of them. This is because none of Box, Rc, &, etc. implement the Index trait, so Deref chaining causes the call to s.index(RangeFull) to chain through all those intermediate layers.
Which one should you use? Whichever you want. Use &*s (or &**s, or &***s) if you want to control exactly how many layers of indirection you want to strip off. Use &s[..] if you want to strip them all off and just get at the innermost representation of the value.
Or, you can do what I do and use &*s because it reads left-to-right, whereas &s[..] reads left-to-right-to-left-again and that annoys me. :)
Addendum
There's the related concept of Deref coercions.
There's also DerefMut and IndexMut which do all of the above, but for &mut instead of &.
They are completely the same for String and Vec.
The [..] syntax results in a call to Index<RangeFull>::index() and it's not just sugar for [0..collection.len()]. The latter would introduce the cost of bound checking. Gladly this is not the case in Rust so they both are equally fast.
Relevant code:
index of String
deref of String
index of Vec (just returns self which triggers the deref coercion thus executes exactly the same code as just deref)
deref of Vec
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.
Last night I learned about the /redo option for when you return from a function. It lets you return another function, which is then invoked at the calling site and reinvokes the evaluator from the same position
>> foo: func [a] [(print a) (return/redo (func [b] [print b + 10]))]
>> foo "Hello" 10
Hello
20
Even though foo is a function that only takes one argument, it now acts like a function that took two arguments. Something like that would otherwise require the caller to know you were returning a function, and that caller would have to manually use the do evaluator on it.
Thus without return/redo, you'd get:
>> foo: func [a] [(print a) (return (func [b] [print b + 10]))]
>> foo "Hello" 10
Hello
== 10
foo consumed its one parameter and returned a function by value (which was not invoked, thus the interpreter moved on). Then the expression evaluated to 10. If return/redo did not exist you'd have had to write:
>> do foo "Hello" 10
Hello
20
This keeps the caller from having to know (or care) if you've chosen to return a function to execute. And is cool because you can do things like tail call optimization, or writing a wrapper for the return functionality itself. Here's a variant of return that prints a message but still exits the function and provides the result:
>> myreturn: func [] [(print "Leaving...") (return/redo :return)]
>> foo: func [num] [myreturn num + 10]
>> foo 10
Leaving...
== 20
But functions aren't the only thing that have behavior in do. So if this is a general pattern for "removing the need for a DO at the callsite", then why doesn't this print anything?
>> test: func [] [return/redo [print "test"]]
>> test
== [print "test"]
It just returned the block by value, like a normal return would have. Shouldn't it have printed out "test"? That's what do would...uh, do with it:
>> do [print "test"]
test
The short answer is because it is generally unnecessary to evaluate a block at the call point, because blocks in Rebol don't take parameters so it mostly doesn't matter where they are evaluated. However, that "mostly" may need some explanation...
It comes down to two interesting features of Rebol: static binding, and how do of a function works.
Static Binding and Scopes
Rebol doesn't have scoped word bindings, it has static direct word bindings. Sometimes it seems like we have lexical scope, but we really fake that by updating the static bindings each time we're building a new "scoped" code block. We can also rebind words manually whenever we want.
What that means for us in this case though, is that once a block exists, its bindings and values are static - they're not affected by where the block is physically located, or where it is being evaluated.
However, and this is where it gets tricky, function contexts are weird. While the bindings of words bound to a function context are static, the set of values assigned to those words are dynamically scoped. It's a side effect of how code is evaluated in Rebol: What are language statements in other languages are functions in Rebol, so a call to if, for instance, actually passes a block of data to the if function which if then passes to do. That means that while a function is running, do has to look up the values of its words from the call frame of the most recent call to the function that hasn't returned yet.
This does mean that if you call a function and return a block of code with words bound to its context, evaluating that block will fail after the function returns. However, if your function calls itself and that call returns a block of code with its words bound to it, evaluating that block before your function returns will make it look up those words in the call frame of the current call of your function.
This is the same for whether you do or return/redo, and affects inner functions as well. Let me demonstrate:
Function returning code that is evaluated after the function returns, referencing a function word:
>> a: 10 do do has [a] [a: 20 [a]]
** Script error: a word is not bound to a context
** Where: do
** Near: do do has [a] [a: 20 [a]]
Same, but with return/redo and the code in a function:
>> a: 10 do has [a] [a: 20 return/redo does [a]]
** Script error: a word is not bound to a context
** Where: function!
** Near: [a: 20 return/redo does [a]]
Code do version, but inside an outer call to the same function:
>> do f: function [x] [a: 10 either zero? x [do f 1] [a: 20 [a]]] 0
== 10
Same, but with return/redo and the code in a function:
>> do f: function [x] [a: 10 either zero? x [f 1] [a: 20 return/redo does [a]]] 0
== 10
So in short, with blocks there is usually no advantage to doing the block elsewhere than where it is defined, and if you want to it is easier to use another call to do instead. Self-calling recursive functions that need to return code to be executed in outer calls of the same function are an exceedingly rare code pattern that I have never seen used in Rebol code at all.
It could be possible to change return/redo so it would handle blocks as well, but it probably isn't worth the increased overhead to return/redo to add a feature that is only useful in rare circumstances and already has a better way to do it.
However, that brings up an interesting point: If you don't need return/redo for blocks because do does the same job, doesn't the same apply to functions? Why do we need return/redo at all?
How DO of a Function Works
Basically, we have return/redo because it uses exactly the same code that we use to implement do of a function. You might not realize it, but do of a function is really unusual.
In most programming languages that can call a function value, you have to pass the parameters to the function as a complete set, sort of how R3's apply function works. Regular Rebol function calling causes some unknown-ahead-of-time number of additional evaluations to happen for its arguments using unknown-ahead-of-time evaluation rules. The evaluator figures out these evaluation rules at runtime and just passes the results of the evaluation to the function. The function itself doesn't handle the evaluation of its parameters, or even necessarily know how those parameters were evaluated.
However, when you do a function value explicitly, that means passing the function value to a call to another function, a regular function named do, and then that magically causes the evaluation of additional parameters that weren't even passed to the do function at all.
Well it's not magic, it's return/redo. The way do of a function works is that it returns a reference to the function in a regular shortcut-return value, with a flag in the shortcut-return value that tells the interpreter that called do to evaluate the returned function as if it were called right there in the code. This is basically what is called a trampoline.
Here's where we get to another interesting feature of Rebol: The ability to shortcut-return values from a function is built into the evaluator, but it doesn't actually use the return function to do it. All of the functions you see from Rebol code are wrappers around the internal stuff, even return and do. The return function we call just generates one of those shortcut-return values and returns it; the evaluator does the rest.
So in this case, what really happened is that all along we had code that did what return/redo does internally, but Carl decided to add an option to our return function to set that flag, even though the internal code doesn't need return to do so because the internal code calls the internal function. And then he didn't tell anyone that he was making the option externally available, or why, or what it did (I guess you can't mention everything; who has the time?). I have the suspicion, based on conversations with Carl and some bugs we've been fixing, that R2 handled do of a function differently, in a way that would have made return/redo impossible.
That does mean that the handling of return/redo is pretty thoroughly oriented towards function evaluation, since that is its entire reason for existing at all. Adding any overhead to it would add overhead to do of a function, and we use that a lot. Probably not worth extending it to blocks, given how little we'd gain and how rarely we'd get any benefit at all.
For return/redo of a function though, it seems to be getting more and more useful the more we think about it. In the last day we've come up with all sorts of tricks that this enables. Trampolines are useful.
While the question originally asked why return/redo did not evaluate blocks, there were also formulations like: "is cool because you can do things like tail call optimization", "[can write] a wrapper for the return functionality", "it seems to be getting more and more useful the more we think about it".
I do not think these are true. My first example demonstrates a case where return/redo can really be used, an example being in the "area of expertise" of return/redo, so to speak. It is a variadic sum function called sumn:
use [result collect process] [
collect: func [:value [any-type!]] [
unless value? 'value [return process result]
append/only result :value
return/redo :collect
]
process: func [block [block!] /local result] [
result: 0
foreach value reduce block [result: result + value]
result
]
sumn: func [] [
result: copy []
return/redo :collect
]
]
This is the usage example:
>> sumn 1 * 2 2 * 3 4
== 12
Variadic functions taking "unlimited number" of arguments are not as useful in Rebol as it may look at the first sight. For example, if we wanted to use the sumn function in a small script, we would have to wrap it into a paren to indicate where it should stop collecting arguments:
result: (sumn 1 * 2 2 * 3 4)
print result
This is not any better than using a more standard (non-variadic) alternative called e.g. block-sum and taking just one argument, a block. The usage would be like
result: block-sum [1 * 2 2 * 3 4]
print result
Of course, if the function can somehow detect what is its last argument without needing enclosing paren, we really gain something. In this case we could use the #[unset!] value as the sumn stopping argument, but that does not spare typing either:
result: sumn 1 * 2 2 * 3 4 #[unset!]
print result
Seeing the example of a return wrapper I would say that return/redo is not well suited for return wrappers, return wrappers being outside of its area of expertise. To demonstrate that, here is a return wrapper written in Rebol 2 that actually is outside of return/redo's area of expertise:
myreturn: func [
{my RETURN wrapper returning the string "indefinite" instead of #[unset!]}
; the [throw] attribute makes this function a RETURN wrapper in R2:
[throw]
value [any-type!] {the value to return}
] [
either value? 'value [return :value] [return "indefinite"]
]
Testing in R2:
>> do does [return #[unset!]]
>> do does [myreturn #[unset!]]
== "indefinite"
>> do does [return 1]
== 1
>> do does [myreturn 1]
== 1
>> do does [return 2 3]
== 2
>> do does [myreturn 2 3]
== 2
Also, I do not think it is true that return/redo helps with tail call optimizations. There are examples how tail calls can be implemented without using return/redo at the www.rebol.org site. As said, return/redo was tailor-made to support implementation of variadic functions and it is not flexible enough for other purposes as far as argument passing is concerned.