F#: Creating a collection of integers from user input - f#

I'm rather new to F# so the question may be fairly elementary. Still, I couldn't find any suggestion on SO.
I'm playing with an algorithmic task in F#. As a first step I want to create a collection of integers from user console input. The number of inputs is not defined. And I don't wont to use any while loops. I would prefer as much idiomatic approach as possible.
In a recursive function I'm reading the result and parsing it with Int32.TryParse. I match the bool result using match ... with. If successful then I attach a new value to a collection. Otherwise I return the collection.
Below is my code:
let rec getNumList listSoFar =
let ok, num = Int32.TryParse(Console.ReadLine())
match ok with
| false -> listSoFar
| true -> getNumList num::listSoFar
let l = getNumList []
And the error I get:
Type mismatch. Expecting a
'a
but given a
'a list
I'm aware I'm using types incorrectly, though I don't understand what exactly is wrong. Any explanation highly appreciated.

In the match branch
| true -> getNumList num::listSoFar
You should use parenthesis:
| true -> getNumList (num::listSoFar)
Because function application has higher priority than the :: operator

Related

Is there a name for this pattern "type 'a foldedSequence = Empty | Value of 'a * (unit->'a foldedSequence )"

I have been working with some f# parsers and some streaming software and I find myself using this pattern more and more. I find it to be a natural alternative to sequences and it has some natural advantages.
here are some example functions using the type.
type foldedSequence<'a> =
| Empty
| Value of ' a * (unit -> 'a foldedSequence)
let rec createFoldedSequence fn state =
match fn state with
| None -> Empty
| Some(value, nextState) ->
Value(value, (fun () -> unfold fn nextState))
let rec filter predicate =
function
| Empty -> Empty
| Value(value, nextValue) ->
let next() = filter predicate(nextValue())
if predicate value then Value(value, next)
else next()
let toSeq<'t> =
Seq.unfold<'t foldedSequence, 't>(function
| Empty -> None
| Value(value, nextValue) -> Some(value, nextValue()))
It has been very helpful I would like to know if it has a name so I can research some tips and tricks for it
To add to the existing answers, I think Haskellers might call a generalised version of this this a list monad transformer. The idea is that your type definition looks almost like ordinary F# list except that there is some additional aspect to it. You can imagine writing this as:
type ListTransformer<'T> =
| Empty
| Value of 'T * M<ListTransformer<'T>>
By supplying specific M, you can define a number of things:
M<'T> = 'T gives you the ordinary F# list type
M<'T> = unit -> 'T gives you your sequence that can be evaluated lazily
M<'T> = Lazy<'T> gives you LazyList (which caches already evaluated elements)
M<'T> = Async<'T> gives you asynchronous sequences
It is also worth noting that in this definition LazyTransformer<'T> is not itself a delayed/lazy/async value. This can cause problems in some cases - e.g. when you need to perform some async operation to decide whether the stream is empty - and so a better definition is:
type ListTransformer<'T> = M<ListTransformerInner<'T>>
and ListTransformerInner<'T> =
| Empty
| Value of 'T * ListTransformer<'T>
This sounds like LazyList which used to be in the "powerpack" and I think now lives here:
http://fsprojects.github.io/FSharpx.Collections/reference/fsharpx-collections-lazylist-1.html
https://github.com/fsprojects/FSharpx.Collections/blob/master/src/FSharpx.Collections/LazyList.fs
Your type is close to how an iteratee would be defined, and since you already mention streaming, this might be the concept you're looking for.
Iteratee IO is an approach to lazy IO outlined by Oleg Kiselyov. Apart from Haskell, implementations exist for major functional languages, including F# (as part of FSharpx.Extras).
This is how FSharpx defines an Iteratee:
type Iteratee<'Chunk,'T> =
| Done of 'T * Stream<'Chunk>
| Error of exn
| Continue of (Stream<'Chunk> -> Iteratee<'Chunk,'T>)
See also this blog post: Iteratee in F# - part 1. Note that there doesn't seem to be a part 2.

Why am I forced to return a typed value for None?

Why am I forced to return a typed value for None?
let getHand = function
| Some(card1, card2) -> card1, card2
| None -> // ?
In my case, I want to deal a hand. But it doesn't make sense for me to still deal a hand if no hand exists via Options.
What am I not considering?
What pattern should I be using?
Specifically, if no hand exists, then I want to grab a full deck.
Why would a method yield a complex typed result if no result exists?
| None -> // Why am I still required to yield a typed result
All values in F# have types. Functions do as well.
The getHand function looks like it takes as input an option value. Since an option value is a Discriminated Union, the function must address both cases of possible input. The compiler and the type system helps you do that.
A part of a function's type is its return value. In F#, a function can only have a single return type (this is also true for C#). Thus, you'll need to address both the Some and the None case, and make the function return the same type in both cases. Sometimes, though, that 'same type' can be another Discriminated Union.
From the wording of your question, it sounds like you want to return some cards in both cases, so perhaps return a list of cards:
let getHand = function
| Some(card1, card2) -> [card1; card2]
| None -> []
Here, I've returned an empty list in the None case, but if you wish, you can instead populate the return value with a default list.
An alternative solution to Mark Seemann's answer is to return option as well. You could write (changed because your own function would become trivial):
let getFirstCard = function
| Some (card1, card2) -> Some card1
| None -> None
or better Option.map (fun (card1, card2) -> card1).
The final (and generally bad) solution is to throw an exception on None using Option.get.

Optionally taking the first item in a sequence

I need a function like Seq.head, but returning None instead of throwing an exception when the sequence is empty, i.e., seq<'T> -> 'T option.
There are a jillion ways to do this. Here are several:
let items = Seq.init 10 id
let a = Seq.tryFind (fun _ -> true) items
let b = Seq.tryPick Some items
let c = if Seq.isEmpty items then None else Some (Seq.head items)
let d =
use e = items.GetEnumerator()
if e.MoveNext() then Some e.Current
else None
b is the one I use. Two questions:
Is there a particularly idiomatic way to do this?
Since there's no built-in Seq.tryHead function, does that indicate this shouldn't be necessary, is uncommon, or is better implemented without a function?
UPDATE
tryHead has been added to the standard library in F# 4.0.
I think (b) is probably the most idiomatic, for the same reason #Ramon gave.
I think the lack of Seq.tryHead just means that it is not super common.
I'm not sure, but my guess is that functional languages with Hindley-Milner type inference in general are sparse about implementing such specific functions on collection types because overloading isn't available and composing higher-order functions can be done tersely.
For example, C# Linq extensions are much more exhaustive than functions in F#'s Seq module (which itself is more exhaustive than functions on concrete collection types), and even has IEnumerable.FirstOrDefault. Practically every overload has a variation which performs a map.
I think emphasis on pattern matching and concrete types like list is also a reason.
Now, most of the above is speculation, but I think I may have a notion closer to being objective. I think a lot of the time tryPick and tryFind can be used in the first place instead of filter |> tryHead. For example, I find myself writing code like the following fairly frequently:
open System.Reflection
let ty = typeof<System.String> //suppose this type is actually unknown at compile time
seq {
for name in ["a";"b";"c"] do
yield ty.GetMethod(name)
} |> Seq.tryFind((<>)null)
instead of like
...
seq {
for name in ["a";"b";"c"] do
match ty.GetMethod(name) with
| null -> ()
| mi -> yield mi
} |> tryHead
You could define:
let seqTryHead s = Seq.tryPick Some s
It is of type seq<'a> -> 'a option. Note that I don't beta-reduce because of the generic value limitation.

having trouble using F# functions

I am new to F# and trying to learn how to use recursive function in F#. I am trying to play around with creating my own function and am having trouble getting it to work. What I have managed to do so far is get 10 random numbers and print them out. Both of those pieces of code I found online. I want to use the sort function(eventually it will be a sort function, but I am not asking for that) and am having trouble getting it to work. I put a // by where I think I am having trouble. I am not sure what this function will do, but as I wrote before I am just trying to play around with it
let randomNumberList count =
let rnd = System.Random()
List.init count (fun numbers -> rnd.Next (1, 1000))
let rec printList listx =
match listx with
| head :: tail -> printf "%d " head; printList tail
| [] -> printfn ""
let nonSortedList = randomNumberList 10
printList nonSortedList
let rec sort list =
match list with
| head :: tail -> sort tail
| [] -> 0
sort nonSortedList//I want to send the norSorted list into the sort function
printList nonSortedList//print out results after putting it into the sort function
You aren't assigning the results of sort to anything.
As F# is (largely) a functional language, it strongly encourages you to use immutable data structures. That means your data never changes, it is just passed to functions which use the data to create new representations of that data.
So your sort function is not changing the order of the list, rather it should return a new list that represents the ordered representation of the passed in list.
As F# expects this behaviour, if you don't do anything with the results F# is clever enough to know that you are probably doing something stupid.
So you should go :
let orderedList = sort nonSortedList
printList orderedList
If you really want to ignore the results - which sometimes you do, if your method has side effects and you are just calling it for its side effects - you can pass the results to ignore
sort nonSortedList |> ignore

Using a variable in pattern matching in Ocaml or F#

I have a function of the form
'a -> ('a * int) list -> int
let rec getValue identifier bindings =
match bindings with
| (identifier, value)::tail -> value
| (_, _)::tail -> getValue identifier tail
| [] -> -1
I can tell that identifier is not being bound the way I would like it to and is acting as a new variable within the match expression. How to I get identifier to be what is passed into the function?
Ok! I fixed it with a pattern guard, i.e. | (i, value)::tail when i = indentifier -> value
but I find this ugly compared to the way I originally wanted to do it (I'm only using these languages because they are pretty...). Any thoughts?
You can use F# active patterns to create a pattern that will do exactly what you need. F# supports parameterized active patterns that take the value that you're matching, but also take an additional parameter.
Here is a pretty stupid example that fails when the value is zero and otherwise succeeds and returns the addition of the value and the specified parameter:
let (|Test|_|) arg value =
if value = 0 then None else Some(value + arg)
You can specify the parameter in pattern matching like this:
match 1 with
| Test 100 res -> res // 'res' will be 101
Now, we can easily define an active pattern that will compare the matched value with the input argument of the active pattern. The active pattern returns unit option, which means that it doesn't bind any new value (in the example above, it returned some value that we assigned to a symbol res):
let (|Equals|_|) arg x =
if (arg = x) then Some() else None
let foo x y =
match x with
| Equals y -> "equal"
| _ -> "not equal"
You can use this as a nested pattern, so you should be able to rewrite your example using the Equals active pattern.
One of the beauties of functional languages is higher order functions. Using those functions we take the recursion out and just focus on what you really want to do. Which is to get the value of the first tuple that matches your identifier otherwise return -1:
let getValue identifier list =
match List.tryFind (fun (x,y) -> x = identifier) list with
| None -> -1
| Some(x,y) -> y
//val getValue : 'a -> (('a * int) list -> int) when 'a : equality
This paper by Graham Hutton is a great introduction to what you can do with higher order functions.
This is not directly an answer to the question: how to pattern-match the value of a variable. But it's not completely unrelated either.
If you want to see how powerful pattern-matching could be in a ML-like language similar to F# or OCaml, take a look at Moca.
You can also take a look at the code generated by Moca :) (not that there's anything wrong with the compiler doing a lot of things for you in your back. In some cases, it's desirable, even, but many programmers like to feel they know what the operations they are writing will cost).
What you're trying to do is called an equality pattern, and it's not provided by Objective Caml. Objective Caml's patterns are static and purely structural. That is, whether a value matches the pattern depends solely on the value's structure, and in a way that is determined at compile time. For example, (_, _)::tail is a pattern that matches any non-empty list whose head is a pair. (identifier, value)::tail matches exactly the same values; the only difference is that the latter binds two more names identifier and value.
Although some languages have equality patterns, there are non-trivial practical considerations that make them troublesome. Which equality? Physical equality (== in Ocaml), structural equality (= in Ocaml), or some type-dependent custom equality? Furthermore, in Ocaml, there is a clear syntactic indication of which names are binders and which names are reference to previously bound values: any lowercase identifier in a pattern is a binder. These two reasons explain why Ocaml does not have equality patterns baked in. The idiomatic way to express an equality pattern in Ocaml is in a guard. That way, it's immediately clear that the matching is not structural, that identifier is not bound by this pattern matching, and which equality is in use. As for ugly, that's in the eye of the beholder — as a habitual Ocaml programmer, I find equality patterns ugly (for the reasons above).
match bindings with
| (id, value)::tail when id = identifier -> value
| (_, _)::tail -> getValue identifier tail
| [] -> -1
In F#, you have another possibility: active patterns, which let you pre-define guards that concern a single site in a pattern.
This is a common complaint, but I don't think that there's a good workaround in general; a pattern guard is usually the best compromise. In certain specific cases there are alternatives, though, such as marking literals with the [<Literal>] attribute in F# so that they can be matched against.

Resources