Is there any internal mechanism in Go for implementing equality and ordering? (So we can use comparison operators on the type - ==, !=, <, >, <=, >=.)
Note: I saw some types have a method named Less which seems to be used for ordering. But I can not find the documentation for that or for equality checking interface (if there is any).
Go does not support operator overloading, so you won't be able to override the behaviour of those operators with your type. If you need to use those operations on your type, then define them as methods.
The Less method you may have seen on some types is probably there as part of the sort.Interface interface or possibly heap.Interface (which extends the sort interface).
Related
Just trying to write simple if statement to check whether a model has a certain string value. Currently I have this
#if (offer.Title === "Offer")
{
//do something
}
I know I have results where the title does equal "Offer" but nothing is displaying on my webpage. I don't normally write MVC (hence the noobie question) but I figured this would be pretty simple so just went for it myself..
According to the C# reference, the existing equality operators are:
==
By default, for reference types other than string, this returns
reference equality (identity test). However, types can overload ==, so
if your intent is to test identity, it is best to use the
ReferenceEquals method on object.
!=
not equal. See comment for ==. If a type overloads ==, then it must
overload !=
So the outcome is that there is no triple equality operator, you have got to use the double equality operator. Note: in other languages the triple equality operator === would also check for the type equality not just the value equality, but since C# is a type safe language there is no need for the triple.
I am trying to make a simple use of typeclasses in Nim. Please, keep in mind that I only have been using Nim since this morning, so I may have been doing something stupid.
Anyway, I would like to define a pseudorandom generator that produces a stream of values of type T. Sometimes T is numeric, hence it makes sense to know something about the minimum and maximum values attainable - say to rescale the values. Here are my types
type
Generator*[T] = generic x
next(var x) is T
BoundedGenerator*[T] = generic x
x is Generator[T]
min(x) is T
max(x) is T
I also have such an instance, say LinearCongruentialGenerator.
Say I want to use this to define Uniform generator that produces float values in an interval. I have tried
type Uniform* = object
gen: BoundedGenerator[int]
min_p: float
max_p: float
proc create*(gen: BoundedGenerator[int], min: float, max: float): Uniform =
return Uniform(gen: gen, min_p: min, max_p: max)
I omit the obvious definitions of next, min and max.
The above, however, does not compile, due to Error: 'BoundedGenerator' is not a concrete type
If I explicitly put LinearCongruentialGenerator in place of BoundedGenerator[int], everyting compiles, but of course I want to be able to switch more sophisticated generators.
Can anyone help me understand the compiler error?
The type classes in Nim are not used to create abstract polymorphic types as it is the case with Haskell's type classes and C++'s interfaces. Instead, they are much more similar to the concepts proposal for C++. They define a set of arbitrary type requirements that can be used as overload-resolution criteria for generic functions.
If you want to work with abstract types, you can either define a type hierarchy with a common base type and use methods (which use multiple dispatch) or you can roll your own vtable-based solution. In the future, the user defined type classes will gain the ability to automatically convert the matched values to a different type (during overload resolution). This will make the vtable approach very easy to use as values of types with compatible interfaces will be convertible to a "fat pointer" carrying the vtable externally to the object (with the benefit that many pointers with different abstract types can be created for the same object). I'll be implementing these mechanisms in the next few months, hopefully before the 1.0 release.
Araq (the primary author of Nim) also has some plans for optimizing a certain type of group of closures bundled together to a cheaper representation, where the closure environment is shared between them and the end result is quite close to the traditional C++-like vtable-carrying object.
I am trying to port a small compiler from C# to F# to take advantage of features like pattern matching and discriminated unions. Currently, I am modeling the AST using a pattern based on System.Linq.Expressions: A an abstract base "Expression" class, derived classes for each expression type, and a NodeType enum allowing for switching on expressions without lots of casting. I had hoped to greatly reduce this using an F# discriminated union, but I've run into several seeming limitations:
Forced public default constructor (I'd like to do type-checking and argument validation on expression construction, as System.Linq.Expressions does with it's static factory methods)
Lack of named properties (seems like this is fixed in F# 3.1)
Inability to refer to a case type directly. For example, it seems like I can't declare a function that takes in only one type from the union (e. g. let f (x : TYPE) = x compiles for Expression (the union type) but not for Add or Expression.Add. This seems to sacrifice some type-safety over my C# approach.
Are there good workarounds for these or design patterns which make them less frustrating?
I think, you are stuck a little too much with the idea that a DU is a class hierarchy. It is more helpful to think of it as data, really. As such:
Forced public default constructor (I'd like to do type-checking and argument validation on expression construction, as
System.Linq.Expressions does with it's static factory methods)
A DU is just data, pretty much like say a string or a number, not functionality. Why don't you make a function that returns you an Expression option to express, that your data might be invalid.
Lack of named properties (seems like this is fixed in F# 3.1)
If you feel like you need named properties, you probably have an inappropriate type like say string * string * string * int * float as the data for your Expression. Better make a record instead, something like AddInfo and make your case of the DU use that instead, like say | Add of AddInfo. This way you have properties in pattern matches, intellisense, etc.
Inability to refer to a case type directly. For example, it seems like I can't declare a function that takes in only one type from the
union (e. g. let f (x : TYPE) = x compiles for Expression (the union
type) but not for Add or Expression.Add. This seems to sacrifice some
type-safety over my C# approach.
You cannot request something to be the Add case, but you definitely do can write a function, that takes an AddInfo. Plus you can always do it in a monadic way and have functions that take any Expression and only return an option. In that case, you can pattern match, that your input is of the appropriate type and return None if it is not. At the call site, you then can "use" the value in the good case, using functions like Option.bind.
Basically try not to think of a DU as a set of classes, but really just cases of data. Kind of like an enum.
You can make the implementation private. This allows you the full power of DUs in your implementation but presents a limited view to consumers of your API. See this answer to a related question about records (although it also applies to DUs).
EDIT
I can't find the syntax on MSDN, but here it is:
type T =
private
| A
| B
private here means "private to the module."
Which way is more idiomatic to use Nullable<'a> or to use Option<'a> for representing a nullable int?
Option is far more idiomatic in F# code.
It has far nicer syntax when used in match and has large amounts of support from the standard library.
However, if you plan to access the code from C# or some other language you should probably expose the interface with Nullable which is easier to use in C#.
As John said, Option<T> is definitely more idiomatic type in F#. I would certainly use options as my default choice - the Option module provides many useful functions, pattern matching works nicely on options and F# libraries are generally designed to work with options.
That said, there are two cases when you might want to use nullable:
When creating arrays of optional values - Nullable<T> is a value type (sort of) and if you create an array Nullable<T>[] then it is allocated as continuous memory block. On the other hand options are reference types and option<T>[] will be an array of references to heap-allocated objects.
When you need to write some calculations and propagate missing values - in F# 3.0, there is a module Microsoft.FSharp.Linq.NullableOperators which implements various operators for dealing with nullable values (see MSDN documentation) which lets you write e.g.:
let one = Nullable(1)
let two = Nullable(2)
// Add constant to nullable, then compare value of two nullables
(one ?+ 2) ?>=? two
In F# mantra there seems to be a visceral avoidance of null, Nullable<T> and its ilk. In exchange, we are supposed to instead use option types. To be honest, I don't really see the difference.
My understanding of the F# option type is that it allows you to specify a type which can contain any of its normal values, or None. For example, an Option<int> allows all of the values that an int can have, in addition to None.
My understanding of the C# nullable types is that it allows you to specify a type which can contain any of its normal values, or null. For example, a Nullable<int> a.k.a int? allows all of the values that an int can have, in addition to null.
What's the difference? Do some vocabulary replacement with Nullable and Option, null and None, and you basically have the same thing. What's all the fuss over null about?
F# options are general, you can create Option<'T> for any type 'T.
Nullable<T> is a terrifically weird type; you can only apply it to structs, and though the Nullable type is itself a struct, it cannot be applied to itself. So you cannot create Nullable<Nullable<int>>, whereas you can create Option<Option<int>>. They had to do some framework magic to make that work for Nullable. In any case, this means that for Nullables, you have to know a priori if the type is a class or a struct, and if it's a class, you need to just use null rather than Nullable. It's an ugly leaky abstraction; it's main value seems to be with database interop, as I guess it's common to have `int, or no value' objects to deal with in database domains.
Im my opinion, the .Net framework is just an ugly mess when it comes to null and Nullable. You can argue either that F# 'adds to the mess' by having Option, or that it rescues you from the mess by suggesting that you avoid just null/Nullable (except when absolutely necessary for interop) and focus on clean solutions with Options. You can find people with both opinions.
You may also want to see
Best explanation for languages without null
Because every .NET reference type can have this extra, meaningless value—whether or not it ever is null, the possibility exists and you must check for it—and because Nullable uses null as its representation of "nothing," I think it makes a lot of sense to eliminate all that weirdness (which F# does) and require the possibility of "nothing" to be explicit. Option<_> does that.
What's the difference?
F# lets you choose whether or not you want your type to be an option type and, when you do, encourages you to check for None and makes the presence or absence of None explicit in the type.
C# forces every reference type to allow null and does not encourage you to check for null.
So it is merely a difference in defaults.
Do some vocabulary replacement with Nullable and Option, null and None, and you basically have the same thing. What's all the fuss over null about?
As languages like SML, OCaml and Haskell have shown, removing null removes a lot of run-time errors from real code. To the extent that the original creator of null even describes it as his "billion dollar mistake".
The advantage to using option is that it makes explicit that a variable can contain no value, whereas nullable types leave it implicit. Given a definition like:
string val = GetValue(object arg);
The type system does not document whether val can ever be null, or what will happen if arg is null. This means that repetitive checks need to be made at function boundaries to validate the assumptions of the caller and callee.
Along with pattern matching, code using option types can be statically checked to ensure both cases are handled, for example the following code results in a warning:
let f (io: int option) = function
| Some i -> i
As the OP mentions, there isn't much of a semantic difference between using the words optional or nullable when conveying optional types.
The problem with the built-in null system becomes apparent when you want to express non-optional types.
In C#, all reference types can be null. So, if we relied on the built-in null to express optional values, all reference types are forced to be optional ... whether the developer intended it or not. There is no way for a developer to specify a non-optional reference type (until C# 8).
So, the problem isn't with the semantic meaning of null. The problem is null is hijacked by reference types.
As a C# developer, i wish I could express optionality using the built-in null system. And that is exactly what C# 8 is doing with nullable reference types.
Well, one difference is that for a Nullable<T>, T can only be a struct which reduces the use cases dramatically.
Also make sure to read this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/947869/288703