I'm starting down the road of defining my own operators for Cartesian products and matrix multiplication.
With matrices and vectors aliased as lists:
type Matrix = float list list
type Vector = float list
I can write my own initialisation code (and get a Cartesian product into the bargain) by writing
let inline (*) X Y =
X |> List.collect (fun x -> Y |> List.map (fun y -> (x, y)))
let createVector size f =
[0..size - 1] |> List.map (fun i -> f i)
let createMatrix rows columns f =
[0..rows - 1] * [0..columns - 1] |> List.map (fun i j -> f i j)
So far so good. The problem is that my definition of * wipes out the normal definition, even though my version is only defined for Lists, which don't have their own multiplication operator.
The documentation http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/dd233204.aspx states that "newly defined operators take precedence over the built-in operators". However, I wasn't expecting all of the numerical incarnations to be wiped out -- surely static typing would take care of this?
I know it is possible to define a global operator that respects types, because MathNet Numerics uses * for matrix multiplication. I would also like to go down that road, which would require the typing system to prioritise matrix multiplication over the Cartesian product of Matrix types (which are themselves lists).
Does anyone know how to do this in F#?
Here is the (non idiomatic) solution:
type Mult = Mult with
static member inline ($) (Mult, v1: 'a list) = fun (v2: 'b list) ->
v1 |> List.collect (fun x -> v2 |> List.map (fun y -> (x, y))) : list<'a * 'b>
static member inline ($) (Mult, v1:'a ) = fun (v2:'a) -> v1 * v2 :'a
let inline (*) v1 v2 = (Mult $ v1) v2
The idiomatic solution is to define Matrix as a new type and add operators as static members:
type Matrix =
| MatrixData of float list list
static member (*) (MatrixData m1, MatrixData m2) = (...)
Operators defined using let are useful when you know that the definition does not conflict with anything else, or when you're defining the operator locally in a small scope (within a function).
For custom types, it is a good idea to define operators as static members. Another benefit of this approach is that your type will be usable from C# (including the operators).
To do this in your example, I had to change the type definition from type alias (which is not a stand-alone type and so it cannot have its own static members) to a single-case discriminated union, which can have members - but this is probably a good idea anyway.
Related
I am learning F# and the use cases of the |>, >>, and << operators confuse me. I get that everything if statements, functions, etc. act like variables but how do these work?
Usually we (community) say the Pipe Operator |> is just a way, to write the last argument of a function before the function call. For example
f x y
can be written
y |> f x
but for correctness, this is not true. It just pass the next argument to a function. So you could even write.
y |> (x |> f)
All of this, and all other kind of operators works, because in F# all functions are curried by default. This means, there exists only functions with one argument. Functions with many arguments, are implemented that a functions return another function.
You could also write
(f x) y
for example. The function f is a function that takes x as argument and returns another function. This then gets y passed as an argument.
This process is automatically done by the language. So if you write
let f x y z = x + y + z
it is the same as:
let f = fun x -> fun y -> fun z -> x + y + z
Currying is by the way the reason why parenthesis in a ML-like language are not enforced compared to a LISP like language. Otherwise you would have needded to write:
(((f 1) 2) 3)
to execute a function f with three arguments.
The pipe operator itself is just another function, it is defined as
let (|>) x f = f x
It takes a value x as its first argument. And a function f as its second argument. Because operators a written "infix" (this means between two operands) instead of "prefix" (before arguments, the normal way), this means its left argument to the operator is the first argument.
In my opinion, |> is used too much by most F# people. It makes sense to use piping if you have a chain of operations, one after another. Typically for example if you have multiple list operations.
Let's say, you want to square all numbers in a list and then filter only the even ones. Without piping you would write.
List.filter isEven (List.map square [1..10])
Here the second argument to List.filter is a list that is returned by List.map. You can also write it as
List.map square [1..10]
|> List.filter isEven
Piping is Function application, this means, you will execute/run a function, so it computes and returns a value as its result.
In the above example List.map is first executed, and the result is passed to List.filter. That's true with piping and without piping. But sometimes, you want to create another function, instead of executing/running a function. Let's say you want to create a function, from the above. The two versions you could write are
let evenSquares xs = List.filter isEven (List.map square xs)
let evenSquares xs = List.map square xs |> List.filter isEven
You could also write it as function composition.
let evenSquares = List.filter isEven << List.map square
let evenSquares = List.map square >> List.filter isEven
The << operator resembles function composition in the "normal" way, how you would write a function with parenthesis. And >> is the "backwards" compositon, how it would be written with |>.
The F# documentation writes it the other way, what is backward and forward. But i think the F# language creators are wrong.
The function composition operators are defined as:
let (<<) f g x = f (g x)
let (>>) f g x = g (f x)
As you see, the operator has technically three arguments. But remember currying. When you write f << g, then the result is another functions, that expects the last argument x. Passing less arguments then needed is also often called Partial Application.
Function composition is less often used in F#, because the compiler sometimes have problems with type inference if the function arguments are generic.
Theoretically you could write a program without ever defining a variable, just through function composition. This is also named Point-Free style.
I would not recommend it, it often makes code harder to read and/or understand. But it is sometimes used if you want to pass a function to another
Higher-Order function. This means, a functions that take another function as an argument. Like List.map, List.filter and so on.
Pipes and composition operators have simple definition but are difficult to grasp. But once we have understand them, they are super useful and we miss them when we get back to C#.
Here some explanations but you get the best feedbacks from your own experiments. Have fun!
Pipe right operator |>
val |> fn ≡ fn val
Utility:
Building a pipeline, to chain calls to functions: x |> f |> g ≡ g (f x).
Easier to read: just follow the data flow
No intermediary variables
Natural language in english: Subject Verb.
It's regular in object-oriented code : myObject.do()
In F#, the "subject" is usually the last parameter: List.map f list. Using |>, we get back the natural "Subject Verb" order: list |> List.map f
Final benefit but not the least: help type inference:
let items = ["a"; "bb"; "ccc"]
let longestKo = List.maxBy (fun x -> x.Length) items // ❌ Error FS0072
// ~~~~~~~~
let longest = items |> List.maxBy (fun x -> x.Length) // ✅ return "ccc"
Pipe left operator <|
fn <| expression ≡ fn (expression)
Less used than |>
✅ Small benefit: avoiding parentheses
❌ Major drawback: inverse of the english natural "left to right" reading order and inverse of execution order (because of left-associativity)
printf "%i" 1+2 // 💥 Error
printf "%i" (1+2) // With parentheses
printf "%i" <| 1+2 // With pipe left
What about this kind of expression: x |> fn <| y ❓
In theory, allow using fn in infix position, equivalent of fn x y
In practice, it can be very confusing for some readers not used to it.
👉 It's probably better to avoid using <|
Forward composition operator >>
Binary operator placed between 2 functions:
f >> g ≡ fun x -> g (f x) ≡ fun x -> x |> f |> g
Result of the 1st function is used as argument for the 2nd function
→ types must match: f: 'T -> 'U and g: 'U -> 'V → f >> g :'T -> 'V
let add1 x = x + 1
let times2 x = x * 2
let add1Times2 x = times2(add1 x) // 😕 Style explicit but heavy
let add1Times2' = add1 >> times2 // 👍 Style concise
Backward composition operator <<
f >> g ≡ g << f
Less used than >>, except to get terms in english order:
let even x = x % 2 = 0
// even not 😕
let odd x = x |> even |> not
// "not even" is easier to read 👍
let odd = not << even
☝ Note: << is the mathematical function composition ∘: g ∘ f ≡ fun x -> g (f x) ≡ g << f.
It's confusing in F# because it's >> that is usually called the "composition operator" ("forward" being usually omitted).
On the other hand, the symbols used for these operators are super useful to remember the order of execution of the functions: f >> g means apply f then apply g. Even if argument is implicit, we get the data flow direction:
>> : from left to right → f >> g ≡ fun x -> x |> f |> g
<< : from right to left → f << g ≡ fun x -> f <| (g <| x)
(Edited after good advices from David)
let mapTuple f (a,b) = (f a, f b)
I'm trying to create a function that applies a function f to both items in a tuple and returns the result as a tuple. F# type inference says that mapTuple returns a 'b*'b tuple. It also assumes that a and b are of the same type.
I want to be able to pass two different types as parameters. You would think that wouldn't work because they both have to be passed as parameters to f. So I thought if they inherited from the same base class, it might work.
Here is a less generic function for what I am trying to accomplish.
let mapTuple (f:Map<_,_> -> Map<'a,'b>) (a:Map<int,double>,b:Map<double, int>) = (f a, f b)
However, it gives a type mismatch error.
How do I do it? Is what I am trying to accomplish even possible in F#?
Gustavo is mostly right; what you're asking for requires higher-rank types. However,
.NET (and by extension F#) does support (an encoding of) higher-rank types.
Even in Haskell, which supports a "nice" way of expressing such types (once you've enabled the right extension), they wouldn't be inferred for your example.
Digging into point 2 may be valuable: given map f a b = (f a, f b), why doesn't Haskell infer a more general type than map :: (t1 -> t) -> t1 -> t1 -> (t, t)? The reason is that once you include higher-rank types, it's not typically possible to infer a single "most general" type for a given expression. Indeed, there are many possible higher-rank signatures for map given its simple definition above:
map :: (forall t. t -> t) -> x -> y -> (x, y)
map :: (forall t. t -> z) -> x -> y -> (z, z)
map :: (forall t. t -> [t]) -> x -> y -> ([x], [y])
(plus infinitely many more). But note that these are all incompatible with each other (none is more general than another). Given the first one you can call map id 1 'c', given the second one you can call map (\_ -> 1) 1 'c', and given the third one you can call map (\x -> [x]) 1 'c', but those arguments are only valid with each of those types, not with the other ones.
So even in Haskell you need to specify the particular polymorphic signature you want to use - this may be a bit of a surprise if you're coming from a more dynamic language. In Haskell, this is relatively clean (the syntax is what I've used above). However, in F# you'll have to jump through an additional hoop: there's no clean syntax for a "forall" type, so you'll have to create an additional nominal type instead. For example, to encode the first type above in F# I'd write something like this:
type Mapping = abstract Apply : 'a -> 'a
let map (m:Mapping) (a, b) = m.Apply a, m.Apply b
let x, y = map { new Mapping with member this.Apply x = x } (1, "test")
Note that in contrast to Gustavo's suggestion, you can define the first argument to map as an expression (rather than forcing it to be a member of some separate type). On the other hand, there's clearly a lot more boilerplate than would be ideal...
This problem has to do with rank-n types which are supported in Haskell (through extensions) but not in .NET type system.
One way I found to workaround this limitation is to pass a type with a single method instead of a function and then define an inline map function with static constraints, for example let's suppose I have some generic functions: toString and toOption and I want to be able to map them to a tuple of different types:
type ToString = ToString with static member inline ($) (ToString, x) = string x
type ToOption = ToOption with static member ($) (ToOption, x) = Some x
let inline mapTuple f (x, y) = (f $ x, f $ y)
let tuple1 = mapTuple ToString (true, 42)
let tuple2 = mapTuple ToOption (true, 42)
// val tuple1 : string * string = ("True", "42")
// val tuple2 : bool option * int option = (Some true, Some 42)
ToString will return the same type but operating with arbitrary types. ToOption will return two Generics of different types.
By using a binary operator type inference creates the static constraints for you and I use $ because in Haskell it means apply so a nice detail is that for haskellers f $ x reads already apply x to f.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a good enough solution might be to have a mapTuple that takes two functions instead of one:
let mapTuple fa fb (a, b) = (fa a, fb b)
If your original f is generic, passing it as fa and fb will give you two concrete instantiations of the function with the types you're looking for. At worst, you just need to pass the same function twice when a and b are of the same type.
Ok, so I'm basically trying to add the bind operator to the option type and it seems that everything I try has some non-obvious caveat that prevent me from doing it. I suspect is has something to do with the limits of the .NET typesystem and is probably the same reason typeclasses can't be implemented in user code.
Anyways, I've attempted a couple of things.
First, I tried just the following
let (>>=) m f = ???
realizing that I want to do different things based on the type of m. F# doesn't allow overloads on function but .NET does allow them on methods, so attempt number two:
type Mon<'a> =
static member Bind(m : Option<'a>, f : ('a -> Option<'b>)) =
match m with
| None -> None
| Some x -> f x
static member Bind(m : List<'a>, f : ('a -> List<'b>)) =
List.map f m |> List.concat
let (>>=) m f = Mon.Bind(m, f)
No dice. Can't pick a unique overload based on previously given type info. Add type annotations.
I've tried making the operator inline but it still gives the same error.
Then I figured I could make the >>= operator a member of a type. I'm pretty sure this would work but I don't think I can hack it in on existing types. You can extend existing types with type Option<'a> with but you can't have operators as extensions.
That was my last attempt with this code:
type Option<'a> with
static member (>>=) (m : Option<'a>, f : ('a -> Option<'b>)) =
match m with
| None -> None
| Some x -> f x
"Extension members cannot provide operator overloads. Consider defining the operator as part of the type definition instead." Awesome.
Do I have any other option? I could define separate functions for different monads in separate modules but that sounds like hell if you want to use more than one version in the same file.
You can combine .NET overload resolution with inline/static constraints in order to get the desired behaviour.
Here's a step by step explanation and here's a small working example for your specific scenario:
type MonadBind = MonadBind with
static member (?<-) (MonadBind, m:Option<'a>, _:Option<'b>) =
fun (f:_->Option<'b>) ->
match m with
| None -> None
| Some x -> f x
static member (?<-) (MonadBind, m:List<'a>, _:List<'b>) =
fun (f:_->List<'b>) ->
List.map f m |> List.concat
let inline (>>=) m f : 'R = ( (?<-) MonadBind m Unchecked.defaultof<'R>) f
[2; 1] >>= (fun x -> [string x; string (x+2)]) // List<string> = ["2"; "4"; "1"; "3"]
Some 2 >>= (fun x -> Some (string x)) // Option<string> = Some "2"
You can also specify the constraints 'by hand', but when using operators they're inferred automatically.
A refinement of this technique (without the operators) is what we use in FsControl to define Monad, Functor, Arrow and other abstractions.
Also note you can use directly Option.bind and List.collect for both bind definitions.
Why do you need to (re-define) "bind"? For starters, Option.bind is already defined.
You can use it for defining a "computational expression builder" (F# name for monadic "do" syntax sugar).
See previous answer.
In F#, is there a way to treat an operator as a function? In context, I'd like to partially apply operators (both infix and prefix), but the compiler only seems happy to partially apply functions.
Example:
Instead of being able to write List.map (2 **) [0..7];; I have to define my own function pow x y (and then another function let swap f x y = f y x;; because the compiler won't let me partially apply |> either, as in List.map (|> pow 2) [0..7];;.) In the end, my code needs to be List.map (swap pow 2) [0..7];; to work.
I would just do:
[0..7] |> List.map (fun n -> pown n 2)
Or, if 2 is the base:
[0..7] |> List.map (pown 2)
This works too:
[0.0..7.0] |> List.map (( ** ) 2.0)
There are no 'operator sections' a la Haskell; use a lambda to partially apply operators, e.g.
(fun x -> x - 10)
You can partially apply the first argument if you make an infix operator be prefix by surrounding it in parens, e.g.
(fun x -> 10.0 / x)
and
((/) 10.0)
mean the same thing.
In almost all examples, a y-combinator in ML-type languages is written like this:
let rec y f x = f (y f) x
let factorial = y (fun f -> function 0 -> 1 | n -> n * f(n - 1))
This works as expected, but it feels like cheating to define the y-combinator using let rec ....
I want to define this combinator without using recursion, using the standard definition:
Y = λf·(λx·f (x x)) (λx·f (x x))
A direct translation is as follows:
let y = fun f -> (fun x -> f (x x)) (fun x -> f (x x));;
However, F# complains that it can't figure out the types:
let y = fun f -> (fun x -> f (x x)) (fun x -> f (x x));;
--------------------------------^
C:\Users\Juliet\AppData\Local\Temp\stdin(6,33): error FS0001: Type mismatch. Expecting a
'a
but given a
'a -> 'b
The resulting type would be infinite when unifying ''a' and ''a -> 'b'
How do I write the y-combinator in F# without using let rec ...?
As the compiler points out, there is no type that can be assigned to x so that the expression (x x) is well-typed (this isn't strictly true; you can explicitly type x as obj->_ - see my last paragraph). You can work around this issue by declaring a recursive type so that a very similar expression will work:
type 'a Rec = Rec of ('a Rec -> 'a)
Now the Y-combinator can be written as:
let y f =
let f' (Rec x as rx) = f (x rx)
f' (Rec f')
Unfortunately, you'll find that this isn't very useful because F# is a strict language,
so any function that you try to define using this combinator will cause a stack overflow.
Instead, you need to use the applicative-order version of the Y-combinator (\f.(\x.f(\y.(x x)y))(\x.f(\y.(x x)y))):
let y f =
let f' (Rec x as rx) = f (fun y -> x rx y)
f' (Rec f')
Another option would be to use explicit laziness to define the normal-order Y-combinator:
type 'a Rec = Rec of ('a Rec -> 'a Lazy)
let y f =
let f' (Rec x as rx) = lazy f (x rx)
(f' (Rec f')).Value
This has the disadvantage that recursive function definitions now need an explicit force of the lazy value (using the Value property):
let factorial = y (fun f -> function | 0 -> 1 | n -> n * (f.Value (n - 1)))
However, it has the advantage that you can define non-function recursive values, just as you could in a lazy language:
let ones = y (fun ones -> LazyList.consf 1 (fun () -> ones.Value))
As a final alternative, you can try to better approximate the untyped lambda calculus by using boxing and downcasting. This would give you (again using the applicative-order version of the Y-combinator):
let y f =
let f' (x:obj -> _) = f (fun y -> x x y)
f' (fun x -> f' (x :?> _))
This has the obvious disadvantage that it will cause unneeded boxing and unboxing, but at least this is entirely internal to the implementation and will never actually lead to failure at runtime.
I would say it's impossible, and asked why, I would handwave and invoke the fact that simply typed lambda calculus has the normalization property. In short, all terms of the simply typed lambda calculus terminate (consequently Y can not be defined in the simply typed lambda calculus).
F#'s type system is not exactly the type system of simply typed lambda calculus, but it's close enough. F# without let rec comes really close to the simply typed lambda calculus -- and, to reiterate, in that language you cannot define a term that does not terminate, and that excludes defining Y too.
In other words, in F#, "let rec" needs to be a language primitive at the very least because even if you were able to define it from the other primitives, you would not be able to type this definition. Having it as a primitive allows you, among other things, to give a special type to that primitive.
EDIT: kvb shows in his answer that type definitions (one of the features absent from the simply typed lambda-calculus but present in let-rec-less F#) allow to get some sort of recursion. Very clever.
Case and let statements in ML derivatives are what makes it Turing Complete, I believe they're based on System F and not simply typed but the point is the same.
System F cannot find a type for the any fixed point combinator, if it could, it wasn't strongly normalizing.
What strongly normalizing means is that any expression has exactly one normal form, where a normal form is an expression that cannot be reduced any further, this differs from untyped where every expression has at max one normal form, it can also have no normal form at all.
If typed lambda calculi could construct a fixed point operator in what ever way, it was quite possible for an expression to have no normal form.
Another famous theorem, the Halting Problem, implies that strongly normalizing languages are not Turing complete, it says that's impossible to decide (different than prove) of a turing complete language what subset of its programs will halt on what input. If a language is strongly normalizing, it's decidable if it halts, namely it always halts. Our algorithm to decide this is the program: true;.
To solve this, ML-derivatives extend System-F with case and let (rec) to overcome this. Functions can thus refer to themselves in their definitions again, making them in effect no lambda calculi at all any more, it's no longer possible to rely on anonymous functions alone for all computable functions. They can thus again enter infinite loops and regain their turing-completeness.
Short answer: You can't.
Long answer:
The simply typed lambda calculus is strongly normalizing. This means it's not Turing equivalent. The reason for this basically boils down to the fact that a Y combinator must either be primitive or defined recursively (as you've found). It simply cannot be expressed in System F (or simpler typed calculi). There's no way around this (it's been proven, after all). The Y combinator you can implement works exactly the way you want, though.
I would suggest you try scheme if you want a real Church-style Y combinator. Use the applicative version given above, as other versions won't work, unless you explicitly add laziness, or use a lazy Scheme interpreter. (Scheme technically isn't completely untyped, but it's dynamically typed, which is good enough for this.)
See this for the proof of strong normalization:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.127.1794
After thinking some more, I'm pretty sure that adding a primitive Y combinator that behaves exactly the way the letrec defined one does makes System F Turing complete. All you need to do to simulate a Turing machine then is implement the tape as an integer (interpreted in binary) and a shift (to position the head).
Simply define a function taking its own type as a record, like in Swift (there it's a struct) :)
Here, Y (uppercase) is semantically defined as a function that can be called with its own type. In F# terms, it is defined as a record containing a function named call, so for calling a y defined as this type, you have to actually call y.call :)
type Y = { call: Y -> (int -> int) }
let fibonacci n =
let makeF f: int -> int =
fun x ->
if x = 0 then 0 else if x = 1 then 1 else f(x - 1) + f(x - 2)
let y = { call = fun y -> fun x -> (makeF (y.call y)) x }
(y.call y) n
It's not supremely elegant to read but it doesn't resort to recursion for defining a y combinator that is supposed to provide recursion all by itself ^^