Ok, Ok - I know this is a bad idea in general. Nevertheless in a very specific context - Within my test cases I just expect a certain result and anything else would be an error in any way. And doing pattern matching simply obscures my test code.
Here an example
type Result =
| Success of int * int
| Error of String
let someFunc x : Result = // implementation not important here
// and then later in my test code
[<Test>]
member me.``Some Cool Test Method``() =
let (Success x, y) = someFunc "Foo"
equals x 1
equals y 2
Any ideas on how to make that more pleasant and compiler friendly?
Why don't you just write the test like this?
[<Test>]
member me.``Some Cool Test Method``() =
let actual = someFunc "Foo"
let expected = Success(1, 2)
equals expected actual
This doesn't generate any warnings that you'll need to suppress.
You can disable the warning by inserting this line somewhere before the incomplete pattern-match:
#nowarn "0025"
I used this before also for some quick tests, most likely the scenario you describe.
The other option which is probably the one you refer by doing pattern matching is to catch-all other cases with the wildcard _ and throw an error:
[<Test>]
member me.``Some Cool Test Method``() =
match someFunc "Foo" with
| (Success x, y) ->
equals x 1
equals y 2
| _ -> failwith "unexpected value"
then the compiler will be happy and if you know it will never reach there you don't care to handle that error further because you know it will never be thrown.
Related
I have tried MSDN's example for the Seq.choose function (written below) in both a .fsx file and the interactive window for Visual Studio, but it repeatedly returns an error FS0001, stating that the "None" option is a PageExt type rather than the abstract option type 'a option.
I have searched in vain for an explanation of the PageExt type or why this could be returning an error when the None keyword should just represent the "no value" option in the match expression.
let numbers = seq {1..20}
let evens = Seq.choose(fun x ->
match x with
| x when x%2=0 -> Some(x)
| _ -> None ) numbers
printfn "numbers = %A\n" numbers
printfn "evens = %A" evens
;;
| _ -> None ) numbers
---------------------------------------^^^^
>
C:Path\stdin(38,40): error FS0001: This expression was expected to have type
'a option
but here has type
PageExt
Thanks for any help anyone can offer!
The PageExt type is likely something that you've pulled into your current FSI session previously which bound something to None, essentially blocking FSI from recognizing the normal option types.
In F#, you can reuse names, which "shadows" the original value. For example, in FSI, if you type:
let a = 1;;
let a = 2.3;;
a;;
You'll notice that it shows:
val a : int = 1
Then
val a : float = 2.3
Finally
val it : float = 2.3
This isn't changing the definition of a, but rather defining a new a name that shadows (or "hides") the original bound value.
In your case, you have a None name that's bound to something with a PageExt type that's shadowing Option.None, preventing it from being usable.
The easiest way to fix this is to reset your FSI session. Right click in the F# Interactive window, and choose "Reset iteractive session". If you do that, then run the code you pasted, it will work fine.
I thought that conversions between F# functions and System.Func had to be done manually, but there appears to be a case where the compiler (sometimes) does it for you. And when it goes wrong the error message isn't accurate:
module Foo =
let dict = new System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string, System.Func<obj,obj>>()
let f (x:obj) = x
do
// Question 1: why does this compile without explicit type conversion?
dict.["foo"] <- fun (x:obj) -> x
// Question 2: given that the above line compiles, why does this fail?
dict.["bar"] <- f
The last line fails to compile, and the error is:
This expression was expected to have type
System.Func<obj,obj>
but here has type
'a -> obj
Clearly the function f doesn't have a signature of 'a > obj. If the F# 3.1 compiler is happy with the first dictionary assignment, then why not the second?
The part of the spec that should explain this is 8.13.7 Type Directed Conversions at Member Invocations. In short, when invoking a member, an automatic conversion from an F# function to a delegate will be applied. Unfortunately, the spec is a bit unclear; from the wording it seems that this conversion might apply to any function expression, but in practice it only appears to apply to anonymous function expressions.
The spec is also a bit out of date; in F# 3.0 type directed conversions also enable a conversion to a System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<SomeDelegateType>.
EDIT
In looking at some past correspondence with the F# team, I think I've tracked down how a conversion could get applied to a non-syntactic function expression. I'll include it here for completeness, but it's a bit of a strange corner case, so for most purposes you should probably consider the rule to be that only syntactic functions will have the type directed conversion applied.
The exception is that overload resolution can result in converting an arbitrary expression of function type; this is partly explained by section 14.4 Method Application Resolution, although it's pretty dense and still not entirely clear. Basically, the argument expressions are only elaborated when there are multiple overloads; when there's just a single candidate method, the argument types are asserted against the unelaborated arguments (note: it's not obvious that this should actually matter in terms of whether the conversion is applicable, but it does matter empirically). Here's an example demonstrating this exception:
type T =
static member M(i:int) = "first overload"
static member M(f:System.Func<int,int>) = "second overload"
let f i = i + 1
T.M f |> printfn "%s"
EDIT: This answer explains only the mysterious promotion to 'a -> obj. #kvb points out that replacing obj with int in OPs example still doesn't work, so that promotion is in itself insufficient explanation for the observed behaviour.
To increase flexibility, the F# type elaborator may under certain conditions promote a named function from f : SomeType -> OtherType to f<'a where 'a :> SomeType> : 'a -> OtherType. This is to reduce the need for upcasts. (See spec. 14.4.2.)
Question 2 first:
dict["bar"] <- f (* Why does this fail? *)
Because f is a "named function", its type is promoted from f : obj -> obj following sec. 14.4.2 to the seemingly less restrictive f<'a where 'a :> obj> : 'a -> obj. But this type is incompatible with System.Func<obj, obj>.
Question 1:
dict["foo"] <- fun (x:obj) -> x (* Why doesn't this, then? *)
This is fine because the anonymous function is not named, and so sec. 14.4.2 does not apply. The type is never promoted from obj -> obj and so fits.
We can observe the interpreter exhibit behaviour following 14.4.2:
> let f = id : obj -> obj
val f : (obj -> obj) (* Ok, f has type obj -> obj *)
> f
val it : ('a -> obj) = <fun:it#135-31> (* f promoted when used. *)
(The interpreter doesn't output constraints to obj.)
The line before the else statement apparently was expecting a unit but got a boolean instead. I'm just starting out with F# but can't fathom this one.
I'm fighting the layout a bit as I've never used Stackoverflow before and the code box is still confusing me! The spacing in the original is indented, I believe, correctly.
let m = Dictionary<int, int>()
let rec fib i =
match i with
| 1 -> i
| 0 -> i
| _ ->
if m.ContainsKey(i) then
if m.[i] > 0 then
m.[i]
else
let x = fib(i - 1) + fib(i - 2)
m.Add(i, x)
m.[i]
If anyone can tell me how to keep the spacing in these posts I'd be grateful!
The last bit is slightly wrong - should be
if m.ContainsKey(i) then
if m.[i] > 0 then
m.[i]
else
let x = fib(i - 1) + fib(i - 2)
m.Add(i, x)
x
You are returning from within the if statement. You probably dont need the if m.[i] > 0 either. In this case you get
let m = Dictionary<int, int>()
let rec fib i =
match i with
| 1 -> i
| 0 -> i
| _ ->
if m.ContainsKey(i) then
m.[i]
else
let x = fib(i - 1) + fib(i - 2)
m.Add(i, x)
m.[i]
For formatting on Stackoverflow just paste the code in then highlight and press ctrl+k or hit the {} button to automatically put the section into code mode (code is indented four spaces past normal text)
Easy mistake to make if you're new to such kinds of languages. Keep in mind that F# is expression based, therefore an if-then-else clause is an expression that evaluates to something. In order for this to happen, the type checker requires all branches of an if expression to be of the same type, as with pattern matching. Moreover, if expressions missing a closing else branch are only valid if their branches are of type unit.
Keeping those things in mind, you can see that this snippet will not pass type checking on account of two reasons:
The nested if expression has branches that produce values of different types (namely int and unit) and
The outer if expression expects the inner one to have type unit.
Hope this helps :)
This active pattern compiles with F# 2.0:
let (|Value|_|) value = // 'a -> 'T option
match box value with
| :? 'T as x -> Some x
| _ -> None
but, in F# 3.0, emits the error:
Active pattern '|Value|_|' has a result type containing type variables that are not determined by the input. The common cause is a [sic] when a result case is not mentioned, e.g. 'let (|A|B|) (x:int) = A x'. This can be fixed with a type constraint, e.g. 'let (|A|B|) (x:int) : Choice = A x'
I tried:
let (|Value|_|) value : 'T option = ...
and:
let (|Value|_|) (value: 'U) = ...
How can it be fixed?
Environments: Visual Studio 2012 (RTM) and FSI v11.0.50727.1
EDIT: Here's a simpler repro:
let (|X|) x = unbox x
There was a bug in the F# 2.0 compiler where the compiler did incorrect analysis and bad code generation for certain Active Patterns with free type variables in the result; a simple repro is
let (|Check|) (a : int) = a, None
//let (|Check|) (a : int) = a, (None : int option)
let check a =
match a with
| Check (10, None) -> System.Console.WriteLine "10"
| Check (20, None) -> System.Console.WriteLine "20"
check 10
check 20
which generates a weird warning at compile-time and compiles into seemingly incorrect code. I am guessing that our attempt to fix this bug (and restrict some crazy cases) in F# 3.0 also broke some legal code as collateral damage of the fix.
I'll file another bug, but for F# 3.0, it sounds like you'll need to use one of the workarounds mentioned in other answers.
I did not install the new version yet, but I agree this looks a bit fishy. I guess there may be a good reason for this restriction, but your example in the other question seems quite compeling.
As a workaround, I think that adding a witness parameter (that is not used, but hints what the type of the result is going to be) could work:
let (|Value|_|) (witness:unit -> 'T) value : 'T option =
match box value with
| :? 'T as x -> Some x
| _ -> None
Of course, this makes the use a bit uglier, because you need to come up with some argument. In the above, I used witness of type unit -> 'T, hoping that the following might compile:
let witness () : 'T = failwith "!"
match box 1 with
| Value witness 1 -> printfn "one"
If that does not work, then you can probably try using witness parameter of type 'T (but then you have to provide an actual function, rather than just a generic function).
for the sake of completeness, one more workaround:
type Box<'R> = Box of obj
let (|Value|_|) ((Box x) : Box<'R> ) : 'R option =
match x with
| :? 'R as x -> Some x
| _ -> None
let check t =
match Box t with
| Value 1 -> printfn "one"
| Value 2 -> printfn "two"
check 1 // one
check 2 // two
however it still will suffer from the problem mentioned by #kvb in another thread. Personally I'll prefer #kvb's version with parameterized active pattern.
See my answer to your other question for some thoughts on how to work around the issue and one reason that such active patterns might be undesirable. I'm not sure whether the breaking change was intended.
I'm trying to learn F# by going through some of the Euler problems and I found an issue I haven't been able to figure out. This is my naive solution.
let compute =
let mutable f = false
let mutable nr = 0
while f = false do
nr <- nr + 20
f = checkMod nr
nr
When i do this I get the error message warning FS0020: This expression should have type 'unit', but has type 'bool' on the expression "nr <- nr +20". I've tried rewriting and moving the expressions around and I always get that error on the line below the while statement.
I'm writing this using VS2010 Beta.
Since I can imagine this weg page becoming the 'canonical' place to look up information about warning FS0020, here's my quick summary of the three commonest cases in which you get the warning, and how to fix them.
Intentionally discarding the result of a function that is called only for its side-effects:
// you are calling a function for its side-effects, intend to ignore result
let Example1Orig() =
let sb = new System.Text.StringBuilder()
sb.Append("hi") // warning FS0020
sb.Append(" there") // warning FS0020
sb.ToString()
let Example1Fixed() =
let sb = new System.Text.StringBuilder()
sb.Append("hi") |> ignore
sb.Append(" there") |> ignore
sb.ToString()
Warning is useful, pointing out an error (function has no effects):
// the warning is telling you useful info
// (e.g. function does not have an effect, rather returns a value)
let Example2Orig() =
let l = [1;2;3]
List.map (fun x -> x * 2) l // warning FS0020
printfn "doubled list is %A" l
let Example2Fixed() =
let l = [1;2;3]
let result = List.map (fun x -> x * 2) l
printfn "doubled list is %A" result
Confusing assignment operator and equality comparison operator:
// '=' versus '<-'
let Example3Orig() =
let mutable x = 3
x = x + 1 // warning FS0020
printfn "%d" x
let Example3Fixed() =
let mutable x = 3
x <- x + 1
printfn "%d" x
The following line:
f = checkMod nr
is an equality check, not an assignment as I believe you are intending. Change it to:
f <- checkMod nr
and all should work fine. I'm not sure why you've used the correct syntax on the previous line and not that line...
Also, the line while f = false do should really be simplified to while not f do; equality checks on booleans are rather convoluted.
As I side note, I feel a need to point out that you are effectively trying to use F# as an imperative language. Use of mutable variables and while loops are strongly discouraged in functional languages (including F#), especially when a purely functional (and simpler) solution exists, as in this situation. I recommend you read up a bit on programming in the functional style. Of course, just getting to grips with the syntax is a useful thing in itself.
If you're trying to adopt the functional style, try to avoid mutable values.
For example like this:
let nr =
let rec compute nr =
if checkMod nr then nr else compute (nr + 20)
compute 0
while expressions in F# take a little getting used to if you're coming from an imperative language. Each line in a while expression must evaluate to unit (think void from C++/C#). The overall expression then also evaluates to unit.
In the example:
nr <- nr + 20
evaluates to unit whereas
f = checkMod nr
evaluates to a bool as Noldorin noted. This results in a warning message being reported. You can actually turn the warning off if you so desire. Just put the following at the top of your file:
#nowarn "0020"
I've been programming in an imperative style for a long time, so getting used to the functional programming mindset took a while.
In your example, you're trying to find the first multiple of 20 that passes your checkMod test. That's the what part. For the functional how part, I recommend browsing through the methods available to sequences. What you need is the first element of a sequence (multiples of 20) passing your test, like this:
let multi20 = Seq.initInfinite (fun i -> i*20)
let compute = multi20 |> Seq.find checkMod
The first let generates an infinite list of twentyples (I made that one up). The second let finds the first number in said list that passes your test. Your task is to make sure that there actually is a number that will pass the test, but that's of course also true for the imperative code.
If you want to condense the two above lines into one, you can also write
let computeCryptic = Seq.initInfinite ((*) 20) |> Seq.find checkMod
but I find that pulling stunts like that in code can lead to headaches when trying to read it a few weeks later.
In the same spirit as Brian's post, here is another way to get warning FS0020: In a nutshell, I accidentally tupled the function arguments.
Being an F# newbie, I had a difficult time debugging the code below, which for the second line (let gdp...) gave the warning FS0020: This expression should have type 'unit', but has type '(string -> ^a -> unit) * string * float'. It turns out that line was not the problem at all; instead, it was the printfn line that was messed up. Removing the comma separators from the argument list fixed it.
for country in wb.Regions.``Arab World``.Countries do
let gdp = country.Indicators.``GDP per capita (current US$)``.[2010]
let gdpThous = gdp / 1.0e3
printfn "%s, %s (%.2f)" country.Name, country.CapitalCity, gdpThous