I've been programming in F# for some years and there's an "issue" that's been bothering me for some time and I have not been able to solve. It is not a bug, I think it is a design decision, but anyway, the problem is this: is there a way to delay (maybe that's not the correct word for this) the implementation of interfaces?, that is, not implementing them in the initial definition, but later, maybe in the same file after I have implemented a module for the type. I'll explain with a simplified example:
Suppose I have the following data structure:
type 'T MyCollection =
(*type definition*)
interface IEnumerable<'T> with
member this.GetEnumerator () =
(* I don't want to implement it here
because I still don't have the module
with a toSeq function *)
If I implemented the method right there, I would have to also implement all the functions as methods of the type and then the module would be just a "proxy" for calling the methods. This way I'm creating a OO-first data structure and then creating a module (overloaded with type annotations) to allow for a functional-first usage. I would prefer to write a functional-first data structure (cleaner since the type inference can work better) and then create a OO wrapper to allow a better intellisense support for languages like C#. That approach complies with what the design guidelines for F# tells us, but the interfaces can't be implemented anywhere but in the initial definition of the type. That restriction forces me to write the whole data structure with members.
I've been looking for examples and I've found that the list implementation in FSharp.Core list does exactly what I want, but I can't do that, the compiler won't let me.
I'm almost sure that this is a design decision, maybe to avoid encouraging bad practices, I don't know, but I don't consider my wish to be a bad practice. Also I'm well aware of the linear nature of the fsharp compiler.
Please if any of you know how to do what I want, I'll be glad if you tell me. Also, if any of you know why I should not follow this approach I'll be glad to know too. There must be a reason why this is not a problem for anyone else.
Thanks in advance.
I completely agree that this is unfortunate problem. The trick that is used in the source code of 'a list in the F# Core library is to define the implementation of the interface in a type augmentation. The compiler does not complain when you add members to a type in this way, but it says that adding implementation of an interface in this way is deprecated. However, it does not prevent you from doing this. The following compiles fine for me:
open System.Collections
open System.Collections.Generic
type MyCollection<'T> =
{ Data : 'T list }
interface IEnumerable<'T>
interface IEnumerable
let getEnumerator { Data = d } =
(d :> seq<_>).GetEnumerator()
type MyCollection<'T> with
interface IEnumerable<'T> with
member this.GetEnumerator() = getEnumerator this
interface IEnumerable with
member this.GetEnumerator() = (getEnumerator this) :> _
The fact that this is deprecated is a bit unfortunate. I quite like this style and I use it when it makes sense. You can start a discussion about this on F# user voice and perhaps it could be turned back into a normal accepted feature :-)
Related
(previously "using type provider from C#")
This should be easy to answer, and the underlying issue has be asked before, but I'm slightly confused about it, having dug into it, there's something I'm missing.
The Xml type provider in
https://fsharp.github.io/FSharp.Data/library/XmlProvider.html
is erased?
so the types in it can't be used from another assembly?
"Erasing Type Providers produce types that can only be consumed in the assembly or project they are generated from" (says the MS docs).
but if I define in one assembly this
module Xml
type Xml = FSharp.Data.XmlProvider<"""
<note>
<to>Tove</to>
<from>Jani</from>
<heading>Reminder</heading>
<body>Don't forget me this weekend!</body>
</note>""">
let foo () = Xml.Parse ("")
and in another assembly, reference the above assembly and go...
let x = Xml.foo ()
let s = x.From
this compiles...so if the MS docs are correct, the provider must be generative?
if I implement the same code in C#,
var x = Xml.foo();
var y = x.From;
then this code doesnt compiler
'XmlElement' does not contain a definition for 'From' and no accessible extension method 'From' accepting a first argument of type 'XmlElement'
which seems to imply its erased...or I need to do something else (I've included the same dependencies).
My hunch is its erased, but then how does the F# assembly compile?
(I want it to be generative to use from C# and VB).
As far as I can tell by looking at the source code, all the types provided by FSharp.Data are erased.
The XmlProvider type is defined by this line at https://github.com/fsharp/FSharp.Data/blob/master/src/Xml/XmlProvider.fs#L26
let xmlProvTy = ProvidedTypeDefinition(asm, ns, "XmlProvider", None, hideObjectMethods=true, nonNullable=true)
As you can see, the instantiation of the ProvidedTypeDefinition type does not include isErased=false.
The ProvidedTypeDefinition type has two constructors. See the signatures at https://github.com/fsprojects/FSharp.TypeProviders.SDK/blob/master/src/ProvidedTypes.fsi#L268-L275
Both constructors have an implementation including this line, which means that the provide type is erased by default:
let isErased = defaultArg isErased true
Without redesigning the XmlProvider, the only way you can consume it from C# is to wrap it in an F# class that exposes C#-friendly types. Not sure if that would result in a better design than just avoiding the type provider altogether.
Assuming by "erased" you mean being removed from the FSharp.Data Library? then XMLProvider its probably not removed from it because I just tried your code and it works in F# project (as you have also noticed).
Now about the C# project the thing is TypeProviders are a Fsharp specific thing, whatever magic F# compiler is doing to type check xml and access the From xml-node here is probably only exclusive to F#.
The type of you variable x here is FSharp.Data.Runtime.BaseTypes.XmlElement, looking at the documentation here and the source code here.
There doesn't seem to be any way of accessing the xml nodes in an OOP way. Its probably not meant to be accessed that way either. If you want to parse xml and read its nodes in C# there are plenty of other ways for that. One being XmlReader in System.Xml
Is there a better way of modeling data in F# to avoid needing it?
The protected modifier can be quite problematic in F#, because you often need to call members from a lambda expression. However, when you do that, you no longer access the method from within the class. This also causes confusion when using protected members declared in C# (see for example this SO question). If you could declare a protected member, the following code could be surprising:
type Base() =
protected member x.Test(a) = a > 10
type Inherited() =
inherit Base()
member x.Filter(list) =
list |> List.filter (fun a -> x.Test(a))
This code wouldn't work, because you're calling Test from a lambda function (which is a different object than the current instance of Test), so the code wouldn't work. I think this is tha main reason for not supporting the protected modifier in F#.
In F# you typically use implementation inheritance (that is, inheriting from a base class) much less frequently than in C#, so you shouldn't need protected as often. Instead, it is usually preferred to use interfaces (in the object-oriented F# code) and higher-order functions (in the functional code). However, it is difficult to say how to avoid the need for protected in general (other than by avoiding implementation inheritance). Do you have some specific example which motivated your question?
As to whether F# enables a better way of modeling data, signature files allow finer grained visibility decisions than internal does in C#, which is often very nice. See Brian's comment here for a little bit more explanation. This is independent of support (or lack thereof) for protected, though.
I've not been able to find a robust, general op_Dynamic implementation: can anyone point me to one? So far searches have only turned up toys or specific purpose implementations, but I'd like to have one on hand which, say, compares in robustness to C#'s default static dynamic implementation (i.e. handle lots / all cases, cache reflection calls) (it's been a while since I've looked at C#'s static dynamic, so forgive me if my assertions about it's abilities are false).
Thanks!
There is a module FSharp.Interop.Dynamic, on nuget that should robustly handle the dynamic operator using the dlr.
It has several advantages over a lot of the snippets out there.
Performance it uses Dynamitey for the dlr call which implements caching and is a .NET Standard Library
Handles methods that return void, you'll get a binding exception if you don't discard results of those.
The dlr handles the case of calling a delegate return by a function automatically, this will also allow you to do the same with an FSharpFunc
Adds an !? prefix operator to handle invoking directly dynamic objects and functions you don't have the type at runtime.
It's open source, Apache license, you can look at the implementation and it includes unit test example cases.
You can never get fully general implementation of the ? operator. The operator can be implemented differently for various types where it may need to do something special depending on the type:
For Dictionary<T, R>, you'd want it to use the lookup function of the dictionary
For the SQL objects in my article you referenced, you want it to use specific SQL API
For unknown .NET objects, you want it to use .NET Reflection
If you're looking for an implementation that uses Reflection, then you can use one I implemented in F# binding for MonoDevelop (available on GitHub). It is reasonably complete and handles property access, method calls as well as static members. (The rest of the linked file uses it heavily to call internal members of F# compiler). It uses Reflection directly, so it is quite slow, but it is quite feature-complete.
Another alternative would be to implement the operator on top of .NET 4.0 Dynamic Language Runtime (so that it would use the same underlying API as dynamic in C# 4). I don't think there is an implementation of this somewhere out there, but here is a simple example how you can get it:
#r "Microsoft.CSharp.dll"
open System
open System.Runtime.CompilerServices
open Microsoft.CSharp.RuntimeBinder
let (?) (inst:obj) name (arg:'T) : 'R =
// Create site (representing dynamic operation for converting result to 'R
let convertSite =
CallSite<Func<CallSite, Object, 'R>>.Create //'
(Binder.Convert(CSharpBinderFlags.None, typeof<'R>, null)) //'
// Create site for the method call with single argument of type 'T
let callSite =
CallSite<Func<CallSite, Object, 'T, Object>>.Create //'
(Binder.InvokeMember
( CSharpBinderFlags.None, name, null, null,
[| CSharpArgumentInfo.Create(CSharpArgumentInfoFlags.None, null);
CSharpArgumentInfo.Create(CSharpArgumentInfoFlags.None, null) |]))
// Run the method and perform conversion
convertSite.Target.Invoke
(convertSite, callSite.Target.Invoke(callSite, inst, arg))
let o = box (new Random())
let a : int = o?Next(10)
This works only for instance method calls with single argument (You can find out how to do this by looking at code generated by C# compiler for dynamic invocations). I guess if you mixed the completeness (from the first one) with the approach to use DLR (in the second one), you'd get the most robust implementation you can get.
EDIT: I also posted the code to F# Snippets. Here is the version using DLR: http://fssnip.net/2U and here is the version from F# plugin (using .NET Reflection): http://fssnip.net/2V
For recursion in F#, existing documentation is clear about how to do it in the special case where it's just one function calling itself, or a group of physically adjacent functions calling each other.
But in the general case where a group of functions in different modules need to call each other, how do you do it?
I don't think there is a way to achieve this in F#. It is usually possible to structure the application in a way that doesn't require this, so perhaps if you described your scenario, you may get some useful comments.
Anyway, there are various ways to workaround the issue - you can declare a record or an interface to hold the functions that you need to export from the module. Interfaces allow you to export polymorphic functions too, so they are probably a better choice:
// Before the declaration of modules
type Module1Funcs =
abstract Foo : int -> int
type Module2Funcs =
abstract Bar : int -> int
The modules can then export a value that implements one of the interfaces and functions that require the other module can take it as an argument (or you can store it in a mutable value).
module Module1 =
// Import functions from Module2 (needs to be initialized before using!)
let mutable module2 = Unchecked.defaultof<Module2Funcs>
// Sample function that references Module2
let foo a = module2.Bar(a)
// Export functions of the module
let impl =
{ new Module1Funcs with
member x.Foo(a) = foo a }
// Somewhere in the main function
Module1.module2 <- Module2.impl
Module2.module1 <- Module1.impl
The initializationcould be also done automatically using Reflection, but that's a bit ugly, however if you really need it frequently, I could imagine developing some reusable library for this.
In many cases, this feels a bit ugly and restructuring the application to avoid recursive references is a better approach (in fact, I find recursive references between classes in object-oriented programming often quite confusing). However, if you really need something like this, then exporting functions using interfaces/records is probably the only option.
This is not supported. One evidence is that, in visual stuido, you need to order the project files correctly for F#.
It would be really rare to recursively call two functions in two different modules.
If this case does happen, you'd better factor the common part of the two functions out.
I don't think that there's any way for functions in different modules to directly refer to functions in other modules. Is there a reason that functions whose behavior is so tightly intertwined need to be in separate modules?
If you need to keep them separated, one possible workaround is to make your functions higher order so that they take a parameter representing the recursive call, so that you can manually "tie the knot" later.
If you were talking about C#, and methods in two different assemblies needed to mutually recursively call each other, I'd pull out the type signatures they both needed to know into a third, shared, assembly. I don't know however how well those concepts map to F#.
Definetely solution here would use module signatures. A signature file contains information about the public signatures of a set of F# program elements, such as types, namespaces, and modules.
For each F# code file, you can have a signature file, which is a file that has the same name as the code file but with the extension .fsi instead of .fs.
Is there a better way of modeling data in F# to avoid needing it?
The protected modifier can be quite problematic in F#, because you often need to call members from a lambda expression. However, when you do that, you no longer access the method from within the class. This also causes confusion when using protected members declared in C# (see for example this SO question). If you could declare a protected member, the following code could be surprising:
type Base() =
protected member x.Test(a) = a > 10
type Inherited() =
inherit Base()
member x.Filter(list) =
list |> List.filter (fun a -> x.Test(a))
This code wouldn't work, because you're calling Test from a lambda function (which is a different object than the current instance of Test), so the code wouldn't work. I think this is tha main reason for not supporting the protected modifier in F#.
In F# you typically use implementation inheritance (that is, inheriting from a base class) much less frequently than in C#, so you shouldn't need protected as often. Instead, it is usually preferred to use interfaces (in the object-oriented F# code) and higher-order functions (in the functional code). However, it is difficult to say how to avoid the need for protected in general (other than by avoiding implementation inheritance). Do you have some specific example which motivated your question?
As to whether F# enables a better way of modeling data, signature files allow finer grained visibility decisions than internal does in C#, which is often very nice. See Brian's comment here for a little bit more explanation. This is independent of support (or lack thereof) for protected, though.