I'm using an active pattern to parse usage events in a csv formatted usage log. The active pattern part is listed below. Parsing the whole file in works well and the sequence that is produced is filled with all sorts of UsageEvents.
type SystemName = string
type SystemVersion = string
type MAC = string
type Category = string
type Game = string
type Setting = string
type StartupLocation = string
type UsageEvent =
| SystemStart of DateTime * SystemVersion * SystemName * MAC
| SystemEnd of DateTime
| GameStart of DateTime * Category * Game * Setting * StartupLocation
| GameEnd of DateTime * Category * Game
| Other
let (|SystemStart|SystemEnd|GameStart|GameEnd|Other|) (input : string list) =
match List.nth input 0 with
| "SystemStartedEvent" ->
SystemStart (DateTime.Parse (List.nth input 1), List.nth input 2, List.nth input 3, List.nth input 4)
| "SystemEndedEvent" ->
SystemEnd (DateTime.Parse (List.nth input 1))
| "GameStartedEvent" ->
GameStart (DateTime.Parse (List.nth input 1), List.nth input 2, List.nth input 3, List.nth input 4, List.nth input 5)
| "GameEndedEvent" ->
GameEnd (DateTime.Parse (List.nth input 1), List.nth input 2, List.nth input 3)
| _ ->
Other
The problem I have is that I'm probably using the ActivePattern in the wrong way. I'd like to walk the list to create a tree out of it based on some logic, but I have no way to match an entry in the sequence after parsing.
let CountSystemStart (entries : UsageEvent list) =
let rec loop sum = function
| SystemStart(_,_,_,_) -> sum + 1
| _ -> sum
loop 0 entries
This matching does not work because the loop function required a string list. In what other way could I use the data contained in the unions or should I match the input and then store it in a regular type?
To add to #Petr's answer - UsageEvent cases and your active pattern cases have the same names, so the active pattern which is defined later shadows the union type. That's where the string list thing comes from, most likely.
I would just drop the active pattern altogether, and add a Parse function (or rather a ParseParts, since you want to feed it a list of strings) to the UsageEvent.
type UsageEvent =
| SystemStart of DateTime * SystemVersion * SystemName * MAC
| (...and so on...)
static member ParseParts (input: string list) =
match input with
| ["SystemStartedEvent"; date; version; name; mac] ->
SystemStart (DateTime.Parse date, version, name, mac)
| (...and so on...)
Active patterns are cute, but you really need a good scenario for them to shine. Otherwise if you can get away with using a plain function, just use a plain function.
There are 2 problems with this code:
Discriminated union UsageEvent and active pattern choice functions have the same names
recursive loop function is not recursive as it is written - it doesn't call itself.
When you are matching on UsageEvent list try use full type name.
I would rewrite your CountSystemStart function as:
let CountSystemStart (entries : UsageEvent list) =
let rec loop sum = function
| [] -> sum
| (UsageEvent.SystemStart(_))::rest -> loop (sum + 1) rest
| _::rest -> loop sum rest
loop 0 entries
Related
I'm de-serializing some mappings from JSON and later on I need to pattern match based on a string field of the de-serialized types like this:
let mappings = getWorkItemMappings
let result =
workItemMappings
|> Seq.find (fun (m: WorkItemMapping) -> m.Uuid = workTime.workItemUuid)
match mapping.Name with
Even if I complete the pattern match for all cases I still get Incomplete pattern matches on this expression.. Which is obvious to me due to the string type of the Name field.
Is there a way tell the compiler which values for the Name field are available?.
I think I could create a union type for the possible mapping types and try to de-serialize the JSON to this union type but I would like to if there's another option.
If you are pattern matching on a string value, the compiler has no static guarantee that it will only have certain values, because it is always possible to construct a string of a different value. The fact that it comes from JSON does not help - you may always have an invalid JSON.
The best option is to add a default case which throws a custom descriptive exception. Either one that you handle somewhere else (to indicate that the JSON file was invalid) or (if you check the validity elsewhere) something like this:
let parseFood f =
match f with
| "burger" -> 1
| "pizza" -> 2
| _ -> raise(invalidArg "f" $"Expected burger or pizza but got {f}")
Note that the F# compiler is very cautious. It does not even let you handle enum values using pattern matching, because under the cover, there are ways of creating invalid enum values! For example:
type Foo =
| A = 1
let f (a:Foo) =
match a with
| Foo.A -> 0
warning FS0104: Enums may take values outside known cases. For example, the value 'enum (0)' may indicate a case not covered by the pattern(s).
Very hard to understand what you're asking. Maybe this snippet can be of help. It demos how literal string constants can be used in pattern matching, and reused in functions. This gives some added safety and readability when adding and removing cases. If you prefer not to serialize a DU directly, then perhaps this is useful as part of the solution.
type MyDu =
| A
| B
| C
let [<Literal>] A' = "A"
let [<Literal>] B' = "B"
let [<Literal>] C' = "C"
let strToMyDuOption (s: string) =
match s with
| A' -> Some A
| B' -> Some B
| C'-> Some C
| _ -> None
let strToMyDu (s: string) =
match s with
| A' -> A
| B' -> B
| C'-> C
| s -> failwith $"MyDu case {s} is unknown."
let myDuToStr (x: MyDu) =
match x with
| A -> A'
| B -> B'
| C -> C'
// LINQPad
let dump x = x.Dump()
strToMyDuOption A' |> dump
strToMyDuOption "x" |> dump
myDuToStr A |> dump
For a class I'm following, I have to do the following exercise:
Implement a function
let splitAt (i : int) (l : List<'a>) : List<'a> * List<'a> = ...
that splits the list into two lists, the rst one containing all the elements of l from position 0 to position i
included, and the second one containing all the remaining elements. The two resulting lists are returned
in a tuple. For example:
split 3 [3;5;4;-1;2;2] = ([3;5;4;-1],[2;2])
We have to do these problems only using functional programming, and thus I'm not allowed to use pre-existing functions.
I have the following code which seems to me to (logically) be correct:
let splitAt (i:int)(l: List<'a>): List<'a> * List<'a> =
let rec loop n startlist restlist =
if n = i then
restlist * startlist
else
match startlist with
| h :: t -> loop (n+1) [t] [(restlist :: h)]
| h :: [] -> None
loop 0 l []
and below my [<EntryPoint>]
printfn "%A" (splitAt stringlist 3)
However, this gives me a couple of errors, namely:
None of the types 'a list, 'a list support the operator *
This expression was expected to have type int but here has type char list
This expression was expected to have type List<'a> but here has type int
The * operator is used for declaring a tuple type, but when you're building a tuple you use , instead. So you want restlist, startlist.
Then you'll discover that there's another type error, because one branch of your match expression returns None. That's an option type, so the value you return should be a Some. So you want Some (restlist, startlist).
And now you'll discover one more type error, which is that you've declared that the function returns a tuple but in fact it returns a tuple option (that is, either None or Some tuple). So your type declaration needs to become (List<'a> * List<'a>) option.
For more on why * is used in declaring tuple types rather than ,, https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/tuples/ is a good read.
I am having trouble with accessing a value from another function in f sharp. Below is my code, I am taking the user input a student name and 3 exam scores and calculating their averages and saving that in the variable "let average" of the InputStudents function. Now I am trying to access that value in another function PringtAverages as shown below, but it would not compile. I need help to fix this issue. Appreciate if you can help. Thank you.
let rec InputStudents students =
let line = System.Console.ReadLine()
match line with
| "#" -> (List.rev students)
| _ ->
let data = line.Split ' '
//Getting the student name at data.[0], and getting the 3 exam
//scores in data.[1]..[3].
let student = (data.[0], [int(data.[1]); int(data.[2]); int(data.[3])])
//calculating the average by for the 3 exam scores
let average = (data.[0], [(float(data.[1]) + float(data.[2]) + float(data.[3]))/3.0])
InputStudents (student:: students)
//Function below I am trying to get the above-calculated averages and print
let rec PrintAverages L =
match L with
| [] -> ()
| e::rest ->
let avg = InputStudents[]
printfn "%A: %A" "netid" avg.average //Here I am trying to print
//the average calculated in the function
//InputStudents[] above
PrintAverages rest
That is not possible.
You cannot access internal calculations from another function. What you need to do is return the values that you need to use outside.
In your case your function InputStudents has the following signature:
(string * int list) list -> (string * int list) list
Which means it returns a list with each student name and notes. The average is calculated but then is lost, because it is not used anywhere. If you want to be able to print it in another function you need to include it as part of the return value:
...
let name = data.[0]
let scores = [float data.[1]
float data.[2]
float data.[3] ]
//calculating the average by for the 3 exam scores
let average = List.average scores
InputStudents ((name, scores, average) :: students)
now the signature is this:
(string * float list * float) list -> (string * float list * float) list
indicating it returns a tuple for each student that includes name, notes and average.
Now lets address the PrintAverages function.
The function has a problem: it calls InputStudents and it calls itself recursively. What you want to do is call first InputStudents and then pass the result to PrintAverages:
InputStudents [] |> PrintAverages
Also in your match statement you can unpack the tuple that you are receiving. Right now you have e::rest which gives you one element and the rest of the list. That element would be of type string * float list * float which you can unpack like this:
let name, notes, average = e
or directly in the match statement:
match L with
| [] -> ()
| (name, notes, average) :: rest ->
I am working on a function that pattern matches some of my user-defined types in f# and converts them to strings. Part of the code looks like the following:
let gsToString (gs : general_structure) : string =
match gs with
| Date(Scattered(Eom(Ascending))) -> "Date(Scattered(Eom(Ascending)))"
| Date(Scattered(Eom(SameDate(dt)))) -> "Date(Scattered(Eom(SameDate(" + dt.ToString() + "))))"
| Number(AllNegative(Int1(Neither))) -> "Number(AllNegative(Int1(Neither)))"
| Number(AllNegative(Int1(SameInt(si)))) -> "Number(AllNegative(Int1(SameFloat(" + si.ToString() + "))))"
There are many other types being matched in this function, but these should be enough to convey the issue. Additionally, the types causing problems are:
| SameDate of System.DateTime
| SameFloat of float
Obviously, It is pretty trivial to do the first pattern matching function that converts my general_structure types to strings. However, a problem arises in my next function (which needs to be called later on in the code), where I need to reconvert the string representation back to a general_structure. The problem areas look like the following:
let stringToGS (str : string) : general_structure =
match str with
| "Date(Scattered(Eom(Ascending)))" -> Date(Scattered(Eom(Ascending)))
| "Date(Scattered(Eom(SameDate(dt))))"-> Date(Scattered(Eom(SameDate(System.DateTime.Parse dt))))
| "Number(AllNegative(Int1(Neither)))" -> Number(AllNegative(Int1(Neither)))
| "Number(AllPositive(Float1(SameFloat(sf))))" -> Number(AllPositive(Float1(SameFloat((float) sf))))
Although the first and the third cases in the stringToGS function work just fine, I am unable to find a way to convert the others back to their original form. If there any way to take a string inside of a pattern matching statement (in this case it would be dt and fs) and somehow parse only that portion of the pattern in order to return a different value (in this case I am trying to make them System.DateTimes and Floats, respectively) and return then to their original forms of:
Date(Scattered(Eom(SameDate(dt))))
Number(AllPositive(Float1(SameFloat(sf))))
? I would appreciate any help.
EDIT:
I was able to resolve the problem by doing something like the following with if statements for the cases that were causing problems:
if str.Contains("Scattered(Eom(SameDate")
then
let p1 = str.IndexOf(")")
let p2 = str.LastIndexOf("(")
let dt1 = str.Remove(p1)
let dt2 = dt1.Substring(p2 + 1)
let date = System.DateTime.Parse dt2
Date(Scattered(Eom(SameDate(date))))
Then, I could just do the normal pattern matching on all of the types that did not contain nested data.
You could also use active patterns, if there is a limited amount of classes and you don't want to use a serialization library:
open System
let (|RegexMatch|_|) pattern input =
let matches = System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.Matches(input, pattern)
if matches.Count = 1 then Some matches.[0].Groups.[1].Value
else None
type GeneralStructure =
| NoPayload
| DatePayload of DateTime
| StringPayload of string option
let toString = function
| NoPayload -> "NoPayload"
| DatePayload dt -> sprintf "DatePayload(%d)" <| dt.ToBinary()
| StringPayload None -> "StringPayload(None)"
| StringPayload (Some s) -> sprintf "StringPayload(Some(%s))" s
let fromString = function
| "NoPayload" -> NoPayload
| "StringPayload(None)" -> StringPayload None
| RegexMatch #"DatePayload\((.*)\)" dt -> DatePayload <| DateTime.FromBinary(Int64.Parse dt)
| RegexMatch #"StringPayload\(Some\((.*)\)\)" msg -> StringPayload <| Some msg
| o -> failwithf "Unknown %s %s" typeof<GeneralStructure>.Name o
let serialized = StringPayload <| Some "Foo" |> toString
let deserialized = fromString serialized
let serialized' = DatePayload DateTime.UtcNow |> toString
let deserialized' = fromString serialized'
// val serialized : string = "StringPayload(Some(Foo))"
// val deserialized : GeneralStructure = StringPayload (Some "Foo")
// val serialized' : string = "DatePayload(5247430828937321388)"
// val deserialized' : GeneralStructure = DatePayload 06.08.2015 18:04:10
Note that the regex is not foolproof, I made that up just to fit these cases.
When using union types with quite a few constructors I almost always find myself implementing lots of logic in single function, i.e. handling all cases in one function. Sometimes I would like to extract logic for single case to separate function, but one cannot have a function accepting only one "constructor" as parameter.
Example:
Assume that we have typical "expression" type :
type Formula =
| Operator of OperatorKind * Formula * Formula
| Number of double
| Function of string * Formula list
[...]
Then, we would like to calculate expression :
let rec calculate efValues formula =
match formula with
| Number n -> [...]
| Operator (kind, lFormula, rFormula) -> [...]
| [...]
Such function would be very long and growing with every new Formula constructor.
How can I avoid that and clean up such code? Are long pattern matching constructs inevitable?
You can define the Operator case of the Formula union using an explicit tuple:
type Formula =
| Operator of (string * Formula * Formula)
| Number of double
If you do this, the compiler will let you pattern match using both Operator(name, left, right) and using a single argument Operator args, so you can write something like:
let evalOp (name, l, r) = 0.0
let eval f =
match f with
| Number n -> 0.0
| Operator args -> evalOp args
I would find this a bit confusing, so it might be better to be more explicit in the type definition and use a named tuple (which is equivalent to the above):
type OperatorInfo = string * Formula * Formula
and Formula =
| Operator of OperatorInfo
| Number of double
Or perhaps be even more explicit and use a record:
type OperatorInfo =
{ Name : string
Left : Formula
Right : Formula }
and Formula =
| Operator of OperatorInfo
| Number of double
Then you can pattern match using one of the following:
| Operator args -> (...)
| Operator { Name = n; Left = l; Right = r } -> (...)
I would say you typically want to handle all the cases in a single function. That's the main selling point of unions - they force you to handle all the cases in one way or another. That said, I can see where you're coming from.
If I had a big union and only cared about a single case, I would handle it like this, wrapping the result in an option:
let doSomethingForOneCase (form: Formula) =
match form with
| Formula (op, l, r) ->
let result = (...)
Some result
| _ -> None
And then handle None in whatever way is appropriate at the call site.
Note that this is in line with the signature required by partial active patterns, so if you decide that you need to use this function as a case in another match expression, you can easily wrap it up in an active pattern to get the nice syntax.