How to read in an Int and use it in another function - parsing

I am trying to read in an Int and then use the read value in a pure function, but it does not seem to work properly. After searching through a lot of resources I use the from here.
So my code goes as the following:
main = do
putStrLn "Please input a number."
inputjar <- getLine
return (read inputjar :: Int)
Which works fine, but when I want to use it in my pure function:
usrSetBrick :: [[Int]] -> [[Int]]
usrSetBrick xs = setBrick (main) (main) (main) xs
I get a compile error:
Couldn't match expected type `Int' with actual type `IO Int'
In the first argument of `setBrick', namely `(main)'
In the expression: setBrick (main) (main) (main) xs
In an equation for `usrSetBrick':
usrSetBrick xs = setBrick (tull) (tull) (tull) xs
Failed, modules loaded: none.
So from what I understand does main return an int. Even it should, as I can understand from
return (read inputjar :: Int)
How can I make the read input usable in my function?

You probably don't want to be using main to return things since it's the entry point to your program. Instead, you can write a function
getInt :: IO Int
getInt = do
input <- getLine
return (read input) -- Don't have to specify Int here, GHC can figure it out from the type signature
However, your function setBrick, which presumably has the type Int -> Int -> Int -> [[Int]] -> [[Int]], can't use getInt directly. This is by design, Haskell's type system forces you to treat IO actions separately from pure functions (once you get used to it, it's a wonderful tool for reasoning about your code). Instead, you can do something like
promptInt :: IO Int
promptInt = do
putStrLn "Please input a number."
getInt
usrSetBrick :: [[Int]] -> IO [[Int]]
usrSetBrick xs = do
a <- promptInt
b <- promptInt
c <- promptInt
return $ setBrick a b c xs
The types Int and IO Int are not the same in Haskell, you can not use the interchangeably. This holds true for types like [Int], Maybe Int, and Either String Int as well, none of these the same as Int. Since main is an IO function, it doesn't return Int, it returns IO Int. In fact, return is not a special construct in Haskell at all, it's just a normal function that happens to wrap a value in a Monad. In this case, the Monad being used is IO, so return (read inputjar :: Int) has the type IO Int.
To expand on #Zeta's comment below, Haskell's return is not special and more importantly does not exit functions early. The following code will demonstrate this:
doSomething :: IO Int
doSomething = do
return "Test" -- Wouldn't type-check if this exited early
return 123 -- Would type check, but is ignored
putStrLn "You'll see this line printed"
return () -- Doesn't affect anything
x <- getLine -- Still happens
return 5678
putStrLn "Your input is meaningless! Here's a 0"
return ([1, 2], "hello", "world")
return 0 -- This is the actual return value
All those extra returns do nothing in Haskell (at least in the IO monad). All that happens is a value is wrapped in a constructor and chained together with the rest of the statements in that function. There are even some people in the Haskell community that view return as both unnecessary and confusing. Technically, return is equivalent to pure for Applicatives, and all Monads are also Applicatives, so it's not really providing us anything. At some point in the distant future, it's possible that the return function might disappear entirely, being completely superseded by pure. Again, neither of these functions are part of Haskell syntax, they're defined in the core libraries as plain, normal functions.

Related

Taking a parser in argument and try to apply it zero or more times

I am currently writing a basic parser. A parser for type a takes a string in argument and returns either nothing, or an object of type a and the rest of the string.
Here is a simple type satisfying all these features:
type Parser a = String -> Maybe (a, String)
For example, I wrote a function that takes a Char as argument and returns a Parser Char :
parseChar :: Char -> Parser Char
parseChar _ [] = Nothing
parseChar c (x:xs)
| c == x = Just (x, xs)
| otherwise = Nothing
I would like to write a function which takes a parser in argument and tries to apply it zero or more times, returning a list of the parsed elements :
parse :: Parser a -> Parser [a]
Usage example:
> parse (parseChar ' ') " foobar"
Just (" ", "foobar")
I tried to write a recursive function but I can't save the parsed elements in a list.
How can I apply the parsing several times and save the result in a list ?
I tried to write a recursive function but I can't save the parsed elements in a list.
You don't need to "save" anything. You can use pattern matching. Here's a hint. Try to reason about what should happen in each case below. The middle case is a bit subtle, don't worry if you get that wrong at first. Note how s and s' are used below.
parse :: Parser a -> Parser [a]
parse p s = case p s of
Nothing -> ... -- first p failed
Just (x,s') -> case parse p s' of
Nothing -> ... -- subtle case, might not be relevant after all
Just (xs,s'') -> ... -- merge the results
Another hint: note that according to your description parse p should never fail, since it can always return the empty list.

F# quotation with spliced parameter of any type

I am trying to develop F# type provider.
It provides some DTOs (with the structure described in some external document) and a set of methods for processing them. The processing algorithm is based on reflection, and I want to have a single quotation representing it.
Generally, this algorithm must pass all method call arguments to the already written function serialize: obj -> MySerializationFormat, storing all results in a list, so I getting a value of MySerializationFormat list.
Code sample below shows, how I tried to do that for first time:
let serialize (value: obj) = ...
let processingCode: Expr list -> Expr =
fun args ->
let serializeArgExpr (arg: Expr) = <# serialize %%arg} #>
let argsExprs = List.map serializeArgExpr args
let serializedArgList =
List.foldBack (fun head tail -> <# (%head) :: (%tail)#>) argsExprs <# [] #>
// futher processing
At that point I faced with exception: In function serializeArgExpr the actual type of value in arg: Expr may vary, it can be some primitive type (e.g string, int, float), or some provided type. The problem is %% operator treats that arg as an expression of the obj type. Type check is performed on that line in Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.Patterns module, in function fillHolesInRawExpr.
So, as the actual type of my term not matched the treated type for "hole" in the quotation, it throws invalidArg.
I have tried several technics to avoid these exceptions with casting operations in my quotation, but they don't work. Then I found Expr.Coerce(source, target) function, which looks like solving my problem. I have changed the code of serializeArgExpr to something like that:
let serializeArgExpr (arg: Expr) =
let value' = Expr.Coerce(value, typeof<obj>)
<# serialize %%value' } #>
Then faced a new strange exception:
The design-time type (point to a code line that uses my processingCode) utilized by a type provider was not found in the target reference assembly set
For me, it seems that my problem is to cast the type of value in any input Expr to an obj type. Thank you for diving in and trying to help.

Delegate/Func conversion and misleading compiler error message

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.)

Type of printfn in F#, static vs dynamic string

I just began toying around with F# in Mono and the following problem arose that I cannot quite understand. Looking up information on printfn and TextWriterFormat didn't bring enlightenment either, so I thought I'm going to ask here.
In FSI I run the following:
> "hello";;
val it : string = "hello"
> printfn "hello";;
hello
val it : unit = ()
Just a normal string and printing it. Fine. Now I wanted to declare a variable to contain that same string and print it as well:
> let v = "hello" in printfn v ;;
let v = "hello" in printfn v ;;
---------------------------^
\...\stdin(22,28): error FS0001: The type 'string' is not compatible with the type 'Printf.TextWriterFormat<'a>'
I understood from my reading that printfn requires a constant string. I also understand that I can get around this problem with something like printfn "%s" v.
However, I'd like to understand what's going on with the typing here. Clearly, "hello" is of type string as well as v is. Why is there a type problem then? Is printfn something special? As I understand it the compiler already performs type-checking on the arguments of the first string, such that printfn "%s" 1 fails.. this could of course not work with dynamic strings, but I assumed that to be a mere convenience from the compiler-side for the static case.
Good question. If you look at the type of printfn, which is Printf.TextWriterFormat<'a> -> 'a, you'll see that the compiler automatically coerces strings into TextWriterFormat objects at compile time, inferring the appropriate type parameter 'a. If you want to use printfn with a dynamic string, you can just perform that conversion yourself:
let s = Printf.TextWriterFormat<unit>("hello")
printfn s
let s' = Printf.TextWriterFormat<int -> unit>("Here's an integer: %i")
printfn s' 10
let s'' = Printf.TextWriterFormat<float -> bool -> unit>("Float: %f; Bool: %b")
printfn s'' 1.0 true
If the string is statically known (as in the above examples), then you can still have the compiler infer the right generic argument to TextWriterFormat rather than calling the constructor:
let (s:Printf.TextWriterFormat<_>) = "hello"
let (s':Printf.TextWriterFormat<_>) = "Here's an integer: %i"
let (s'':Printf.TextWriterFormat<_>) = "Float: %f; Bool: %b"
If the string is truly dynamic (e.g. it's read from a file), then you'll need to explicitly use the type parameters and call the constructor as I did in the previous examples.
This is only somewhat related to your question, but I think it's a handy trick. In C#, I often have template strings for use with String.Format stored as constants, as it makes for cleaner code:
String.Format(SomeConstant, arg1, arg2, arg3)
Instead of...
String.Format("Some {0} really long {1} and distracting template that uglifies my code {2}...", arg1, arg2, arg3)
But since the printf family of methods insist on literal strings instead of values, I initially thought that I couldn't use this approach in F# if I wanted to use printf. But then I realized that F# has something better - partial function application.
let formatFunction = sprintf "Some %s really long %i template %i"
That just created a function that takes a string and two integers as input, and returns a string. That is to say, string -> int -> int -> string. It's even better than a constant String.Format template, because it's a strongly-typed method that lets me re-use the template without including it inline.
let foo = formatFunction "test" 3 5
The more I use F#, the more uses I discover for partial function application. Great stuff.
I don't think that it is correct to say that the literal value "hello" is of type String when used in the context of printfn "hello". In this context the compiler infers the type of the literal value as Printf.TextWriterFormat<unit>.
At first it seemed strange to me that a literal string value would have a different inferred type depending on the context of where it was used, but of course we are used to this when dealing with numeric literals, which may represent integers, decimals, floats, etc., depending on where they appear.
If you want to declare the variable in advance of using it via printfn, you can declare it with an explicit type...
let v = "hello" : Printf.TextWriterFormat<unit> in printfn v
...or you can use the constructor for Printf.TextWriterFormat to convert a normal String value to the necessary type...
let s = "foo" ;;
let v = new Printf.TextWriterFormat<unit>(s) in printfn v ;;
As you correctly observe, the printfn function takes a "Printf.TextWriterFormat<'a>" not a string. The compiler knows how to convert between a constant string and a "Printf.TextWriterFormat<'a>", but not between a dynamic string and a "Printf.TextWriterFormat<'a>".
This begs the question why can't it convert between a dynamic string and a "Printf.TextWriterFormat<'a>". This is because the compiler must look at the contents of the string to and determine what control characters are in it ( i.e. %s %i etc), from this is it works out the type of the type parameter of "Printf.TextWriterFormat<'a>" (i.e. the 'a bit). This is a function that is returned by the printfn function and means that the other parameters accepted by printfn are now strongly typed.
To make this a little clear in your example "printfn "%s"" the "%s" is converted into a "Printf.TextWriterFormat unit>", meaning the type of "printfn "%s"" is string -> unit.

What does -> mean in F#?

I've been trying to get into F# on and off for a while but I keep getting put off. Why?
Because no matter which 'beginners' resource I try to look at I see very simple examples that start using the operator ->.
However, nowhere have I found as yet that provides a clear simple explanation of what this operator means. It's as though it must be so obvious that it doesn't need explanation even to complete newbies.
I must therefore be really dense or perhaps it's nearly 3 decades of previous experience holding me back.
Can someone please, explain it or point to a truly accessible resource that explains it?
'->' is not an operator. It appears in the F# syntax in a number of places, and its meaning depends on how it is used as part of a larger construct.
Inside a type, '->' describes function types as people have described above. For example
let f : int -> int = ...
says that 'f' is a function that takes an int and returns an int.
Inside a lambda ("thing that starts with 'fun' keyword"), '->' is syntax that separates the arguments from the body. For example
fun x y -> x + y + 1
is an expression that defines a two argument function with the given implementation.
Inside a "match" construct, '->' is syntax that separates patterns from the code that should run if the pattern is matched. For example, in
match someList with
| [] -> 0
| h::t -> 1
the stuff to the left of each '->' are patterns, and the stuff on the right is what happens if the pattern on the left was matched.
The difficulty in understanding may be rooted in the faulty assumption that '->' is "an operator" with a single meaning. An analogy might be "." in C#, if you have never seen any code before, and try to analyze the "." operator based on looking at "obj.Method" and "3.14" and "System.Collections", you may get very confused, because the symbol has different meanings in different contexts. Once you know enough of the language to recognize these contexts, however, things become clear.
It basically means "maps to". Read it that way or as "is transformed into" or something like that.
So, from the F# in 20 minutes tutorial,
> List.map (fun x -> x % 2 = 0) [1 .. 10];;
val it : bool list
= [false; true; false; true; false; true; false; true; false; true]
The code (fun i -> i % 2 = 0) defines
an anonymous function, called a lambda
expression, that has a parameter x and
the function returns the result of "x
% 2 = 0", which is whether or not x is
even.
First question - are you familiar with lambda expressions in C#? If so the -> in F# is the same as the => in C# (I think you read it 'goes to').
The -> operator can also be found in the context of pattern matching
match x with
| 1 -> dosomething
| _ -> dosomethingelse
I'm not sure if this is also a lambda expression, or something else, but I guess the 'goes to' still holds.
Maybe what you are really referring to is the F# parser's 'cryptic' responses:
> let add a b = a + b
val add: int -> int -> int
This means (as most of the examples explain) that add is a 'val' that takes two ints and returns an int. To me this was totally opaque to start with. I mean, how do I know that add isn't a val that takes one int and returns two ints?
Well, the thing is that in a sense, it does. If I give add just one int, I get back an (int -> int):
> let inc = add 1
val inc: int -> int
This (currying) is one of the things that makes F# so sexy, for me.
For helpful info on F#, I have found that blogs are FAR more useful that any of the official 'documentation': Here are some names to check out
Dustin Campbell (that's diditwith.net, cited in another answer)
Don Symes ('the' man)
Tomasp.net (aka Tomas Petricek)
Andrew Kennedy (for units of measure)
Fsharp.it (famous for the Project Euler solutions)
http://lorgonblog.spaces.live.com/Blog (aka Brian)
Jomo Fisher
(a -> b) means "function from a to b". In type annotation, it denotes a function type. For example, f : (int -> String) means that f refers to a function that takes an integer and returns a string. It is also used as a contstructor of such values, as in
val f : (int -> int) = fun n -> n * 2
which creates a value which is a function from some number n to that same number multiplied by two.
There are plenty of great answers here already, I just want to add to the conversation another way of thinking about it.
' -> ' means function.
'a -> 'b is a function that takes an 'a and returns a 'b
('a * 'b) -> ('c * 'd) is a function that takes a tuple of type ('a, 'b) and returns a tuple of ('c, 'd). Such as int/string returns float/char.
Where it gets interesting is in the cascade case of 'a -> 'b -> 'c. This is a function that takes an 'a and returns a function ('b -> 'c), or a function that takes a 'b -> 'c.
So if you write:
let f x y z = ()
The type will be f : 'a -> 'b -> 'c -> unit, so if you only applied the first parameter, the result would be a curried function 'b -> 'c -> 'unit.
From Microsoft:
Function types are the types given to
first-class function values and are
written int -> int. They are similar
to .NET delegate types, except they
aren't given names. All F# function
identifiers can be used as first-class
function values, and anonymous
function values can be created using
the (fun ... -> ...) expression form.
Many great answers to this questions, thanks people. I'd like to put here an editable answer that brings things together.
For those familiar with C# understanding -> being the same as => lamba expression is a good first step. This usage is :-
fun x y -> x + y + 1
Can be understood as the equivalent to:-
(x, y) => x + y + 1;
However its clear that -> has a more fundemental meaning which stems from concept that a function that takes two parameters such as the above can be reduced (is that the correct term?) to a series of functions only taking one parameter.
Hence when the above is described in like this:-
Int -> Int -> Int
It really helped to know that -> is right associative hence the above can be considered:-
Int -> (Int -> Int)
Aha! We have a function that takes Int and returns (Int -> Int) (a curried function?).
The explaination that -> can also appear as part of type definiton also helped. (Int -> Int) is the type of any of function which takes an Int and returns an Int.
Also helpful is the -> appears in other syntax such as matching but there it doesn't have the same meaning? Is that correct? I'm not sure it is. I suspect it has the same meaning but I don't have the vocabulary to express that yet.
Note the purpose of this answer is not to spawn further answers but to be collaboratively edited by you people to create a more definitive answer. Utlimately it would be good that all the uncertainies and fluf (such as this paragraph) be removed and better examples added. Lets try keep this answer as accessible to the uninitiated as possible.
In the context of defining a function, it is similar to => from the lambda expression in C# 3.0.
F#: let f = fun x -> x*x
C#: Func<int, int> f = x => x * x;
The -> in F# is also used in pattern matching, where it means: if the expression matches the part between | and ->, then what comes after -> should be given back as the result:
let isOne x = match x with
| 1 -> true
| _ -> false
The nice thing about languages such as Haskell (it's very similar in F#, but I don't know the exact syntax -- this should help you understand ->, though) is that you can apply only parts of the argument, to create curried functions:
adder n x y = n + x + y
In other words: "give me three things, and I'll add them together". When you throw numbers at it, the compiler will infer the types of n x and y. Say you write
adder 1 2 3
The type of 1, 2 and 3 is Int. Therefore:
adder :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int
That is, give me three integers, and I will become an integer, eventually, or the same thing as saying:
five :: Int
five = 5
But, here's the nice part! Try this:
add5 = adder 5
As you remember, adder takes an int, an int, an int, and gives you back an int. However, that is not the entire truth, as you'll see shortly. In fact, add5 will have this type:
add5 :: Int -> Int -> Int
It will be as if you have "peeled off" of the integers (the left-most), and glued it directly to the function. Looking closer at the function signature, we notice that the -> are right-associative, i.e.:
addder :: Int -> (Int -> (Int -> Int))
This should make it quite clear: when you give adder the first integer, it'll evaluate to whatever's to the right of the first arrow, or:
add5andtwomore :: Int -> (Int -> Int)
add5andtwomore = adder 5
Now you can use add5andtwomore instead of "adder 5". This way, you can apply another integer to get (say) "add5and7andonemore":
add5and7andonemore :: Int -> Int
add5and7andonemore = adder 5 7
As you see, add5and7andonemore wants exactly another argument, and when you give it one, it will suddenly become an integer!
> add5and7andonemore 9
=> ((add5andtwomore) 7) 9
=> ((adder 5) 7) 9)
<=> adder 5 7 9
Substituting the parameters to adder (n x y) for (5 7 9), we get:
> adder 5 7 9 = 5 + 7 + 9
=> 5 + 7 + 9
=> 21
In fact, plus is also just a function that takes an int and gives you back another int, so the above is really more like:
> 5 + 7 + 9
=> (+ 5 (+ 7 9))
=> (+ 5 16)
=> 21
There you go!

Resources