let f (O: obj) =
match O with
| :? (obj -> list<obj>) -> "win"
| :? list<obj> -> "list!"
| _ -> "fail"
Console.WriteLine(f(fun x -> ["lol"]))
Console.WriteLine(f(["lol"]))
prints "fail" twice, as I suppose it should, because I am giving i a function obj -> list<String>, which is not a obj -> list<obj>. Is there any way to make them match though? I could upcast each list into a list<obj> before making an anonymous function out of it, or I could upcast everything to obj before putting it into the list.
Either of those works and makes it match, but i thought this was the problem that covariance/contravariance was meant to have already solved? Correct me if i'm mistaken
Unfortunately, you can't solve this using any built-in pattern matching.
The only way to find out whether an obj value is some F# function is to use F# Reflection and call the FSharpType.IsFunction method on the type. You can check for the case in your example like this:
open System
open Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection
let f (o : obj) =
let ty = o.GetType()
if FSharpType.IsFunction(ty) then
let tyFrom, tyTo = FSharpType.GetFunctionElements(ty)
if tyTo.IsGenericType && tyTo.GetGenericTypeDefinition() = typedefof<list<_>> then
printfn "win"
else
printfn "wrong function"
else
printfn "not a function"
Console.WriteLine(f(fun x -> "lol")) // wrong function
Console.WriteLine(f(fun x -> ["lol"])) // win
Console.WriteLine(f(["lol"])) // not a function
You could encapsulate the behavior in an F# active pattern to make the syntax a bit nicer (and use pattern matching on types). However, another problem is that this doesn't give you a function that you could use to actually invoke the function dynamically. I don't think there is a built-in library function for this, so you'll probably need to use .NET reflection to call the Invoke method dynamically.
EDIT: There has been similar related questions on SO. The general problem is that you're matching against some (any) instantiation of a specific generic type, so the same issue arises with lists etc. See for example:
F# and pattern matching on generics...
Pattern matching against generic type...
How to cast an object to a list...
Related
I was attempting to convert this to F# but I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong as the error message (in title) is too broad of an error to search for, so I found no resolutions.
Here is the code:
let getIP : string =
let host = Dns.GetHostEntry(Dns.GetHostName())
for ip in host.AddressList do
if ip.AddressFamily = AddressFamily.InterNetwork then
ip.ToString() // big fat red underline here
"?"
A for loop in F# is for running imperative-style code, where the code inside the for loop does not produce a result but instead runs some kind of side-effect. Therefore, the expression block in an F# for loop is expected to produce the type unit, which is what side-effect functions should return. (E.g., printfn "Something" returns the unit type). Also, there's no way to exit a for loop early in F#; this is by design, and is another reason why a for loop isn't the best approach to do what you're trying to do.
What you're trying to do is go through a list one item at a time, find the first item that matches some condition, and return that item (and, if the item is not found, return some default value). F# has a specialized function for that: Seq.find (or List.find if host.AddressList is an F# list, or Array.find if host.AddressList is an array. Those three functions take different input types but all work the same way conceptually, so from now on I'll focus on Seq.find, which takes any IEnumerable as input so is most likely to be what you need here).
If you look at the Seq.find function's type signature in the F# docs, you'll see that it is:
('T -> bool) -> seq<'T> -> 'T
This means that the function takes two parameters, a 'T -> bool and seq<'T> and returns a 'T. The 'T syntax means "this is a generic type called T": in F#, the apostrophe means that what follows is the name of a generic type. The type 'T -> bool means a function that takes a 'T and returns a Boolean; i.e., a predicate that says "Yes, this matches what I'm looking for" or "No, keep looking". The second argument to Seq.find is a seq<'T>; seq is F#'s shorter name for an IEnumerable, so you can read this as IEnumerable<'T>. And the result is an item of type 'T.
Just from that function signature and name alone, you can guess what this does: it goes through the sequence of items and calls the predicate for each one; the first item for which the predicate returns true will be returned as the result of Seq.find.
But wait! What if the item you're looking for isn't in the sequence at all? Then Seq.find will throw an exception, which may not be the behavior you're looking for. Which is why the Seq.tryFind function exists: its function signature looks just like Seq.find, except for the return value: it returns 'T option rather than 'T. That means that you'll either get a result like Some "ip address" or None. In your case, you intend to return "?" if the item isn't found. So you want to convert a value that's either Some "ip address or None to either "ip address" (without the Some) or "?". That is what the defaultArg function is for: it takes a 'T option, and a 'T representing the default value to return if your value is None, and it returns a plain 'T.
So to sum up:
Seq.tryFind takes a predicate function and a sequence, and returns a 'T option. In your case, this will be a string option
defaultArg takes a 'T option and a default value, and returns a normal 'T (in your case, a string).
With these two pieces, plus a predicate function you can write yourself, we can do what you're looking for.
One more note before I show you the code: you wrote let getIP : string = (code). It seems like you intended for getIP to be a function, but you didn't give it any parameters. Writing let something = (code block) will create a value by running the code block immediately (and just once) and then assigning its result to the name something. Whereas writing let something() = (code block) will create a function. It will not run the code block immediately, but it will instead run the code block every time the function is called. So I think you should have written let getIP() : string = (code).
Okay, so having explained all that, let's put this together to give you a getIP function that actually works:
let getIP() = // No need to declare the return type, since F# can infer it
let isInternet ip = // This is the predicate function
// Note that this function isn't accessible outside of getIP()
ip.AddressFamily = AddressFamily.InterNetwork
let host = Dns.GetHostEntry(Dns.GetHostName())
let maybeIP = Seq.tryFind isInternet host.AddressList
defaultArg maybeIP "?"
I hope that's clear enough; if there's anything you don't understand, let me know and I'll try to explain further.
Edit: The above has one possible flaw: the fact that F# may not be able to infer the type of the ip argument in isInternet without an explicit type declaration. It's clear from the code that it needs to be some class with an .AddressFamily property, but the F# compiler can't know (at this point in the code) which class you intend to pass to this predicate function. That's because the F# compiler is a single-pass compiler, that works its way through the code in a top-down, left-to-right order. To be able to infer the type of the ip parameter, you might need to rearrange the code a little, as follows:
let getIP() = // No need to declare the return type, since F# can infer it
let host = Dns.GetHostEntry(Dns.GetHostName())
let maybeIP = host.AddressList |> Seq.tryFind (fun ip -> ip.AddressFamily = AddressFamily.InterNetwork)
defaultArg maybeIP "?"
This is actually more idiomatic F# anyway. When you have a predicate function being passed to Seq.tryFind or other similar functions, the most common style in F# is to declare that predicate as an anonymous function using the fun keyword; this works just like lambdas in C# (in C# that predicate would be ip => ip.AddressFamily == AddressFamily.InterNetwork). And the other thing that's common is to use the |> operator with things like Seq.tryFind and others that take predicates. The |> operator basically* takes the value that's before the |> operator and passes it as the last parameter of the function that's after the operator. So foo |> Seq.tryFind (fun x -> xyz) is just like writing Seq.tryFind (fun x -> xyz) foo, except that foo is the first thing you read in that line. And since foo is the sequence that you're looking in, and fun x -> xyz is how you're looking, that feels more natural: in English, you'd say "Please look in my closet for a green shirt", so the concept "closet" comes up before "green shirt". And in idiomatic F#, you'd write closet |> Seq.find (fun shirt -> shirt.Color = "green"): again, the concept "closet" comes up before "green shirt".
With this version of the function, F# will encounter host.AddressList before it encounters fun ip -> ..., so it will know that the name ip refers to one item in host.AddressList. And since it knows the type of host.AddressList, it will be able to infer the type of ip.
* There's a lot more going on behind the scenes with the |> operator, involving currying and partial application. But at a beginner level, just think of it as "puts a value at the end of a function's parameter list" and you'll have the right idea.
In F# any if/else/then-statement must evaluate to the same type of value for all branches. Since you've omitted the else-branch of the expression, the compiler will infer it to return a value of type unit, effectively turning your if-expression into this:
if ip.AddressFamily = AddressFamily.InterNetwork then
ip.ToString() // value of type string
else
() // value of type unit
Scott Wlaschin explains this better than me on the excellent F# for fun and profit.
This should fix the current error, but still won't compile. You can solve this either by translating the C#-code more directly (using a mutable variable for the localIP value, and doing localIP <- ip.ToString() in your if-clause, or you could look into a more idiomatic approach using something like Seq.tryFind.
given
[
1,"test2"
3,"test"
]
|> dict
// turn it into keyvaluepair sequence
|> Seq.map id
|> fun x -> x.ToDictionary<_,_,_>((fun x -> x.Key), fun x -> x.Value)
which fails to compile if I don't explicitly use the <_,_,_> after ToDictionary.
Intellisense works just fine, but compilation fails with the error: Lookup on object of indeterminate type based on information prior to this program point
So, it seems, Intellisense knows how to resolve the method call.
This seems to be a clue
|> fun x -> x.ToDictionary<_,_>((fun x -> x.Key), fun x -> x.Value)
fails with
Type constraint mismatch.
The type 'b -> 'c is not compatible with type IEqualityComparer<'a>
The type 'b -> 'c' is not compatible with the type 'IEqualityComparer<'a>'
(using external F# compiler)
x.ToDictionary((fun x -> x.Key), id)
works as expected as does
let vMap (item:KeyValuePair<_,_>) = item.Value
x.ToDictionary((fun x -> x.Key), vMap)
I've replicated the behavior in FSI and LinqPad.
As a big fan of and avid reader of Eric Lippert I really want to know
what overload resolution, (or possibly extension methods from different places) are conflicting here that the compiler is confused by?
Even though the types are known ahead, the compiler's getting confused between the overload which takes an element selector and a comparer. The lambda compiles to FSharpFunc rather than the standard delegate types in C# like Action or Func, and issues do come up translating from one to the other. To make it work, you can :
Supply a type annotation for the offending Func
fun x -> x.ToDictionary((fun pair -> pair.Key), (fun (pair : KeyValuePair<_, _>) -> pair.Value)) //compiles
or name the argument as a hint
fun x -> x.ToDictionary((fun pair -> pair.Key), elementSelector = (fun (pair) -> pair.Value))
or force it to pick the 3 argument version:
x.ToLookup((fun pair -> pair.Key), (fun (pair) -> pair.Value), EqualityComparer.Default)
Aside
In your example,
let vMap (item:KeyValuePair<_,_>) = item.Value
x.ToDictionary((fun x -> x.Key), vMap)
you would explicitly need to annotate vMap because the compiler cannot find out what type the property exists on without another pass. For example,
List.map (fun x -> x.Length) ["one"; "two"] // this fails to compile
This is one of the reasons why the pipe operator is so useful, because it allows you to avoid type annotations:
["one"; "two"] |> List.map (fun x -> x.Length) // works
List.map (fun (x:string) -> x.Length) ["one"; "two"] //also works
The short answer:
The extension method ToDictionary is defined like this:
static member ToDictionary<'TSource,_,_>(source,_,_)
but is called like this:
source.ToDictionary<'TSource,_,_>(_,_)
The long answer:
This is the F# type signature of the function you are calling from msdn.
static member ToDictionary<'TSource, 'TKey, 'TElement> :
source:IEnumerable<'TSource> *
keySelector:Func<'TSource, 'TKey> *
elementSelector:Func<'TSource, 'TElement> -> Dictionary<'TKey, 'TElement>
But I only specified two regular parameters: keySelector and elementSelector. How come this has a source parameter?!
The source parameter is actually not put in the parenthesis, but is passed in by saying x.ToDictionary, where x is the source parameter. This is actually an example of a type extension. These kinds of methods are very natural in a functional programming language like F#, but more uncommon in an object oriented language like C#, so if you're coming from the C# world, it will be pretty confusing. Anyway, if we look at the C# header, it is a little easier to understand what is going on:
public static Dictionary<TKey, TElement> ToDictionary<TSource, TKey, TElement>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector,
Func<TSource, TElement> elementSelector
)
So the method is defined with a "this" prefix on a first parameter even though it is technically static. It basically allows you to add methods to already defined classes without re-compiling or extending them. This is called prototyping. It's kinda rare if you're a C# programmer, but languages like python and javascript force you to be aware of this. Take this example from https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html:
class Dog:
tricks = [] # mistaken use of a class variable
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def add_trick(self, trick):
self.tricks.append(trick)
>>> d = Dog('Fido')
>>> e = Dog('Buddy')
>>> d.add_trick('roll over')
>>> e.add_trick('play dead')
>>> d.tricks # unexpectedly shared by all dogs
['roll over', 'play dead']
The method add_trick is defined with self as a first parameter, but the function is called as d.add_trick('roll over'). F# actually does this naturally as well, but in a way that mimics the way the function is called. When you declare:
member x.doSomething() = ...
or
member this.doSomething() = ...
Here, you are adding function doSomething to the prototype (or class definition) of "x"/"this". Thus, in your example, you actually have three type parameters, and three regular parameters, but one of them is not used in the call. All you have left is to declare the key selector function, and the element selector function, which you did. That's why it looks weird.
I am trying to write a typed abstract syntax tree datatype that can represent
function application.
So far I have
type Expr<'a> =
| Constant of 'a
| Application of Expr<'b -> 'a> * Expr<'b> // error: The type parameter 'b' is not defined
I don't think there is a way in F# to write something like 'for all b' on that last line - am I approaching this problem wrongly?
In general, the F# type system is not expressive enough to (directly) define a typed abstract syntax tree as the one in your example. This can be done using generalized algebraic data types (GADTs) which are not supported in F# (although they are available in Haskell and OCaml). It would be nice to have this in F#, but I think it makes the language a bit more complex.
Technically speaking, the compiler is complaining because the type variable 'b is not defined. But of course, if you define it, then you get type Expr<'a, 'b> which has a different meaning.
If you wanted to express this in F#, you'd have to use a workaround based on interfaces (an interface can have generic method, which give you a way to express constraint like exists 'b which you need here). This will probably get very ugly very soon, so I do not think it is a good approach, but it would look something like this:
// Represents an application that returns 'a but consists
// of an argument 'b and a function 'b -> 'a
type IApplication<'a> =
abstract Appl<'b> : Expr<'b -> 'a> * Expr<'b> -> unit
and Expr<'a> =
// Constant just stores a value...
| Constant of 'a
// An application is something that we can call with an
// implementation (handler). The function then calls the
// 'Appl' method of the handler we provide. As this method
// is generic, it will be called with an appropriate type
// argument 'b that represents the type of the argument.
| Application of (IApplication<'a> -> unit)
To represent an expression tree of (fun (n:int) -> string n) 42, you could write something like:
let expr =
Application(fun appl ->
appl.Appl(Constant(fun (n:int) -> string n),
Constant(42)))
A function to evaluate the expression can be written like this:
let rec eval<'T> : Expr<'T> -> 'T = function
| Constant(v) -> v // Just return the constant
| Application(f) ->
// We use a bit of dirty mutable state (to keep types simpler for now)
let res = ref None
// Call the function with a 'handler' that evaluates function application
f { new IApplication<'T> with
member x.Appl<'A>(efunc : Expr<'A -> 'T>, earg : Expr<'A>) =
// Here we get function 'efunc' and argument 'earg'
// The type 'A is the type of the argument (which can be
// anything, depending on the created AST)
let f = eval<'A -> 'T> efunc
let a = eval<'A> earg
res := Some <| (f a) }
res.Value.Value
As I said, this is a bit really extreme workaround, so I do not think it is a good idea to actually use it. I suppose the F# way of doing this would be to use untyped Expr type. Can you write a bit more about the overall goal of your project (perhaps there is another good approach)?
I'm trying to use AutoMapper from F#, but I'm having trouble setting it up due to AutoMapper's heavy use of LINQ Expressions.
Specifically, the AutoMapper type IMappingExpression<'source, 'dest> has a method with this signature:
ForMember(destMember: Expression<Func<'dest, obj>>, memberOpts: Action<IMemberConfigurationExpression<'source>>)
This is typically used in C# like this:
Mapper.CreateMap<Post, PostsViewModel.PostSummary>()
.ForMember(x => x.Slug, o => o.MapFrom(m => SlugConverter.TitleToSlug(m.Title)))
.ForMember(x => x.Author, o => o.Ignore())
.ForMember(x => x.PublishedAt, o => o.MapFrom(m => m.PublishAt));
I made an F# wrapper that arranges things so that type inference can work. This wrapper allows me to translate the C# example above into something like this:
Mapper.CreateMap<Post, Posts.PostSummary>()
|> mapMember <# fun x -> x.Slug #> <# fun m -> SlugConverter.TitleToSlug(m.Title) #>
|> ignoreMember <# fun x -> x.Author #>
|> mapMember <# fun x -> x.PublishedAt #> <# fun m -> m.PublishAt #>
|> ignore
This code compiles, and it seems pretty clean as far as syntax and usage. However, at runtime AutoMapper tells me this:
AutoMapper.AutoMapperConfigurationException: Custom configuration for members is only supported for top-level individual members on a type.
I presume this is caused by the fact that I have to convert Expr<'a -> 'b> into Expression<Func<'a, obj>>. I convert the 'b to obj with a cast, which means my lambda expression is no longer simply a property access. I get the same error if I box the property value in the original quotation, and don't do any splicing at all inside forMember (see below). However, if I don't box the property value, I end up with Expression<Func<'a, 'b>> which does not match the parameter type that ForMember expects, Expression<Func<'a, obj>>.
I think that this would work if AutoMapper's ForMember was completely generic, but forcing the return type of the member access expression to be obj means that I can only use it in F# for properties that are already directly of type obj and not a subclass. I can always resort to using the overload of ForMember that takes the member name as a string, but I thought I'd check to see if anyone has a brilliant work-around before I give up on compile-time typo-checking.
I'm using this code (plus the LINQ part of F# PowerPack) to convert an F# quotation into a LINQ expression:
namespace Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
module Expr =
open System
open System.Linq.Expressions
open Microsoft.FSharp.Linq.QuotationEvaluation
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10647198/how-to-convert-expra-b-to-expressionfunca-obj
let ToFuncExpression (expr:Expr<'a -> 'b>) =
let call = expr.ToLinqExpression() :?> MethodCallExpression
let lambda = call.Arguments.[0] :?> LambdaExpression
Expression.Lambda<Func<'a, 'b>>(lambda.Body, lambda.Parameters)
This is the actual F# wrapper for AutoMapper:
namespace AutoMapper
/// Functions for working with AutoMapper using F# quotations,
/// in a manner that is compatible with F# type-inference.
module AutoMap =
open System
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
let forMember (destMember: Expr<'dest -> 'mbr>) (memberOpts: IMemberConfigurationExpression<'source> -> unit) (map: IMappingExpression<'source, 'dest>) =
map.ForMember(Expr.ToFuncExpression <# fun dest -> ((%destMember) dest) :> obj #>, memberOpts)
let mapMember destMember (sourceMap:Expr<'source -> 'mapped>) =
forMember destMember (fun o -> o.MapFrom(Expr.ToFuncExpression sourceMap))
let ignoreMember destMember =
forMember destMember (fun o -> o.Ignore())
Update:
I was able to use Tomas's sample code to write this function, which produces an expression that AutoMapper is satisfied with for the first argument to IMappingExpression.ForMember.
let toAutoMapperGet (expr:Expr<'a -> 'b>) =
match expr with
| Patterns.Lambda(v, body) ->
// Build LINQ style lambda expression
let bodyExpr = Expression.Convert(translateSimpleExpr body, typeof<obj>)
let paramExpr = Expression.Parameter(v.Type, v.Name)
Expression.Lambda<Func<'a, obj>>(bodyExpr, paramExpr)
| _ -> failwith "not supported"
I still need the PowerPack LINQ support to implement my mapMember function, but they both work now.
If anyone is interested, they can find the full code here.
Now that F# is happy to generate a Expression<Func<...>> directly from a fun expression, this is relatively easy to solve. The biggest problem now is that the F# compiler seems to get confused by the overloading of the ForMember method, and is unable to infer correctly what you want. This can be circumvented by defining an extension method with a different name:
type AutoMapper.IMappingExpression<'TSource, 'TDestination> with
// The overloads in AutoMapper's ForMember method seem to confuse
// F#'s type inference, forcing you to supply explicit type annotations
// for pretty much everything to get it to compile. By simply supplying
// a different name,
member this.ForMemberFs<'TMember>
(destGetter:Expression<Func<'TDestination, 'TMember>>,
sourceGetter:Action<IMemberConfigurationExpression<'TSource, 'TDestination, 'TMember>>) =
this.ForMember(destGetter, sourceGetter)
You can then use the ForMemberFs method more or less as the original ForMember is intended to work, e.g.:
this.CreateMap<Post, Posts.PostSummary>()
.ForMemberFs
((fun d -> d.Slug),
(fun opts -> opts.MapFrom(fun m -> SlugConverter.TitleToSlug(m.Title)))
I'm not quite sure how to fix the generated expression tree (that's doable by post-processing it, but it is pain to find out what AutoMapper expects). However, there are two alternatives:
As a first option - the expressions that you need to translate are fairly simple. They are mostly just method calls, property getters and uses of a variable. This means that it should be possible to write your own quotation to expression trees translator that produces exactly the code you want (then you can also add your own handling of obj, perhaps by calling Expression.Convert to build the expression tree). I wrote a simple quotation tranlsator as a sample, which should handle most of the stuff in your sample.
As a second option - if AutoMapper provides an option to specify just a property name - you could just use quotations of the form <# x.FooBar #>. These should be quite easy to deconstruct using the Patterns.PropertyGet pattern. The API should maybe look like this:
Mapper.CreateMap<Post, Posts.PostSummary>(fun post summary mapper ->
mapper |> mapMember <# post.Slug #> // not sure what the second argument should be?
|> ignoreMember <# post.Author #> )
Or, in fact, you could use this style of API even in the first case, because you don't need to write lambda expressions repeatedly for every single mapping, so maybe it is a bit nicer :-)
I need a function like Seq.head, but returning None instead of throwing an exception when the sequence is empty, i.e., seq<'T> -> 'T option.
There are a jillion ways to do this. Here are several:
let items = Seq.init 10 id
let a = Seq.tryFind (fun _ -> true) items
let b = Seq.tryPick Some items
let c = if Seq.isEmpty items then None else Some (Seq.head items)
let d =
use e = items.GetEnumerator()
if e.MoveNext() then Some e.Current
else None
b is the one I use. Two questions:
Is there a particularly idiomatic way to do this?
Since there's no built-in Seq.tryHead function, does that indicate this shouldn't be necessary, is uncommon, or is better implemented without a function?
UPDATE
tryHead has been added to the standard library in F# 4.0.
I think (b) is probably the most idiomatic, for the same reason #Ramon gave.
I think the lack of Seq.tryHead just means that it is not super common.
I'm not sure, but my guess is that functional languages with Hindley-Milner type inference in general are sparse about implementing such specific functions on collection types because overloading isn't available and composing higher-order functions can be done tersely.
For example, C# Linq extensions are much more exhaustive than functions in F#'s Seq module (which itself is more exhaustive than functions on concrete collection types), and even has IEnumerable.FirstOrDefault. Practically every overload has a variation which performs a map.
I think emphasis on pattern matching and concrete types like list is also a reason.
Now, most of the above is speculation, but I think I may have a notion closer to being objective. I think a lot of the time tryPick and tryFind can be used in the first place instead of filter |> tryHead. For example, I find myself writing code like the following fairly frequently:
open System.Reflection
let ty = typeof<System.String> //suppose this type is actually unknown at compile time
seq {
for name in ["a";"b";"c"] do
yield ty.GetMethod(name)
} |> Seq.tryFind((<>)null)
instead of like
...
seq {
for name in ["a";"b";"c"] do
match ty.GetMethod(name) with
| null -> ()
| mi -> yield mi
} |> tryHead
You could define:
let seqTryHead s = Seq.tryPick Some s
It is of type seq<'a> -> 'a option. Note that I don't beta-reduce because of the generic value limitation.