Learning F# as part of my course, and can do some cool things, but something has been bugging me, whenever I use the val keyword, I get an error. I think it could be due to not declaring something in script, but I don't really know.
module Prime
#light
let nums = [1; 2; 3; 4; 5];;
val nums : list<int>
let rec sum list =
match list with
| h::tail -> (sum tail) + h
| [] -> 0
val sum : list<int> -> int
I get (line 5):
Error 1 Unexpected keyword 'val' in definition . Expected incomplete structured construct at or before this point or other token
Any ideas?
The val keyword in F# (unlike 'val' in ML) is used to declare a field in a class or structure type without initializing it.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd469494.aspx
if you want to define mutable value in the Module you can use
let mutable...
By the way, if you define the value with the same name (like 'nums') twice or more times then the effective value for the compiler will be latest defined in the scope.
So actually, I had misread the coursework set out, annoyingly the papers use val to define what the expected output of the function is, as opposed to using it as the keyword it is meant to be. Hence my confusion and lots of head scratching.
This looks like F# interactive output mixed in with code.
If I type this into FSI:
let nums = [1; 2; 3; 4; 5];;
The output is
val nums : int list = [1; 2; 3; 4; 5]
Note that ;; is where FSI parses and runs input. You wouldn't have this in non-interactive code. The output might differ because of an older version or editing, but nontheless, it doesn't belong in code.
Coincidentally, val is also a rarely used F# keyword for explicit fields. Hence the strange error message.
The val keyword is used to declare a field ; it must be used inside a type definition (class or structure). Since in your code the variable nums is already defined and as the list type inferred by F# type inference engine, there is no need for your val line.
An example of val keyword usage is (from msdn) :
type MyType() =
let mutable myInt1 = 10
[<DefaultValue>] val mutable myInt2 : int
[<DefaultValue>] val mutable myString : string
member this.SetValsAndPrint( i: int, str: string) =
myInt1 <- i
this.myInt2 <- i + 1
this.myString <- str
printfn "%d %d %s" myInt1 (this.myInt2) (this.myString)
Related
When a value is created in the F# Interactive console the inferred type and contents of the value are displayed.
How can I, at a later date, redisplay the inferred type without showing all the contents?
For example, I have an array, mydata of 1000 items. Typing mydata into the F# Interactive console will display the type, but also the contents of the array.
How about using printfn with the type like so:
F# Interactive for F# 3.1 (Open Source Edition)
Freely distributed under the Apache 2.0 Open Source License
For help type #help;;
>
val mya : int [] = [|3; 2; 5; 6; 7; 8|]
> printfn "%A" (mya.GetType());;
System.Int32[]
val it : unit = ()
You can shorten the typing required by using a little utility function:
let pm v = printfn "%A" (v.GetType())
The you can use as follows:
> pm mya;;
System.Int32[]
val it : unit = ()
"pm" stands for "print me". Call it whatever you want :)
Another approach if you don't like the type names from GetType() is just to cause an error with the value you want to evaluate. That will give you a more friendly F# type name (if you don't mind ignoring the error of course). For instance on a list you could do:
>
val myl : string list = ["one"; "two"]
> printfn myl;;
Script.fsx(195,9): error FS0001: The type 'string list' is not compatible with the type 'Printf.TextWriterFormat<'a>'
Note the type string list between the ''
Lastly you can use: (MSDN)
fsi.ShowDeclarationValues <- false
But this only silences the initial evaluation.
Unquote has an extension property for types:
> let mydata = [|Some([42])|];;
val mydata : int list option [] = [|Some [42]|]
> mydata.GetType().FSharpName;;
val it : string = "option<list<int>>[]"
I am trying to iterate through an IDictionary (reasons explained later...) in F#, and round each value to a specified precision. Essentially this is what I'm trying to do:
List.iter (fun(x) -> a.Item(x) <- Math.Round(a.Item(x), input.precision)) (ICollectionToDoubleList a.Keys)
(where ICollectionToDoubleList takes the ICollection a.Keys and casts it to a double list).
However since you can't alter mutable variables inside closures, this doesn't compile.
My first attempt at a solution was this:
List.iter (fun(x) -> let p = Math.Round(a.Item(x), input.precision)
a.Item(x) := p
) (ICollectionToDoubleList a.Keys)
However I'm getting the error:
This expression was expected to have type
'a ref
but here has type
double
on a.Item(x)
I could convert the IDictionary into two lists (or a list of tuples), perform the rounding, and re-cast into an IDictionary, but this seems a bit messy and convoluted.
Any guidance greatly appreciated.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention a was defined as:
let mutable (a : IDictionary<double,double>) = ...
I think you want
a.Item(x) <- p
In F# you use <- to assign to mutable values, whilst := assign to ref values.
You could even use
a.[x] <- p
for a slightly simpler version.
Explaination of what mutable means (it behaves like the opposite of const in C)
let mutable m = [|1|]
let t = [|1|]
m.[0] <- 0
t.[0] <- 0 //neither of these change m or t - only elements so they are fine
m <- [|1;2;3;|] //fine as m is mutable
t <- [|1;2;3;|] //not allowed as t is not mutable
If you are used to const in C, the above are roughly equivalent to
int* m = {1};
const int* t = {1}
note, neither is equivalent to
const int* q const = {1}
which is I think what you thought not mutable meant.
Ok so I've discovered the answer...
I have defined a as:
let mutable (a : IDictionary<double,double>) = ...
If I change this to
let (a : IDictionary<double,double>) = ...
then this compiles. It seems a little counter-intuative to me that a non-mutable value can be mutated, but a mutatable variable cannot!!
I'm reading Expert F# book and I found this code
open System.Collections.Generic
let divideIntoEquivalenceClasses keyf seq =
// The dictionary to hold the equivalence classes
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>()
// Build the groupings
seq |> Seq.iter (fun v ->
let key = keyf v
let ok,prev = dict.TryGetValue(key)
if ok then prev.Add(v)
else let prev = new ResizeArray<'T>()
dict.[key] <- prev
prev.Add(v))
dict |> Seq.map (fun group -> group.Key, Seq.readonly group.Value)
and the example use:
> divideIntoEquivalenceClasses (fun n -> n % 3) [ 0 .. 10 ];;
val it : seq<int * seq<int>>
= seq [(0, seq [0; 3; 6; 9]); (1, seq [1; 4; 7; 10]); (2, seq [2; 5; 8])]
first for me this code is really ugly, even if this is safe, It looks more similar to imperative languages than to functional lang..specially compared to clojure. But the problem is not this...I'm having problems with the Dictionary definition
when I type this:
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>();;
I get this:
pruebafs2a.fs(32,5): error FS0030: Value restriction. The value 'dict' has been inferred to have generic type
val dict : Dictionary<'_key,ResizeArray<'_T>> when '_key : equality
Either define 'dict' as a simple data term, make it a function with explicit arguments or, if you do not intend for it to be generic, add a type annotation.
is It ok?...
thanks so much
improve question:
Ok I've been reading about value restriction and I found this helpfull information
In particular, only function definitions and simple immutable data
expressions are automatically generalized
...ok..this explains why
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>();;
doesn't work...and show 4 different techniques, although in my opinion they only resolve the error but aren't solutions for use generic code:
Technique 1: Constrain Values to Be Nongeneric
let empties : int list [] = Array.create 100 []
Technique 3: Add Dummy Arguments to Generic Functions When Necessary
let empties () = Array.create 100 []
let intEmpties : int list [] = empties()
Technique 4: Add Explicit Type Arguments When Necessary (similar to tec 3)
let emptyLists = Seq.init 100 (fun _ -> [])
> emptyLists<int>;;
val it : seq<int list> = seq [[]; []; []; []; ...]
----- and the only one than let me use real generic code ------
Technique 2: Ensure Generic Functions Have Explicit Arguments
let mapFirst = List.map fst //doesn't work
let mapFirst inp = List.map fst inp
Ok, in 3 of 4 techniques I need resolve the generic code before can work with this...now...returning to book example...when the compile knows the value for 'key and 'T
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>()
in the scope the code is very generic for let key be any type, the same happen with 'T
and the biggest dummy question is :
when I enclose the code in a function (technique 3):
let empties = Array.create 100 [] //doesn't work
let empties () = Array.create 100 []
val empties : unit -> 'a list []
I need define the type before begin use it
let intEmpties : int list [] = empties()
for me (admittedly I'm a little dummy with static type languages) this is not real generic because it can't infer the type when I use it, I need define the type and then pass values (not define its type based in the passed values) exist other way define type without be so explicit..
thanks so much..really appreciate any help
This line
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>();;
fails because when you type the ;; the compiler doesn't know what 'key and 'T are. As the error message states you need to add a type annotation, or allow the compiler to infer the type by using it later or make it a function
Examples
Type annotation change
let dict = new Dictionary<int,ResizeArray<int>>();;
Using types later
let dict = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>()
dict.[1] <- 2
using a function
let dict() = new Dictionary<'key,ResizeArray<'T>>();;
This actually doesn't cause an issue when it's defined all together. That is, select the entire block that you posted and send it to FSI in one go. I get this:
val divideIntoEquivalenceClasses :
('T -> 'key) -> seq<'T> -> seq<'key * seq<'T>> when 'key : equality
However, if you type these individually into FSI then as John Palmer says there is not enough information in that isolated line for the interpreter to determine the type constraints. John's suggestions will work, but the original code is doing it correctly - defining the variable and using it in the same scope so that the types can be inferred.
for me this code is really ugly, even if this is safe, It looks more similar to imperative languages than to functional lang.
I agree completely – it's slightly tangential to your direct question, but I think a more idiomatic (functional) approach would be:
let divideIntoEquivalenceClasses keyf seq =
(System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary(), seq)
||> Seq.fold (fun dict v ->
let key = keyf v
match dict.TryGetValue key with
| false, _ -> dict.Add (key, ResizeArray(Seq.singleton v))
| _, prev -> prev.Add v
dict)
|> Seq.map (function KeyValue (k, v) -> k, Seq.readonly v)
This allows sufficient type inference to obviate the need for your question in the first place.
The workarounds proposed by the other answers are all good. Just to clarify based on your latest updates, let's consider two blocks of code:
let empties = Array.create 100 []
as opposed to:
let empties = Array.create 100 []
empties.[0] <- [1]
In the second case, the compiler can infer that empties : int list [], because we are inserting an int list into the array in the second line, which constrains the element type.
It sounds like you'd like the compiler to infer a generic value empties : 'a list [] in the first case, but this would be unsound. Consider what would happen if the compiler did that and we then entered the following two lines in another batch:
empties.[0] <- [1] // treat 'a list [] as int list []
List.iter (printfn "%s") empties.[0] // treat 'a list [] as string list []
Each of these lines unifies the generic type parameter 'a with a different concrete type (int and string). Either of these unifications is fine in isolation, but they are incompatible with each other and would result in treating the int value 1 inserted by the first line as a string when the second line is executed, which is clearly a violation of type safety.
Contrast this with an empty list, which really is generic:
let empty = []
Then in this case, the compiler does infer empty : 'a list, because it's safe to treat empty as a list of different types in different locations in your code without ever impacting type safety:
let l1 : int list = empty
let l2 : string list = empty
let l3 = 'a' :: empty
In the case where you make empties the return value of a generic function:
let empties() = Array.create 100 []
it is again safe to infer a generic type, since if we try our problematic scenario from before:
empties().[0] <- [1]
List.iter (printfn "%s") (empties().[0])
we are creating a new array on each line, so the types can be different without breaking the type system.
Hopefully this helps explain the reasons behind the limitation a bit more.
Suppose I have type A with indexer implemented, e.g. type A is a library. Now I want to extend the indexer of it, e.g. here I want to add float number into the indexer.
I worked out the following code:
type A(a:int array) =
member this.Item
with get(x) = a.[x]
and set(x) value = a.[x] <- value
type A with
member m.Item with
get(x:float) = m.[x |> int]
and set(x:float) v = m.[x |> int] <- v
But it seems not working:
let a = A([| 1;2;3 |])
a.[1]
a.[1] <- 10
a.[1.0]
For the last line, I get:
Script1.fsx(243,4): error FS0001: This expression was expected to have type
int
but here has type
float
Is extending indexer possible in F#? Thanks!
This behaves differently when the type extension is defined in a separate assembly (or separate module) and when it is in the same module as the type definition.
When both are in the same module, F# compiles them into a single class and Item becomes a standard overloaded indexer - In this case, your code works as expected (and this is how you actually wrote it here).
When they are in separate modules, F# compiles the indexer as an extension member. In this case, I get the error message you described.
Adding new overloads using extension members (e.g. new method) is possible. As far I can see, the specificaton doesn't say that this shouldn't work for indexers, so I think it is a bug (can you report it to fsbugs at microsoft dot com?)
I just tried this in FSI and it seems to work.
What compiler are you using?
This is what I fed to FSI:
type A(a:int array) =
member this.Item
with get(x) = a.[x]
and set(x) value = a.[x] <- value
type A with
member m.Item
with get(x:float) = m.[x |> int]
and set(x:float) v = m.[x |> int] <- v
let a = A([| 1;2;3 |])
a.[1] <- 10
printfn "%A" a.[1.2]
This prints '10'
Is there a way to have mutable function arguments in F#, that would allow something like
let mutable i = 9
let somefun n = n <- 12; ()
somefun i
(* *not* a real-world example *)
I do understand that this can be made to work by wrapping it into a record type
type SomeRec = { mutable i: int }
let ri = { i = 9 }
let someotherfun r = r.i <- 12; ()
and that this can be done in a similar fashion for class members. However, even after browsing through the whole F# Language Specification (yes, I did!), there seems to be no syntax to allow the first case, and the compiler appears to be quite unhappy about my trying this. I was hoping there would be some sort of type annotation, but mutable cannot be used in such.
I also know that I should not be doing this sort of thing in the first place, but the first case (int binding) and the second (record type) are semantically identical, and any such objection would hold for both cases equally.
So I think that I am missing something here.
You can use ref as arguments
let v = ref 0
let mutate r =
r := 100
mutate v
printfn "%d" !v
Or byref keyword
let mutable v = 0
let mutate (r : byref<_>) =
r <- 100
mutate &v
printfn "%d" v
Use byref keyword which is equivalent to C# ref.
See Passing by reference.