I'm working on code that abstracts away System.Data.IDbConnection and its siblings.
target code
let inline runWithConnection connector f =
match connector with
| ICon con -> f con
| CString cs ->
use conn = new SqlConnection(cs)
openConnection conn
f conn
I can see that type constraints compile and run, but constraining to object doesn't have the intended effect. I want to constrain to an object or value that is not a function that needs more inputs to return something. Alternatively write this in such a way that if it does return a function the possibly created connection isn't closed until f is done with it.
let inline runWithConnection connector (f:_ -> 't when 't :> obj) =
match connector with
| ICon con -> f con
| CString cs ->
use conn = new SqlConnection(cs)
openConnection conn
f conn
It seems you can say 't : not struct but you can't say 't: not delegate
I thought about doing f.GetType() but then I have no idea which type properties like .IsClass, .IsAbstract, .IsValue would be consistent with delegate types as opposed to other simple types. Also that would be run-time instead of compile time, not really improving the situation.
I think what you're saying that this doesn't work when you call runWithConnection with a curried f as the connection is disposed after the first partial function is returned.
No generic constraints will solve this as you can't constrain to a type that isn't something i.e. a function. This is the same across F#, C#, Java etc.
You could possibly throw a runtime exception, but I think it's much easier to revisit the pattern you're attempting. I'd ask what you save by having the outer function execute the function it's passed, rather than just returning the generated connection as an IDisposable. This would let the calling function control the scope of the connection, e.g.:
use conn = getConnection myConnector
doSomethingWithConnection conn anotherArg
Note that your problem isn't limited to just function return types - there are plenty of "normal" types that problematic, too. Consider if f is (fun conn -> [conn]) - then you're just returning a list, but the connection stored in that list will be closed by the time the function returns. Likewise, you could create a class type ConnectionUser whose constructor takes and stores a connection and whose methods/properties use it, and that wouldn't work as a return type for f for the same reason. So I agree with Tim Rogers that you should try to come up with a cleaner abstraction.
As an aside, I don't think that inline is buying you anything here, so you can probably safely drop it.
Related
I have written several helper functions in F# that enable me to deal with the dynamic nature of Excel over the COM/PIA interface. However when I go to use these functions in an Excel-DNA UDF they do not work as expected as Excel-DNA is pre-processing the values in the array from excel.
e.g. null is turned into ExcelDna.Integration.ExcelEmpty
This interferes with my own validation code that was anticipating a null. I am able to work around this by adding an additional case to my pattern matching:
let (|XlEmpty|_|) (x: obj) =
match x with
| null -> Some XlEmpty
| :? ExcelDna.Integration.ExcelEmpty -> Some XlEmpty
| _ -> None
However it feels like a waste to convert and then convert again. Is there a way to tell Excel-DNA not to do additional processing of the range values in a UDF and supply them equivalent to the COM/PIA interface? i.e. Range.Value XlRangeValueDataType.xlRangeValueDefault
EDIT:
I declare my arguments as obj like this:
[<ExcelFunction(Description = "Validates a Test Table Row")>]
let isTestRow (headings: obj) (row: obj) =
let validator = TestTable.validator
let headingsList = TestTable.testHeadings
validateRow validator headingsList headings row
I have done some more digging and #Jim Foye's suggested question also confirms this. For UDF's, Excel-DNA works over the C API rather than COM and therefore has to do its own marshaling. The possible values are shown in this file:
https://github.com/Excel-DNA/ExcelDna/blob/2aa1bd9afaf76084c1d59e2330584edddb888eb1/Distribution/Reference.txt
The reason to use ExcelEmpty (the user supplied an empty cell) is that for a UDF, the argument can also be ExcelMissing (the user supplied no argument) which might both be reasonably null and there is a need to disambiguate.
I will adjust my pattern matching to be compatible with both the COM marshaling and the ExcelDNA marshaling.
For the Froto project (Google Protobuf in F#), I am trying to update the deserialization code from using 'a ref objects to passing values byref<'a>, for performance.
However, the code below fails on the hydrator &element field line:
type Field = TypeA | TypeB | Etc
let hydrateRepeated
(hydrator:byref<'a> -> Field -> unit)
(result:byref<'a list>)
(field:Field) =
let mutable element = Unchecked.defaultof<'a>
hydrator &element field
result <- element :: result
error FS0421: The address of the variable 'element' cannot be used at this point
Is there anything I can do to get this code to work without changing the signature of the hydrator parameter?
I'm very aware that I could use hydrator:'a ref -> Field -> unit and get things to work. However, the goal is to support deserializing into record types without needing to create a bunch of ref objects on the heap every time a record is deserialize.
Note that the following code is perfectly legal and has the same signature as the hydrator function declaration, above, so I'm unclear on what the problem is.
let assign (result:byref<'a>) (x:'a) =
result <- x
let thisWorks() =
let mutable v = Unchecked.defaultof<int>
assign &v 5
printfn "%A" v
I'll try to clarify what I was saying in my comments. You're right that your definition of assign is perfectly fine, and it appears to have the signature byref<'a> -> 'a -> unit. However, if you look at the resulting assembly, you'll find that the way it's compiled at the .NET representation level is:
Void assign[a](a ByRef, a)
(that is, it's a method that takes two arguments and doesn't return anything, not a function value that takes one argument and returns a function that takes the next argument and returns a value of type unit - the compiler uses some additional metadata to determine how the method was actually declared).
The same is true of function definitions that don't involve byref. For instance, assume you've got the following definition:
let someFunc (x:int) (y:string) = ()
Then the compiler actually creates a method with the signature
Void someFunc(Int32, System.String)
The compiler is smart enough to do the right thing when you try to use a function like someFunc as a first class value - if you use it in a context where it isn't applied to any arguments, the compiler will generate a subtype of int -> string -> unit (which is FSharpFunc<int, FSharpFunc<string, unit>> at the .NET representation level), and everything works seamlessly.
However, if you try to do the same thing with assign, it won't work (or shouldn't work, but there are several compiler bugs that may make it seem like certain variations work when really they don't - you might not get a compiler error but you may get an output assembly that is malformed instead) - it's not legal for .NET type instantiations to use byref types as generic type arguments, so FSharpFunc<int byref, FSharpFunc<int, unit>> is not a valid .NET type. The fundamental way that F# represents function values just doesn't work when there are byref arguments.
So the workaround is to create your own type with a method taking a byref argument and then create subtypes/instances that have the behavior you want, sort of like doing manually what the compiler does automatically in the non-byref case. You could do this with a named type
type MyByrefFunc2<'a,'b> =
abstract Invoke : 'a byref * 'b -> unit
let assign = {
new MyByrefFunc2<_,_> with
member this.Invoke(result, x) =
result <- x }
or with a delegate type
type MyByrefDelegate2<'a,'b> = delegate of 'a byref * 'b -> unit
let assign = MyByrefDelegate2(fun result x -> result <- x)
Note that when calling methods like Invoke on the delegate or nominal type, no actual tuple is created, so you shouldn't be concerned about any extra overhead there (it's a .NET method that takes two arguments and is treated as such by the compiler). There is the cost of a virtual method call or delegate call, but in most cases similar costs exist when using function values in a first class way too. And in general, if you're worried about performance then you should set a target and measure against it rather than trying to optimize prematurely.
I am just starting to learn F#, and impressed by the type inference I thought I would try a function that gets the first record from a table (using query expressions, Linq style):
let getfirst data =
let result = query { for n in data do take 1 }
result |> Seq.head
This works, the type is IQueryable<'a> -> 'a.
But why doesn't this version work?
let getfirst2 data =
query { for n in data do head }
Shouldn't for n in data do head give a scalar 'a just like last time? Can someone explain why the second version doesn't work, and how to make it work without using Seq.head?
The reason is that the query builder has a somewhat hacky overloaded Run method for running queries, with the following overloads:
QueryBuilder.Run : Quotations.Expr<'t> -> 't
QueryBuilder.Run : Quotations.Expr<Linq.QuerySource<'t, IEnumerable>> -> seq<'t>
QueryBuilder.Run : Quotations.Expr<Linq.QuerySource<'t, IQueryable>> -> IQueryable<'t>
In your case, any of the overloads could apply, given a suitable type for data (though QuerySource<_,_> is a type which isn't ever meant to be used by user code, so two of the overloads are quite unlikely). Unfortunately, due to the strange way these overloads are defined (the first and second are actually extension methods defined in separate modules), the third one wins the overload resolution battle.
I don't know why, but when you hover over the data argument in getfirst2 you see it's of type System.Linq.IQueryable<Linq.QuerySource<'a, System.Linq.IQueryable>> when it really should be System.Linq.IQueryable<'a>.
You can "fix" it by adding type annotations:
open System.Linq
let getfirst2 (data : IQueryable<'a>) : 'a = query {
for item in data do
head
}
Then it works like you have expected:
[1 .. 10]
|> System.Linq.Queryable.AsQueryable
|> getfirst2
|> printfn "%d" // Prints 1.
Maybe someone else can shed some light on why the compiler infers the types it does.
While working through Expert F# again, I decided to implement the application for manipulating algebraic expressions. This went well and now I've decided as a next exercise to expand on that by building a more advanced application.
My first idea was to have a setup that allows for a more extendible way of creating functions without having to recompile. To that end I have something like:
type IFunction =
member x.Name : string with get
/// additional members omitted
type Expr =
| Num of decimal
| Var of string
///... omitting some types here that don't matter
| FunctionApplication of IFunction * Expr list
So that say a Sin(x) could be represented a:
let sin = { new IFunction() with member x.Name = "SIN" }
let sinExpr = FunctionApplication(sin,Var("x"))
So far all good, but the next idea that I would like to implement is having additional interfaces to represent function of properties. E.g.
type IDifferentiable =
member Derivative : int -> IFunction // Get the derivative w.r.t a variable index
One of the ideas the things I'm trying to achieve here is that I implement some functions and all the logic for them and then move on to the next part of the logic I would like to implement. However, as it currently stands, that means that with every interface I add, I have to revisit all the IFunctions that I've implemented. Instead, I'd rather have a function:
let makeDifferentiable (f : IFunction) (deriv : int -> IFunction) =
{ f with
interface IDifferentiable with
member x.Derivative = deriv }
but as discussed in this question, that is not possible. The alternative that is possible, doesn't meet my extensibility requirement. My question is what alternatives would work well?
[EDIT] I was asked to expand on the "doesn't meet my extenibility requirement" comment. The way this function would work is by doing something like:
let makeDifferentiable (deriv : int -> IFunction) (f : IFunction)=
{ new IFunction with
member x.Name = f.Name
interface IDifferentiable with
member x.Derivative = deriv }
However, ideally I would keep on adding additional interfaces to an object as I add them. So if I now wanted to add an interface that tell whether on function is even:
type IsEven =
abstract member IsEven : bool with get
then I would like to be able to (but not obliged, as in, if I don't make this change everything should still compile) to change my definition of a sine from
let sin = { new IFunction with ... } >> (makeDifferentiable ...)
to
let sin = { new IFunction with ... } >> (makeDifferentiable ...) >> (makeEven false)
The result of which would be that I could create an object that implements the IFunction interface as well as potentially, but not necessarily a lot of different other interfaces as well; the operations I'd then define on them, would potentially be able to optimize what they are doing based on whether or not a certain function implements an interface. This will also allow me to add additional features/interfaces/operations first without having to change the functions I've defined (though they wouldn't take advantage of the additional features, things wouldn't be broken either.[/EDIT]
The only thing I can think of right now is to create a dictionary for each feature that I'd like to implement, with function names as keys and the details to build an interface on the fly, e.g. along the lines:
let derivative (f : IFunction) =
match derivativeDictionary.TryGetValue(f.Name) with
| false, _ -> None
| true, d -> d.Derivative
This would require me to create one such function per feature that I add in addition to one dictionary per feature. Especially if implemented asynchronously with agents, this might be not that slow, but it still feels a little clunky.
I think the problem that you're trying to solve here is what is called The Expression Problem. You're essentially trying to write code that would be extensible in two directions. Discriminated unions and object-oriented model give you one or the other:
Discriminated union makes it easy to add new operations (just write a function with pattern matching), but it is hard to add a new kind of expression (you have to extend the DU and modify all code
that uses it).
Interfaces make it easy to add new kinds of expressions (just implement the interface), but it is hard to add new operations (you have to modify the interface and change all code that creates it.
In general, I don't think it is all that useful to try to come up with solutions that let you do both (they end up being terribly complicated), so my advice is to pick the one that you'll need more often.
Going back to your problem, I'd probably represent the function just as a function name together with the parameters:
type Expr =
| Num of decimal
| Var of string
| Application of string * Expr list
Really - an expression is just this. The fact that you can take derivatives is another part of the problem you're solving. Now, to make the derivative extensible, you can just keep a dictionary of the derivatives:
let derrivatives =
dict [ "sin", (fun [arg] -> Application("cos", [arg]))
... ]
This way, you have an Expr type that really models just what an expression is and you can write differentiation function that will look for the derivatives in the dictionary.
This is a pretty simple question, and I just wanted to check that what I'm doing and how I'm interpreting the F# makes sense. If I have the statement
let printRandom =
x = MyApplication.getRandom()
printfn "%d" x
x
Instead of creating printRandom as a function, F# runs it once and then assigns it a value. So, now, when I call printRandom, instead of getting a new random value and printing it, I simply get whatever was returned the first time. I can get around this my defining it as such:
let printRandom() =
x = MyApplication.getRandom()
printfn "%d" x
x
Is this the proper way to draw this distinction between parameter-less functions and values? This seems less than ideal to me. Does it have consequences in currying, composition, etc?
The right way to look at this is that F# has no such thing as parameter-less functions. All functions have to take a parameter, but sometimes you don't care what it is, so you use () (the singleton value of type unit). You could also make a function like this:
let printRandom unused =
x = MyApplication.getRandom()
printfn "%d" x
x
or this:
let printRandom _ =
x = MyApplication.getRandom()
printfn "%d" x
x
But () is the default way to express that you don't use the parameter. It expresses that fact to the caller, because the type is unit -> int not 'a -> int; as well as to the reader, because the call site is printRandom () not printRandom "unused".
Currying and composition do in fact rely on the fact that all functions take one parameter and return one value.
The most common way to write calls with unit, by the way, is with a space, especially in the non .NET relatives of F# like Caml, SML and Haskell. That's because () is a singleton value, not a syntactic thing like it is in C#.
Your analysis is correct.
The first instance defines a value and not a function. I admit this caught me a few times when I started with F# as well. Coming from C# it seems very natural that an assignment expression which contains multiple statements must be a lambda and hence delay evaluated.
This is just not the case in F#. Statements can be almost arbitrarily nested (and it rocks for having locally scoped functions and values). Once you get comfortable with this you start to see it as an advantage as you can create functions and continuations which are inaccessible to the rest of the function.
The second approach is the standard way for creating a function which logically takes no arguments. I don't know the precise terminology the F# team would use for this declaration though (perhaps a function taking a single argument of type unit). So I can't really comment on how it would affect currying.
Is this the proper way to draw this
distinction between parameter-less
functions and values? This seems less
than ideal to me. Does it have
consequences in currying, composition,
etc?
Yes, what you describe is correct.
For what its worth, it has a very interesting consequence able to partially evaluate functions on declaration. Compare these two functions:
// val contains : string -> bool
let contains =
let people = set ["Juliet"; "Joe"; "Bob"; "Jack"]
fun person -> people.Contains(person)
// val contains2 : string -> bool
let contains2 person =
let people = set ["Juliet"; "Joe"; "Bob"; "Jack"]
people.Contains(person)
Both functions produce identical results, contains creates its people set on declaration and reuses it, whereas contains2 creates its people set everytime you call the function. End result: contains is slightly faster. So knowing the distinction here can help you write faster code.
Assignment bodies looking like function bodies have cought a few programmers unaware. You can make things even more interesting by having the assignment return a function:
let foo =
printfn "This runs at startup"
(fun () -> printfn "This runs every time you call foo ()")
I just wrote a blog post about it at http://blog.wezeku.com/2010/08/23/values-functions-and-a-bit-of-both/.