It just occurred to me, that F# generics do not seem to accept constant values as "template parameters".
Suppose one wanted to create a type RangedInt such, that it behaves like an int but is guaranteed to only contain a sub-range of integer values.
A possible approach could be a discriminated union, similar to:
type RangedInt = | Valid of int | Invalid
But this is not working either, as there is no "type specific storage of the range information". And 2 RangedInt instances should be of different type, if the range differs, too.
Being still a bit C++ infested it would look similar to:
template<int low,int high>
class RangedInteger { ... };
Now the question, arising is two fold:
Did I miss something and constant values for F# generics exist?
If I did not miss that, what would be the idiomatic way to accomplish such a RangedInt<int,int> in F#?
Having found Tomas Petricek's blog about custom numeric types, the equivalent to my question for that blog article would be: What if he did not an IntegerZ5 but an IntegerZn<int> custom type family?
The language feature you're requesting is called Dependent Types, and F# doesn't have that feature.
It's not a particularly common language feature, and even Haskell (which most other Functional programming languages 'look up to') doesn't really have it.
There are languages with Dependent Types out there, but none of them I would consider mainstream. Probably the one I hear about the most is Idris.
Did I miss something and constant values for F# generics exist?
While F# has much strong type inference than other .NET languages, at its heart it is built on .NET.
And .NET generics only support a small subset of what is possible with C++ templates. All type arguments to generic types must be types, and there is no defaulting of type arguments either.
If I did not miss that, what would be the idiomatic way to accomplish such a RangedInt in F#?
It would depend on the details. Setting the limits at runtime is one possibility – this would be the usual approach in .NET. Another would be units of measure (this seems less likely to be a fit).
What if he did not an IntegerZ5 but an IntegerZn<int> custom type family?
I see two reasons:
It is an example, and avoiding generics keeps things simpler allowing focus on the point of the example.
What other underlying type would one use anyway? On contemporary systems smaller types (byte, Int16 etc.) are less efficient (unless space at runtime is the overwhelming concern); long would add size without benefit (it is only going to hold 5 possible values).
Related
Suppose one needs a numeric data type whose allowed values fall within a specified range. More concretely, suppose one wants to define an integral type whose min value is 0 and maximum value is 5000. This type of scenario arises in many situations, such as when modeling a database data type, an XSD data type and so on.
What is the best way to model such a type in F#? In C#, one way to do this would be to define a struct that implemented the range checking overloaded operators, formatting and so on. A analogous approach in F# is described here: http://tomasp.net/blog/fsharp-custom-numeric.aspx/
I don't really need though a fully-fledged custom type; all I really want is an existing type with a constrained domain. For example, I would like to be able to write something like
type MyInt = Value of uint16 where Value <= 5000 (pseudocode)
Is there a shorthand way to do such a thing in F# or is the best approach to implement a custom numeric type as described in the aforementioned blog post?
You're referring to what are called refinement types in type theory, and as pointed out by Daniel, look for F*. But it is a research project.
As far as doing it with F#, in addition to Tomas' post, take a look at the designing with types series.
My suggestion would be to implement a custom struct wrapping your data type (e.g., int), just as you would in C#.
The idea behind creating this custom struct is that it allows you to "intercept" all uses of the underlying data value at run-time and check them for correctness. The alternative is to check all of these uses at compile-time, which is possible with something like F* (as others mentioned), although it's much more difficult and not something you would use for everyday code.
Which way is more idiomatic to use Nullable<'a> or to use Option<'a> for representing a nullable int?
Option is far more idiomatic in F# code.
It has far nicer syntax when used in match and has large amounts of support from the standard library.
However, if you plan to access the code from C# or some other language you should probably expose the interface with Nullable which is easier to use in C#.
As John said, Option<T> is definitely more idiomatic type in F#. I would certainly use options as my default choice - the Option module provides many useful functions, pattern matching works nicely on options and F# libraries are generally designed to work with options.
That said, there are two cases when you might want to use nullable:
When creating arrays of optional values - Nullable<T> is a value type (sort of) and if you create an array Nullable<T>[] then it is allocated as continuous memory block. On the other hand options are reference types and option<T>[] will be an array of references to heap-allocated objects.
When you need to write some calculations and propagate missing values - in F# 3.0, there is a module Microsoft.FSharp.Linq.NullableOperators which implements various operators for dealing with nullable values (see MSDN documentation) which lets you write e.g.:
let one = Nullable(1)
let two = Nullable(2)
// Add constant to nullable, then compare value of two nullables
(one ?+ 2) ?>=? two
I wonder if there is a relationship between untyped/typed code quotations in F# and the hygiene of macro systems. Do they solve the same issues in their respective languages or are they separate concerns?
The meta-programming aspect is the only similarity, and even in that regard, there is a big difference. You can think of the macro's transformer as a function from syntax to syntax like you can manipulate quotations, but the transformers are globally coordinated so that names used as binders follow a specific protocol:
1) Binders may not be the same as any free name in input to the macro (unless you use an unhygienic escape hatch)
2) Names bound in a macro definition's context that are free in the macro's expansion must point to the same thing at macro use time. (this needs global coordination)
Choices for names are made so that expansion does not fail if you used the wrong name (unless it turns out that name is unbound).
Transformers of typed quotations do not have this definition time context idea. You manipulate quotations to form a program that does not refer to any names in your program. They are not meant to provide a syntactic abstraction mechanism. Arbitrary shapes of syntax? Nope. It all has to be core AST shapes.
Open code in typed quotation systems can be closed with anything that fits the type structure of the expected context - there is no coordinated composition of several open components into a coherent structure.
Quotations are a form of meta-programming. They allow you to manipulate abstract syntax trees programmatically, which can be in turned spliced into code, and evaluated.
Typed quotations embed the reified type of the AST in the host language's type system, so they ensure you cannot generate ill-typed fragments of code. Untyped quotations do not offer that guarantee (it may fail with a runtime error).
As an aside, typed quotations are strongly similar to Template Haskell quasiquotations.
Hygenic macros in Lisp-like languages are related, in that they exist to support meta-programming. The hygiene however is for simple name capture confusion, something that typed quasi quotations already avoid (and more).
So yes, they are similar, in that they are mechanisms for meta-programming in typed and untyped languages, respectively. Both typed quasi quotes and hygenic macros add additional safety to fully untyped, unsound meta programming. The level of guarantee they offer the programmer though is different. The typed quotes are strictly stronger.
F# does not support implicit conversions. I understand that this is a feature, but I don't understand why implicit conversions are forbidden even when no information would be lost. For example:
sqrt 4 // Won't compile.
I don't see a problem implicitly converting the int 4 to a float, which is what sqrt requires.
Can anyone shed light on this?
Because its type checker almost depends on classical strong type-reconstruction. You example requires the coercion of types which is possible through implicit casts or a weak type system, but these aren't allowed in this kind of type inference.
Since F# comes from OCaml it has a type reconstruction that tries to guarantee correctness of your program by being extremely pedantic: the algorithm tries to unify the whole types of your program to a good typing and this cannot be done if a weak type rule allows to consider an integer like a float.
See also
http://lorgonblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/overview-of-type-inference-in-f/
which describes how overloading interacts badly with type inference. Implicit conversions cause many of the same problems as overloading, and also interact poorly with error diagnostics.
In addition to the above answers, type conversions between integer and float are not actually free in computational terms; the compiler is not doing you a favour by "hiding" them from you if your goal is to write high-performance code. This is one of the things I like about OCaml and F#: even tho' they are very high level, you still need to be aware of exactly what computation you are doing.
In real terms, what is the difference between a "string" and a "string option"?
Aside from minor sytnax issues, the only difference I have seen is that you can pass a "null" to string while a string option expects a "none".
I don't particularly like the answer I've typed up below, because I think the reader will either see it as 'preaching to the choir' or as 'some complex nonsense', but I've decided to post it anyway, in case it invites fruitful comment-discussion.
First off, it may be noteworthy to understand that
let x : string option = Some(null)
is a valid value, that indicates the presence (rather than absence) of a value (Some rather than None), but the value itself is null. (The meaning of such a value would depend on context.)
If you're looking for what I see as the 'right' mental model, it goes something like this...
The whole notion that "all reference types admit a 'null' value" is one of the biggest and most costly mistakes of .Net and the CLR. If the platform were resdesigned from scratch today, I think most folks agree that references would be non-nullable by default, and you would need an explicit mechanism to opt-in to null. As it stands today, there are hundreds, if not thousands of APIs that take e.g. "string foo" and do not want a null (e.g. would throw ArgumentNullException if you passed null). Clearly this is something better handled by a type system. Ideally, 'string' would mean 'non-null', and for the minority of APIs that do want null, you spell that out, e.g. "Nullable<string> foo" or "Option<string> foo" or whatever. So it's the existing .Net platform that's the 'oddball' here.
Many functional languages (such as ML, one of the main influences of F#) have known this forever, and so designed their type systems 'right', where if you want to admit a 'null' value, you use a generic type constructor to explicitly signal data that intentionally can have 'asbence of a value' as a legal value. In ML, this is done with the "'t option" type - 'option' is a fine, general-purpose solution to this issue. F#'s core is compatible (cross-compiles) with OCaml, an ML dialect, and thus F# inherits this type from its ML ancestry.
But F# also needs to integrate with the CLR, and in the CLR, all references can be null. F# attempts to walk a somewhat fine line, in that you can define new class types in F#, and for those types, F# will behave ML-like (and not easily admit null as a value):
type MyClass() = class end
let mc : MyClass = null // does not compile
however the same type defined in a C# assembly will admit null as a proper value in F#. (And F# still allows a back-door:
let mc : MyClass = Unchecked.defaultof<_> // mc is null
to effectively get around the normal F# type system and access the CLR directly.)
This is all starting to sound complicated, but basically the F# system lets you pretty much program lots of F# in the 'ML' style, where you never need to worry about null/NullReferenceExceptions, because the type system prevents you from doing the wrong things here. But F# has to integrate nicely with .Net, so all types that originate from non-F# code (like 'string') still admit null values, and so when programming with those types you still have to program as defensively as you normally do on the CLR. With regards to null, effectively F# provides a haven where it is easy to do 'programming without null, the way God intended', but at the same time interoperate with the rest of .Net.
I haven't really answered your question, but if you follow my logic, then you would not ask the question (or would unask it, a la Joshu's MU from "Godel, Escher, Bach").
I think you could reclassify this as a more general question
What is the difference between option random ref type and just a random ref type
The difference is with an option, you are providing an explicit empty value case. It's a declarative way of saying "I might not provide a value". A option of value None unambiguously represents a lack of a value.
Often times people use null to represent a lack of a value. Unfortunately this is ambiguous to the casual reader because it's unknown if null represents a valid value or the lack of a value. Option removes this ambiguity.