I am trying to do an example for Programming F# by O'Railey, Chris Smith page 53.
It is working with functions returning functions.
This line straight from the book in the VS2013 IDE Editor, FSI and LinqPad4 are giving an error:
Code:
let generatePowerOfFunc base = (fun exponent -> base ** exponent)
Error:
error FS0010: Unexpected keyword 'base' in pattern
What am I missing or is there something the author did not include that needs to be included.
I strongly suspect it's merely a matter of base not being a keyword when the book was written.
Try a different identifier:
let generatePowerOfFunc b = (fun exponent -> b ** exponent)
Assuming you've got the 2009 edition of Programming F#, that would be before F# 2.0 was released (although after 1.0). I'm trying to find out exactly when it was introduced as a keyword...
EDIT: Actually, looking at this version of the spec which was written in 2009, it looks like base was already a keyword at that point. I wonder whether the original code was written significantly before the book was published.
Either way, I think it's reasonable to treat it basically as an error, and using a valid identifier instead should be fine.
EDIT: It's actually listed in the book's errata:
Example 3-3 does not work as-is in VS 2010. "base" is apparently a keyword, so it should have been escaped or there is some voodoo to make it not a keyword that I've missed in the book. Line 2 of the example should look like this:
let generatePowerOfFunc ``base`` = (fun exponent -> ``base`` ** exponent);;
Alternatively, a different variable name should be chosen.
Note from the Author or Editor:
Thanks for the feedback, I must have missed the keyword being marked as reserved late in the product cycle.
In a future version of the book I'll have it read:
let generatePowerOfFunc baseValue = (fun exponent -> baseValue ** exponent);;
base in F# is a keyword, which refers to the parent class.
Either you can use double backticks as follows
let generatePowerOfFunc ``base`` = (fun exponent -> ``base`` ** exponent);;
or just change the name of the argument to something else.
Related
I noticed that the following code compiles and works in VS 2013:
let f() =
do Console.WriteLine(41)
42
But when looking at the F# 3.0 specification I can't find any mention of do being used this way. As far as I can tell, do can have the following uses:
As a part of loop (e.g. while expr do expr done), that's not the case here.
Inside computation expressions, e.g.:
seq {
for i in 1..2 do
do Console.WriteLine(i)
yield i * 2
}
That's not the case here either, f doesn't contain any computation expressions.
Though what confuses me here is that according to the specification, do should be followed by in. That in should be optional due to lightweight syntax, but adding it here causes a compile error (“Unexpected token 'in' or incomplete expression”).
Statement inside a module or class. This is also not the case here, the do is inside a function, not inside a module or a class.
I also noticed that with #light "off", the code doesn't compile (“Unexpected keyword 'do' in binding”), but I didn't find anything that would explain this in the section on lightweight syntax either.
Based on all this, I would assume that using do inside a function this way should not compile, but it does. Did I miss something in the specification? Or is this actually a bug in the compiler or in the specification?
From the documentation on MSDN:
A do binding is used to execute code without defining a function or value.
Even though the spec doesn't contain a comprehensive list of the places it is allowed, it is merely an expression asserted to be of type unit. Some examples:
if ((do ()); true) then ()
let x: unit = do ()
It is generally omitted. Each of the preceding examples are valid without do. Therefore, do serves only to assert that an expression is of type unit.
Going through the F# 3.0 specification expression syntax has do expr as a choice of class-function-or-value-defn (types) [Ch 8, A.2.5] and module-function-or-value-defn (modules) [Ch 10, A.2.1.1].
I don't actually see in the spec where function-defn can have more than one expression, as long all but the last one evaluate to unit -- or that all but the last expression is ignored in determining the functions return value.
So, it seems this is an oversight in the documentation.
I would like to use the .NET CLR version of String.Split in F#. Specifically I would like to use this code:
let main argv =
let s = "Now is the time for FOO good men to come to the aide of their country"
let sepAry = [|"FOO"; "BAR"|]
let z1 = s.Split sepAry
0 // return an integer exit code
This fails to compile however, due to the fact (I believe) that the version of Split in F# is implemented differently than the one in .Net 4.5.
The version from .NET that I would like is:
Split(String[], StringSplitOptions) Returns a string array that contains the substrings in this string that are delimited by elements of a specified string array. A parameter specifies whether to return empty array elements.
I understand that I am getting the F# version of Split, which formerly resided in the PowerPack and that is why the implementation differs from the CLR version.
What is the best way to get what I want? Is it possible to override the F# version of Split and use the .Net version? Is it possible to extend the F# version and if so, how?
The overload you want to use expects a second argument.
let z1 = s.Split (sepAry, System.StringSplitOptions.None)
It's not an “F# version of Split”, it's exactly that Split you see in C#.
2 things are the problem here:
For .NET BCL you need to specify (), because the parameters are declared in different way using tuples (See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd483468.aspx)
Only the char[] overload exists without StringSplitOptions. If you want to use a string array, you also need to specify StringSplitOptions.
You could create your own F# overload method, that provides a default for the stringsplitoptions.
Kirelagin is right, the Split method on String your trying to use doesn't exist, it's only available for char arrays with no secondary argument. You have to resort to this version: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/tabh47cf.aspx. Also you have to use parentheses around your arguments when calling none-f# .NET apis because the arguments in C# are defined as a tuple.
You could of cause define your own extension-method on String, this way you don't have to specify None all the time if that is your expected default behavior
type System.String with
member x.Split(separator : (string [])) = x.Split(separator, System.StringSplitOptions.None)
This compiler like:
let test Xf Yf = Xf + Yf
This compiler no like:
let test Xfd Yfd = Xfd + Yfd
Warning:
Uppercase variable identifiers should not generally be used in patterns, and may indicate a misspelt pattern name.
Maybe I'm not googling properly, but I haven't managed to track down anything which explains why this is the case for function parameters...
I agree that this error message looks a bit mysterious, but there is a good motivation for it. According to the F# naming guidelines, cases of discriminated unions should be named using PascalCase and the compiler is trying to make sure that you don't accidentally misspell name of a case in pattern matching.
For example, if you have the following union:
type Side =
| Left
| Right
You could write the following function that prints "ok" when the argument is Left and "wrong!" otherwise:
let foo a =
match a with
| Lef -> printfn "ok"
| _ -> printfn "wrong!"
There is a typo in the code - I wrote just Lef - but the code is still valid, because Lef can be interpreted as a new variable and so the matching assigns whatever side to Lef and always runs the first case. The warning about uppercase identifiers helps to avoid this.
F# tries to enforce case rules for active patterns - consider what does this code do
let f X =
match X with
|X -> 1
|_ -> 2
This is quite confusing. Also, function parameters are similar to patterns, you can do
let f (a,b,_) = a,b
for example. Not quite sure why the third letter triggers the warning though
I would like to understand how to retrieve the quotation from a top level function marked with [<ReflectedDefinition>] from an assembly.
It looks like this was done here: Tomas Petricek's blog: Quotation Visualiser Reloaded, but the code (at the very end of the article) makes a simple call to explicitlyRegisterTopDefs to retrieve the top level quoted definition.
I cannot seem to find this function in the latest version of the PowerPack or the F# compiler (I am working with .Net 4.0).
Lots of things happened to have changed since 2006 when the article was written, for example, the Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.Raw was refactored, as you can see here.
Does anyone know how to capture these top level quotations with the latest versions of the PowerPack / compiler?
Thanks.
We did a lot of stuff like this WebSharper. Basically you do (no powerpack needed):
module QP = Quotations.Patterns
module QDP = Quotations.DerivedPatterns
[<ReflectedDefinition>]
let myFunc x = x + 1
match <# myFunc 1 #> with
| QP.Call(_, QDP.MethodWithReflectedDefinition d, _) ->
printfn "%A" d
| _ ->
printfn "ERROR"
I hope this helps with your scenario.
Note however that it has a ton of problems. Most grievous is that these active patterns throw exceptions from time to time. In addition, they are based on System.Reflection which slows things down enormously. Also, you have to account for unexpected things, like quotation currying not being resolved for you, certain constructor quotations failing, and so on.
For the upcoming WebSharper 2.4 I ended up rewriting the quotation loading code from scratch, using F# compiler sources as the definition of the binary format and avoiding System.Reflection, with great improvements in speed and reliability.
This is a stupid question. I've been reading a couple books on F# and can't find anything that explains when you put ;; after a statement, nor can I find a pattern in the reading. When do you end a statement with double semi-colons?
In the non-interactive F# code that's not supposed to be compatible with OCaml, you shouldn't need to ever need double semicolon. In the OCaml compatible mode, you would use it at the end of a top-level function declaration (In the recent versions, you can switch to this mode by using files with .ml extension or by adding #light "off" to the top).
If you're using the command-line fsi.exe tool or F# Interactive in Visual Studio then you'd use ;; to end the current input for F#.
When I'm posting code samples here at StackOverflow (and in the code samples from my book), I use ;; in the listing when I also want to show the result of evaluating the expression in F# interactive:
Listing from F# interactive
> "Hello" + " world!";;
val it : string = "Hello world!"
> 1 + 2;;
val it : int = 3
Standard F# source code
let n = 1 + 2
printf "Hello world!"
Sometimes it is also useful to show the output as part of the listing, so I find this notation quite useful, but I never explained it anywhere, so it's great that you asked!
Are you talking about F# proper or about running F# functions in the F# Interactive? In F# Interactive ;; forces execution of the code just entered. other than that ;; does not have any special meaning that I know of
In F#, the only place ;; is required is to end expressions in the interactive mode.
;; is left over from the transition from OCaml, where in turn it is left over from Caml Light. Originally ;; was used to end top-level "phrases"--that is, let, type, etc. OCaml made ;; optional since the typical module consists of a series of let statements with maybe one statement at the end to call the main function. If you deviate from this pattern, you need to separate the statements with ;;. Unfortunately, in OCaml, when ;; is optional versus required is hard to learn.
However, F# introduces two relevant modifications to OCaml syntax: indentation and do. Top-level statements have to go inside a do block, and indentation is required for blocks, so F# always knows that each top-level statement begin with do and an indent and ends with an outdent. No more ;; required.
Overall, all you need to know is that [O']Caml's syntax sucks, and F# fixes a lot of its problems, but maintains a lot of confusing backward compatibility. (I believe that F# can still compile a lot of OCaml code.)
Note: This answer was based on my experience with OCaml and the link Adam Gent posted (which is unfortunately not very enlightening unless you know OCaml).
Symbol and Operator Reference (F#)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233228(v=VS.100).aspx
Semi Colon:
•Separates expressions (used mostly in verbose syntax).
•Separates elements of a list.
•Separates fields of a record.
Double Semi Colon:
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/free/introduction.html
Articles in The F#.NET Journal quote F# code as it would appear in an interactive session. Specifically, the interactive session provides a > prompt, requires a double semicolon ;; identifier at the end of a code snippet to force evaluation, and returns the names (if any) and types of resulting definitions and values.
I suspect that you have seen F# code written when #light syntax wasn't enabled by default (#light syntax is on by default for the May 2009 CTP and later ones as well as for Visual Studio 2010) and then ;; means the end of a function declaration.
So what is #light syntax? It comes with the #light declaration:
The #light declaration makes
whitespace significant. Allowing the
developer to omit certain keywords
such as in, ;, ;;, begin, and end.
Here's a code written without #light syntax:
let halfWay a b =
let dif = b - a in
let mid = dif / 2 in
mid + a;;
and becomes with light syntax:
#light
let halfWay a b =
let dif = b - a
let mid = dif / 2
mid + a
As said you can omit the #light declaration now (which should be the case if you're on a recent CTP or Visual Studio 2010).
See also this thread if you want know more on the #light syntax: F# - Should I learn with or without #light?
The double semi-colon is used to mark the end of a block of code that is ready for evaluation in F# interactive when you are typing directly into the interactive session. For example, when using it as a calculator.
This is rarely seen in F# because you typically write code into a script file, highlight it and use ALT+ENTER to have it evaluated, with Visual Studio effectively injecting the ;; at the end for you.
OCaml is the same.
Literature often quotes code written as it would appear if it had been typed into an interactive session because this is a clear way to convey not only the code but also its inferred type. For example:
> [1; 2; 3];;
val it : int list = [1; 2; 3]
This means that you type the expression [1; 2; 3] into the interactive session followed by the ;; denoting the end of a block of code that is ready to be evaluated interactively and the compiler replies with val it : int list = [1; 2; 3] describing that the expression evaluated to a value of the type int list.
The double semicolon most likely comes from OCaml since that is what the language is based on.
See link text
Basically its for historical purposes and you need it for the evaluator (repl) if you use it.
There is no purpose for double semi-colons (outside of F# interactive). The semi-colon, according to MSDN:
Separates expressions (used mostly
in verbose syntax).
Separates
elements of a list.
Separates
fields of a record.
Therefore, in the first instance, ;; would be separating the expression before the first semi-colon from the empty expression after it but before the second semi-colon, and separating that empty expression from whatever came after the second semi-colon (just as in, say C# or C++).
In the instance of the list, I suspect you'd get an error for defining an empty list element.
With regards to the record, I suspect it would be similar to separating expressions, with the empty space between the semi-colons effectively being ignored.
F# interactive executes the entered F# on seeing a double semi-colon.
[Updated to cover F# interactive - courtesy of mfeingold)
The history of the double semicolon can be traced back to the beginnings of ML when semicolons were used as a separator in lists instead of commas. In this ICFP 2010 - Tribute to Robin Milner video around 50:15 Mike Gordon mentions:
There was a talk on F# where someone asked "Why is there double semicolon on the end of F# commands?" The reason is the separator in lists in the original ML is semicolons, so if you wanted a list 1;2;3; and put it on separate lines- if you ended a line with semicolon you were not ending the phrase, so using double semicolon meant the end of the expression. Then in Standard ML the separator for lists became comma, so that meant you could use single semicolons to end lists.