I'm writing a generic class that has two constructors: the first one initializes every field, the second (parameter-less) should not initialize anything.
The only way I found to achieve this is calling the main constructor with "empty" arguments, i.e. Guid.Empty and null. Besides not looking good functional style to my untrained eyes, this means that I have to put a a' : null constraint on the second parameter, which I don't want:
type Container<'a when 'a : null>(id : Guid, content : 'a) =
let mutable _id = id
let mutable _content = content
new() = Container<'a>(Guid.Empty, null)
member this.Id
with get() = _id
and set(value) = _id <- value
member this.Content
with get() = _content
and set(value) = _content <- value
I see two ways to solve this:
use something like the default c# keyword instead of null (does such a thing exist in F#?)
use a different syntax to specify constructors and private fields (how?)
What is the best way to implement this class?
The F# analog to default is Unchecked.default<_>. It is also possible to use explicit fields which you don't initialize:
type Container<'a>() =
[<DefaultValue>]
val mutable _id : Guid
[<DefaultValue>]
val mutable _content : 'a
new (id, content) as this =
new Container<'a>() then
this._id <- id
this._content <- content
However, in general, your overall approach is somewhat unidiomatic for F#. Typically you'd use a simple record type (perhaps with a static method to create uninitialized containers, although this seems to have questionable benefit):
type 'a Container = { mutable id : Guid; mutable content : 'a } with
static member CreateEmpty() = { id = Guid.Empty; content = Unchecked.defaultof<_> }
In many situations, you could even use an immutable record type, and then use record update statements to generate new records with updated values:
type 'a Container = { id : Guid; content : 'a }
[<GeneralizableValue>]
let emptyContainer<'a> : 'a Container =
{ id = Guid.Empty;
content = Unchecked.defaultof<_> }
let someOtherContainer = { emptyContainer with content = 12 }
If the type will be used from languages other than F#, the following provides a natural interface in F#, and C#, for example.
type Container<'a>(?id : Guid, ?content : 'a) =
let orDefault value = defaultArg value Unchecked.defaultof<_>
let mutable _id = id |> orDefault
let mutable _content = content |> orDefault
new() = Container(?id = None, ?content = None)
new(id : Guid, content : 'a) = Container<_>(?id = Some id, ?content = Some content)
member this.Id
with get() = _id
and set(value) = _id <- value
member this.Content
with get() = _content
and set(value) = _content <- value
If it will only be used from F#, you can omit the following constructor overloads
new(id : Guid, content : 'a) = Container<_>(?id = Some id, ?content = Some content)
new() = Container()
because the overload accepting optional args handles both these cases equally well in F#.
Related
I want to create a cacheline sized struct wrapping a mutable, volatile int64 in F#. I’ve tried various struct definitions including the one below, but can't get anything to compile.
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit, Size = 64)>]
type MyStruct1 (initVal:int64) =
[<VolatileField>]
let mutable value = initVal
member x.Value
with get () = value
and set(valIn) = value <- valIn
which gives this error: "Structs cannot contain value definitions because the default constructor for structs will not execute these bindings.
consider adding additional arguments to the primary constructor for the type". I can't see what additional arguements I could add to the primary constructor above.
Any ideas?
The struct definition could be
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit, Size = 64)>]
type MyStruct =
[<FieldOffset(0)>]
val mutable value : int64
new(initVal:int64) = { value = initVal }
member x.Value
with get() = x.value
and set(valIn) = x.value <- valIn
but then, [<VolatileField>] is not allowed on val bindings and structs can't contain let bindings.
TL;DR: AFAIK this is impossible in F#
As pointed out by #V.B. you could use Interlocked which gives a superset of volatiles guarantees (stronger guarantees ≈ more overhead). It might then be better to privateize value to prevent (accidental) writes circumventing the barrier:
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit, Size = 64)>]
type MyStruct =
[<FieldOffset(0)>]
val mutable private value : int64
new(initVal:int64) = { value = initVal }
member public x.Value
with get() = Interlocked.Read(&x.value)
and set(valIn) = Interlocked.Exchange(&x.value, valIn) |> ignore
Interlocked gives similar guarantees as volatile, see this question.
open System.Threading
[<Struct; StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit, Size = 64)>]
type MyStruct =
[<FieldOffset(0)>]
val mutable value : int64
new(initVal:int64) = { value = initVal }
member x.Value
with get() = Interlocked.Read(&(x.value))
and set(valIn) = Interlocked.Exchange(&(x.value),valIn) |> ignore
Using Newtonsoft.Json, latest version (=6.0.6) I get the following error:
Cannot create and populate list type Microsoft.FSharp.Core.CompilerServices.RuntimeHelpers+EmptyEnumerable`1[System.String]
However in a post it was announced that Newtonsoft.Json would fully support Fsharp types?
When I change the offending type to a regular array, everything works fine.
The code:
type Prescription () =
member val Id = "" with get, set
member val Status = new PrescriptionStatus() with get, set
member val Prescriber = new Prescriber() with get, set
member val Indications = [||] : string[] with get, set
When I change Indications to be:
member val Indications = Seq.empty : string seq with get, set
I run into the error.
Also, when I initialise what is in fact an enumerable as an array, it cannot be constructed:
member val Indications : string seq = [||] |> Array.toSeq with get, set
I guess the answer is, Newtonsoft.Json doesn't fully support F# types.
But F# doesn't make supporting them particularly easy. For instance, an empty seq defined with Seq.empty is not just an IEnumerable<T>, it's a particular enumerable implementation EmptyEnumerable<T>, and this seems to throw off serialization - most likely because there's no appropriate constructor on it. From the post you linked to:
To all future creators of immutable .NET collections: If your collection of T has a constructor that takes IEnumerable then Json.NET will automatically work when deserializing to your collection, otherwise you're all out of luck.
If you initialize your seq like this instead, perhaps the behaviour will be different:
member val Indications = Seq.ofArray [||] : string seq with get, set
But that's splitting hairs, the actual answer here is simple - don't serialize seqs. Just use concrete, well-behaved types like arrays. The simpler the type, the less likely it is to give you headaches when doing serialization or interop.
Setting JsonSerializerSettings.ObjectCreationHandling = ObjectCreationHandling.Replace will fix this error.
I liked the notion of using simple types like arrays, only I wanted to use the same DTOs also for mapping to IQueryable in Linq queries. So, in that respect, arrays were not an option.
Luckily with some testing, it was simple:
#load ".\Scripts\load-project.fsx"
#time
open System
open System.Collections.Generic
open Newtonsoft.Json
[<CLIMutable>]
type Test1 =
{
Strings : string seq
}
type Test2 () =
member val Strings = Seq.empty : IEnumerable<string> with get, set
type Test3 () =
member val Strings = Seq.empty : String seq with get, set
type Test4 () =
member val Strings : IEnumerable<string> = Seq.empty : IEnumerable<string> with get, set
type Test5 () =
member val Strings : IEnumerable<string> = [] |> List.toSeq : IEnumerable<string> with get, set
type Test6 () =
member val Strings = [] |> List.toSeq : string seq with get, set
let test1 = { Strings = Seq.empty }
let test2 = new Test2 ()
let test3 = new Test3 ()
let test4 = new Test4 ()
let test5 = new Test5 ()
let test6 = new Test6 ()
let json1 = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test1)
let json2 = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test2)
let json3 = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test3)
let json4 = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test4)
let json5 = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test5)
let json6 = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(test6)
let deserialized1 = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Test1>(json1) // Fails
let deserialized2 = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Test2>(json2) // Fails
let deserialized3 = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Test3>(json3) // Fails
let deserialized4 = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Test4>(json4) // Fails
let deserialized5 = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Test5>(json5) // Passes
let deserialized6 = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Test5>(json6) // Passes
So, as long as you construct your sequence using a type that has a recognisable constructor, for example a list, the object can be deserialised. Strangely enough, initializing the sequence as an array and then converting it to a sequence, like with the list to sequence example (which passes), fails.
Say I have a code like this
let a = new List<int>()
let b = a :> obj :?> List<obj>
It throws an exception saying that it can't do it since one is List<int> while I'm trying to make it an List<obj>.
I understand why that's a problem. It can't just magically create an interface for me that replaces all int types with obj, but what CAN I do here?
I have an object and I know that's it's a List of something. How can I access the elements and just not care about their type?
My concrete example doesn't use Lists so I require a general, not a List specific, solution.
In case of lists you can use System.Collections.IList to access elements
open System.Collections
open System.Collections.Generic
let x = List<int>()
let y: IList = downcast (x :> obj)
This approach can also be generalized: make your generic classes implement non-generic interface:
type IT =
abstract Value: obj
type T<'a>(a: 'a) =
member val Value = a;
interface IT with
member this.Value = upcast this.Value
If this is not an option (i.e. because you cannot make changes in classes) you can always resort to reflection
type T<'a>(a: 'a) =
member val Value = a;
type Action =
static member Do(a: T<_>) = printfn "%A" a.Value
let v = T(10)
let mi = typeof<Action>.GetMethod("Do").MakeGenericMethod(v.GetType().GetGenericArguments().[0])
mi.Invoke(null, [|v|])
Suppose I have this class:
type Pet (name:string) as this =
let mutable age = 5
let mutable animal = "dog"
I want to be able to create a new Pet based on some serialized data, which I represent with this record:
type PetData = {
name : string
age : int
animal : string
}
(TLDR: I can't figure out the syntax to make a constructor that'll take a PetData to populate the let bindings. My various attempts follow.)
So I make a new Pet constructor that'll assign values to the let bindings. I try using the class initializer syntax:
new (data:PetData) =
Pet(name,
age = data.age,
animal = data.animal
)
Hmm, nope: No accessible member or object constructor named 'Pet' takes 1 arguments. The named argument 'age' doesn't correspond to any argument or settable return property for any overload.
I check to make sure I've got all the syntax: no missing commas, correct "assignment" (cough) operator, correct indentation.
Okay the, I'll try the record initializer syntax.
new (data:PetData) =
{
name = data.name;
age = data.age;
animal = data.name
}
Error: The type 'Pet' does not contain a field 'name'
Okay, so I need to call the main constructor. I guess there are probably two places I can put it, so let's try both:
new (data:PetData) =
{
Pet(data.name);
age = data.age;
animal = data.name
}
Nope: Invalid object, sequence or record expression
new (data:PetData) =
Pet(data.name)
{
age = data.age;
animal = data.name
}
And nope: This is not a valid object construction expression. Explicit object constructors must either call an alternate constructor or initialize all fields of the object and specify a call to a super class constructor.
I didn't want to have to do this, but maybe since the fields are mutable anyway, I can just assign values to the object after initializing it:
new (data:PetData) =
let p = Pet(data.name)
p.age <- data.age
p.animal <- data.animal
p
Type constraint mismatch. The type Pet is not compatible with type PetData The type 'Pet' is not compatible with the type 'PetData'
Lol, what??
Okay, let's try this:
let assign(data:PetData) =
this.age <- data.age
this.animal <- data.animal
new (data:PetData) =
let p = Pet(data.name)
p.assign(data)
p
The field, constructor or member 'assign' is not defined
Right, so it can't access let bindings from outside.
Let's try a member then:
new (data:PetData) =
let p = Pet(data.name)
p.Assign(data)
p
member x.Assign(data:PetData) =
this.age <- data.age
this.animal <- data.animal
This is not a valid object construction expression. Explicit object constructors must either call an alternate constructor or initialize all fields of the object and specify a call to a super class constructor.
Okay... let's try this whole thing differently then, using explicit fields:
type Pet =
[<DefaultValue>]val mutable private age : int
[<DefaultValue>]val mutable private animal : string
val private name : string
new(name:string) =
{ name = name }
new(data:PetData) =
{
name = data.name;
age = data.age;
animal = data.animal
}
Extraneous fields have been given values
And that's when I punch my elderly cat in the face.
Any other ideas? These error messages are throwing me off. I can't even find half of them on Google.
You could do this.
type Pet =
val mutable private age : int
val mutable private animal : string
val private name : string
new (name:string) =
{
name = name;
age = 5; // or age = Unchecked.defaultof<_>;
animal = "dog"; // or animal = Unchecked.defaultof<_>;
}
new (data:PetData) =
{
name = data.name;
age = data.age;
animal = data.animal;
}
F# has its own style which looks like this.
type Pet(name:string, age:int, animal:string) =
let mutable age = age
let mutable animal = animal
new (name:string) =
Pet(name, 5, "dog")
new (data:PetData) =
Pet(data.name, data.age, data.animal)
Edit
Added an event used in do per comment request.
type Pet(name:string, age:int, animal:string, start:IEvent<string>) =
let mutable age = age
let mutable animal = animal
// all three constructors will call this code.
do start.Add (fun _ -> printf "Pet was started")
new (name:string, start:IEvent<_>) =
// an example of different logic per constructor
// this is called before the `do` code.
let e = start |> Event.map (fun x -> x + " from 'name constructor'")
Pet(name, 5, "dog", e)
new (data:PetData, start:IEvent<_>) =
Pet(data.name, data.age, data.animal, start)
Let bindings in a type are private and there's not much you could do about that. As such you cannot use Named Arguments. By creating properties you can do it like so, but not from inside the Pet type:
type Pet (name:string) =
let mutable age = 5
let mutable animal = "dog"
member x.Age with get () = age and set v = age <- v
member x.Animal with get () = animal and set v = animal <- v
type PetData = {
name : string
age : int
animal : string
}
with
member x.ToPet =
new Pet (x.name, Age = x.age, Animal = x.animal)
The other option would be to create a more general constructor like Gradbot suggested, either accepting a PetData object directly or all three parameters.
Testing out NoRM https://github.com/atheken/NoRM from F# and trying to find a nice way to use it. Here is the basic C#:
class products
{
public ObjectId _id { get; set; }
public string name { get; set; }
}
using (var c = Mongo.Create("mongodb://127.0.0.1:27017/test"))
{
var col = c.GetCollection<products>();
var res = col.Find();
Console.WriteLine(res.Count().ToString());
}
This works OK but here is how I access it from F#:
type products() =
inherit System.Object()
let mutable id = new ObjectId()
let mutable _name = ""
member x._id with get() = id and set(v) = id <- v
member x.name with get() = _name and set(v) = _name <- v
Is there an easier way to create a class or type to pass to a generic method?
Here is how it is called:
use db = Mongo.Create("mongodb://127.0.0.1:27017/test")
let col = db.GetCollection<products>()
let count = col.Find() |> Seq.length
printfn "%d" count
Have you tried a record type?
type products = {
mutable _id : ObjectId
mutable name : string
}
I don't know if it works, but records are often good when you just need a class that is basically 'a set of fields'.
Just out of curiosity, you can try adding a parameter-less constructor to a record. This is definitely a hack - in fact, it is using a bug in the F# compiler - but it may work:
type Products =
{ mutable _id : ObjectId
mutable name : string }
// Horrible hack: Add member that looks like constructor
member x.``.ctor``() = ()
The member declaration adds a member with a special .NET name that is used for constructors, so .NET thinks it is a constructor. I'd be very careful about using this, but it may work in your scenario, because the member appears as a constructor via Reflection.
If this is the only way to get succinct type declaration that works with libraries like MongoDB, then it will hopefuly motivate the F# team to solve the problem in the future version of the language (e.g. I could easily imagine some special attribute that would force F# compiler to add parameterless constructor).
Here is a pretty light way to define a class close to your C# definition: it has a default constructor but uses public fields instead of getters and setters which might be a problem (I don't know).
type products =
val mutable _id: ObjectId
val mutable name: string
new() = {_id = ObjectId() ; name = ""}
or, if you can use default values for your fields (in this case, all null):
type products() =
[<DefaultValue>] val mutable _id: ObjectId
[<DefaultValue>] val mutable name: string