I am trying to achieve the following:
I have an interface, called IBotCommand and a few classes that implement it. I want to find all these classes, through reflection, instantiate an instance of each and put the result in a dictionary.
the interface is the following:
type IBotCommands =
abstract member Name: unit -> string
abstract member Description: unit -> string
abstract member Help: unit -> string
abstract member Execute: MessageEventArgs -> string[] -> string
and the code:
let t = typeof<IBotCommands>
t.Assembly.GetTypes()
|> Seq.filter (fun x -> x.IsSubclassOf(t))
|> Seq.iter (fun x ->
(
let i = Activator.CreateInstance(x) :> IBotCommands
botCommands.[i.Name] <- i
)
)
the issue I have is with the CreateInstance line. CreateInstance returns an obj type that can't be cast to IBotCommands.
I have the same in C# and it works properly but the C# version is using dynamics:
public static IEnumerable<Type> FindClassSubclassOfType<T>()
{
var a = typeof(T)
.Assembly.GetTypes()
.Where(t => t.IsSubclassOf(typeof(T)))
.Select(t => t);
return a.ToList();
}
var types = ReflectionHelper.FindClassSubclassOfType<BotCommand>();
foreach (var t in types)
{
dynamic c = Activator.CreateInstance(t);
BotCommands[c.Name] = c;
}
how can I get this behavior to work in F#?
can you cast an object to an interface in F#? it's my first time using interfaces in F#
In F#, there is a difference between upcast a :> T and downacst a :?> T.
Upcast is used when the compiler statically knows that a implements an interface T. This is useful if you have a value of a concrete class and want to get a value that has a type of an interface.
Downcast is used when the compiler does not statically know whether a implements an interface. In other words, this means that the cast can fail.
In your case, you need a downcast, because the compiler does not know whether obj implements IBotInterface. All you need to do is to add ?:
let i = Activator.CreateInstance(x) :?> IBotCommands
botCommands.[i.Name] <- i
How do I get Dapper to convert data to an F# type with an option property? Simple example:
type SomeType = {
Count : int option
}
connection.QueryAsync<SomeType>(...)
This throws:
System.InvalidOperationException
A parameterless default constructor or one matching signature
(System.Int32 count) is required for SomeType materialization
Using Nullable instead of option works:
type SomeType = {
Count : Nullable<int>
}
But it's not as desirable for various reasons. For one thing, I have cases where I use string option (because F# doesn't allow null assignments normally, which is great), and Nullable<string> doesn't compile. Is there a way to configure/instruct Dapper to automatically deal with option types? I'd like to avoid using custom mappings every time.
In case it matters, using with Npgsql.
I don't think there's any support for adding handlers for open generics, so you'd have to add a type handler for each type you need.
You could define a handler like this:
type OptionHandler<'T>() =
inherit SqlMapper.TypeHandler<option<'T>>()
override __.SetValue(param, value) =
let valueOrNull =
match value with
| Some x -> box x
| None -> null
param.Value <- valueOrNull
override __.Parse value =
if isNull value || value = box DBNull.Value
then None
else Some (value :?> 'T)
And register for the types you need like this:
SqlMapper.AddTypeHandler (OptionHandler<string>())
SqlMapper.AddTypeHandler (OptionHandler<int>())
I need clarity on how objects are declared and assigned a definition in F#.
What's happening in this code?
let service = {
new IService with
member this.Translate(_) = raise error }
My guess is we're creating an object that will implement some interface on the fly even though there is no actual class that's backing this object. Hence, we're removing the ceremony involved with creating an object by not having to declare a separate class to use it. In this case, we're minimizing the ceremony involved for implementing a mock object that could be used within a unit test.
Is my understanding accurate?
I tried to research my question and found the specification for F# 3.0 (Section - 6.3.8 Object Expressions)
6.3.8 Object Expressions An expression of the following form is an object expression: { new ty0 args-expropt object-members interface
ty1 object-members1 … interface tyn object-membersn } In the case
of the interface declarations, the object-members are optional and are
considered empty if absent. Each set of object-members has the form:
with member-defns endopt Lexical filtering inserts simulated $end
tokens when lightweight syntax is used. Each member of an object
expression members can use the keyword member, override, or default.
The keyword member can be used even when overriding a member or
implementing an interface.
For example:
let obj1 =
{ new System.Collections.Generic.IComparer<int> with
member x.Compare(a,b) = compare (a % 7) (b % 7) }
You can get a pretty good picture of what is happening behind the scenes if you look at the generated IL using a decompiler like ILSpy. For the example involving IComparer, it generates a hidden class, which implements the interface:
internal sealed class obj1#2 : IComparer<int> {
public obj1#2() : this() { }
int IComparer<int>.System-Collections-Generic-IComparer(int x, int y) {
int num = x % 7;
int num2 = y % 7;
if (num < num2) { return -1; }
return (num > num2) ? 1 : 0;
}
}
Inside the body of the method, it then creates a new instance:
IComparer<int> obj1 = new obj1#2();
I hit something new to me with the following piece of code when following the equivalent in C# here. The compiler gives multiple errors basically telling the IConnectableObservable created in source.Publish() does not match IObservable even though it derives from it (according to the MSDN article linked).
Is there something in F# that is different with regard to C# concerning inheritance in this case or can someone provider pointers as to what is going on? Have I just made a typo I can't see? What comes to the heading regarding covariance, it's just a wild guess as I'm at least temporarily out of ideas. And so, maybe writing somewhere may help me and others...
One example of the many error messages:
No overloads match for method 'Create'. The available overloads are shown below (or in the Error List window).
No overloads match for method 'Switch'. The available overloads are shown below (or in the Error List window).
Error Possible overload: '(extension) IObservable.Switch<'TSource>() :
IObservable<'TSource>'. Type constraint mismatch. The type
IObservable<IConnectableObservable<'b>> is not compatible with type
IObservable<IObservable<'a>> The type 'IObservable<'a>' does not match the type 'IConnectableObservable<'b>'.
open System.Reactive.Concurrency
open System.Reactive.Disposables
open System.Reactive.Subjects
open System.Reactive.Linq
type Observable with
static member inline Suspendable(source: IObservable<_>, suspend: IObservable<bool>, isSuspendedInitially: bool): IObservable<_> =
Observable.Create<_>(fun observer ->
let shared = source.Publish()
let pausable =
suspend.StartWith(isSuspendedInitially)
.TakeUntil(shared.LastOrDefaultAsync())
.DistinctUntilChanged()
.Select(fun p -> if p then shared else Observable.Empty<_>())
.Switch()
new CompositeDisposable(pausable.Subscribe(observer), shared.Connect()))
The corresponding C# code
public static class RxExtensions
{
public static IObservable<T> Suspendable<T>(this IObservable<T> stream, IObservable<bool> suspend, bool isSuspendedInitially)
{
return Observable.Create<T>(o =>
{
var shared = stream.Publish();
var pausable = suspend
.StartWith(isSuspendedInitially)
.TakeUntil(shared.LastOrDefaultAsync())
.DistinctUntilChanged()
.Select(p => p ? shared : Observable.Empty<T>())
.Switch();
return new CompositeDisposable(pausable.Subscribe(o), shared.Connect());
});
}
}
This was a bit tricky, but you need to add two upcasts: shared to IObservable<_>, and the result of the lambda function to IDisposable. These would be implicit in C#, but need to be explicit in F#:
type Observable with
static member inline Suspendable (source: IObservable<_>,
suspend: IObservable<bool>,
isSuspendedInitially: bool): IObservable<'a> =
Observable.Create<_>(fun observer ->
let shared = source.Publish()
let pausable =
suspend.StartWith(isSuspendedInitially)
.TakeUntil(shared.LastOrDefaultAsync())
.DistinctUntilChanged()
.Select(fun p -> if p then shared :> IObservable<_>
else Observable.Empty<_>())
.Switch()
new CompositeDisposable(pausable.Subscribe(observer),
shared.Connect()) :> IDisposable)
I know virtually nothing about F#. I don’t even know the syntax, so I can’t give examples.
It was mentioned in a comment thread that F# can declare functions that can take parameters of multiple possible types, for example a string or an integer. This would be similar to method overloads in C#:
public void Method(string str) { /* ... */ }
public void Method(int integer) { /* ... */ }
However, in CIL you cannot declare a delegate of this form. Each delegate must have a single, specific list of parameter types. Since functions in F# are first-class citizens, however, it would seem that you should be able to pass such a function around, and the only way to compile that into CIL is to use delegates.
So how does F# compile this into CIL?
This question is a little ambiguous, so I'll just ramble about what's true of F#.
In F#, methods can be overloaded, just like C#. Methods are always accessed by a qualified name of the form someObj.MethodName or someType.MethodName. There must be context which can statically resolve the overload at compile-time, just as in C#. Examples:
type T() =
member this.M(x:int) = ()
member this.M(x:string) = ()
let t = new T()
// these are all ok, just like C#
t.M(3)
t.M("foo")
let f : int -> unit = t.M
let g : string-> unit = t.M
// this fails, just like C#
let h = t.M // A unique overload for method 'M' could not be determined
// based on type information prior to this program point.
In F#, let-bound function values cannot be overloaded. So:
let foo(x:int) = ()
let foo(x:string) = () // Duplicate definition of value 'foo'
This means you can never have an "unqualified" identifier foo that has overloaded meaning. Each such name has a single unambiguous type.
Finally, the crazy case which is probably the one that prompts the question. F# can define inline functions which have "static member constraints" which can be bound to e.g. "all types T that have a member property named Bar" or whatnot. This kind of genericity cannot be encoded into CIL. Which is why the functions that leverage this feature must be inline, so that at each call site, the code specific-to-the-type-used-at-that-callsite is generated inline.
let inline crazy(x) = x.Qux(3) // elided: type syntax to constrain x to
// require a Qux member that can take an int
// suppose unrelated types U and V have such a Qux method
let u = new U()
crazy(u) // is expanded here into "u.Qux(3)" and then compiled
let v = new V()
crazy(v) // is expanded here into "v.Qux(3)" and then compiled
So this stuff is all handled by the compiler, and by the time we need to generate code, once again, we've statically resolved which specific type we're using at this callsite. The "type" of crazy is not a type that can be expressed in CIL, the F# type system just checks each callsite to ensure the necessary conditions are met and inlines the code into that callsite, a lot like how C++ templates work.
(The main purpose/justification for the crazy stuff is for overloaded math operators. Without the inline feature, the + operator, for instance, being a let-bound function type, could either "only work on ints" or "only work on floats" or whatnot. Some ML flavors (F# is a relative of OCaml) do exactly that, where e.g. the + operator only works on ints, and a separate operator, usually named +., works on floats. Whereas in F#, + is an inline function defined in the F# library that works on any type with a + operator member or any of the primitive numeric types. Inlining can also have some potential run-time performance benefits, which is also appealing for some math-y/computational domains.)
When you're writing C# and you need a function that can take multiple different parameter sets, you just create method overloads:
string f(int x)
{
return "int " + x;
}
string f(string x)
{
return "string " + x;
}
void callF()
{
Console.WriteLine(f(12));
Console.WriteLine(f("12"));
}
// there's no way to write a function like this:
void call(Func<int|string, string> func)
{
Console.WriteLine(func(12));
Console.WriteLine(func("12"));
}
The callF function is trivial, but my made-up syntax for the call function doesn't work.
When you're writing F# and you need a function that can take multiple different parameter sets, you create a discriminated union that can contain all the different parameter sets and you make a single function that takes that union:
type Either = Int of int
| String of string
let f = function Int x -> "int " + string x
| String x -> "string " + x
let callF =
printfn "%s" (f (Int 12))
printfn "%s" (f (String "12"))
let call func =
printfn "%s" (func (Int 12))
printfn "%s" (func (String "12"))
Being a single function, f can be used like any other value, so in F# we can write callF and call f, and both do the same thing.
So how does F# implement the Either type I created above? Essentially like this:
public abstract class Either
{
public class Int : Test.Either
{
internal readonly int item;
internal Int(int item);
public int Item { get; }
}
public class String : Test.Either
{
internal readonly string item;
internal String(string item);
public string Item { get; }
}
}
The signature of the call function is:
public static void call(FSharpFunc<Either, string> f);
And f looks something like this:
public static string f(Either _arg1)
{
if (_arg1 is Either.Int)
return "int " + ((Either.Int)_arg1).Item;
return "string " + ((Either.String)_arg1).Item;
}
Of course you could implement the same Either type in C# (duh!), but it's not idiomatic, which is why it wasn't the obvious answer to the previous question.
Assuming I understand the question, in F# you can define expressions which depend on the availability of members with particular signatures. For instance
let inline f x a = (^t : (member Method : ^a -> unit)(x,a))
This defines a function f which takes a value x of type ^t and a value a of type ^a where ^t has a method Method taking an ^a to unit (void in C#), and which calls that method. Because this function is defined as inline, the definition is inlined at the point of use, which is the only reason that it can be given such a type. Thus, although you can pass f as a first class function, you can only do so when the types ^t and ^a are statically known so that the method call can be statically resolved and inserted in place (and this is why the type parameters have the funny ^ sigil instead of the normal ' sigil).
Here's an example of passing f as a first-class function:
type T() =
member x.Method(i) = printfn "Method called with int: %i" i
List.iter (f (new T())) [1; 2; 3]
This runs the method Method against the three values in the list. Because f is inlined, this is basically equivalent to
List.iter ((fun (x:T) a -> x.Method(a)) (new T())) [1; 2; 3]
EDIT
Given the context that seems to have led to this question (C# - How can I “overload” a delegate?), I appear not to have addressed your real question at all. Instead, what Gabe appears to be talking about is the ease with which one can define and use discriminated unions. So the question posed on that other thread might be answered like this using F#:
type FunctionType =
| NoArgument of (unit -> unit)
| ArrayArgument of (obj[] -> unit)
let doNothing (arr:obj[]) = ()
let doSomething () = printfn "'doSomething' was called"
let mutable someFunction = ArrayArgument doNothing
someFunction <- NoArgument doSomething
//now call someFunction, regardless of what type of argument it's supposed to take
match someFunction with
| NoArgument f -> f()
| ArrayArgument f -> f [| |] // pass in empty array
At a low level, there's no CIL magic going on here; it's just that NoArgument and ArrayArgument are subclasses of FunctionType which are easy to construct and to deconstruct via pattern matching. The branches of the pattern matching expression are morally equivalent to a type test followed by property accesses, but the compiler makes sure that the cases have 100% coverage and don't overlap. You could encode the exact same operations in C# without any problem, but it would be much more verbose and the compiler wouldn't help you out with exhaustiveness checking, etc.
Also, there is nothing here which is particular to functions; F# discriminated unions make it easy to define types which have a fixed number of named alternatives, each one of which can have data of whatever type you'd like.
I'm not quite sure that understand your question correctly... F# compiler uses FSharpFunc type to represent functions. Usually in F# code you don't deal with this type directly, using fancy syntactic representation instead, but if you expose any members that returns or accepts function and use them from another language, line C# - you will see it.
So instead of using delegates - F# utilizes its special type with concrete or generic parameters.
If your question was about things like add something-i-don't-know-what-exactly-but-it-has-addition-operator then you need to use inline keyword and compiler will emit function body in the call site. #kvb's answer was describing exactly this case.