Consider the following code:
let mutable a = 0.
let b = ref 0.
a <- // works
printfn "%A" a
4. + 8.
b := // does not work
printfn "%A" a
4. + 8.
b := ( // works
printfn "%A" a
4. + 8. )
Why does the ref assignment operator (:=) have a different behaviour than the mutable assignment operator (<-)?
I can only give a partial answer.
:= is defined in terms of <- in FSharp.Core\prim-types.fs:
let (:=) x y = x.contents <- y
In your example
b := // does not work
printfn "%A" a
4. + 8.
printfn "%A" a seems to be interpreted as y, which cannot be assigned to the int ref cell (wrong type). By grouping the whole expression with ( ... ), y now also contains 4. + 8.. Maybe the two operators behave differently, because <- seems to be an intrinsic operator (i.e. part of the language, not the library).
Building on the other answers...
More elaborate expressions are allowed within assignments, so long as the final expression is one of several allowed forms. See section 6.4.9 of the spec. This allows complex assignments such as:
let x =
let rec gcd a = function
| 0 -> a
| b -> gcd b (a % b)
gcd 10 25
The compiler moves gcd to a private member, but nesting it within the assignment allows for tighter scoping. Function arguments, on the other hand, are more restricted. They don't create a new scope (that I'm aware of) and you can't define functions, for example, as part of the expression.
:= is a function (try (:=);; in FSI) which has a type : 'a ref -> 'a -> unit
So
b := // does not work
printfn "%A" a
4. + 8.
is being parsed as because of the infix call parsing rule:
(:=) b (printfn "%A" a)
4. + 8.
Which is invalid as par the (:=) function type.
Other example:
let c = 10 +
11
12
c would be 12 here
Looks like a discrepancy in the indentation-sensitive parser rather than anything specifically to do with those operators.
Related
I am new to programming so this should be an easy one.
I want to write a code that asks for 3 numbers and then finds the minimum. Something like that:
let main(): Unit =
putline ("Please enter 3 numbers:")
putline ("First number: ")
let a = getline ()
putline ("Second number: ")
let b = getline ()
putline("Third number: ")
let c = getline ()
if (a<b && a<c) then putline ("Minimum:" + a)
elif (b<c && b<a) then putline ("Minimum:" + b)
else putline ("Minimum:" + c)
I am sorry if this is terrible but I am still new to this. Also I am not allowed to use the dictionary. Any advice?
You can use the F# function min, which gives you the minimum of two values.
min 1 2 // 1
To get the minimum of three values you can use it twice:
min (min a b) c
A cleaner way to write this with F# piping is:
a |> min b |> min c
Alternatively, put the items in a list and use List.min:
[ a; b; c ] |> List.min
If, for some reason, you decide to expand beyond three numbers, you could consider using Seq.reduce
let xs = [0;-5;3;4]
xs
|> Seq.reduce min
|> printfn "%d"
// prints -5 to stdout
You can use min as the reducer because it accepts 2 arguments, which is exactly what Seq.reduce expects
Firstly your putline function. I'm assuming that this is supposed to take a value and print it to the console with a newline, so the built in F# command to do this is printfn and you would use it something like this:
let a = 1
printfn "Minimum: %d" a
The %d gets replaced with the value of a as, in this case, a is an integer. You would use %f for a float, %s for a string... the details will all be in the documentation.
So we could write your putline function like this:
let putline s = printfn "%s" s
This function has the following signature, val putline : s:string -> unit, it accepts a string and return nothing. This brings us onto your next problem, you try and say putline ("Minimum:" + a). This won't work as adding a number and a string isn't allowed, so what you could do is convert a to a string and you have several ways to do this:
putline (sprintf "Minimum: %d" a)
putline ("Minimum:" + a.ToString())
sprintf is related to printfn but gives you back a string rather than printing to the console, a.ToString() converts a to a string allowing it to be concatenated with the preceding string. However just using printfn instead of putline will work here!
You also have a logic problem, you don't consider the cases where a == b == c, what's the minimum of 1,1,3? Your code would say 3. Try using <= rather than <
For reading data from the console, there is already an answer on the site for this Read from Console in F# that you can look at.
I'm reading through an F# tutorial, and ran into an example of syntax that I don't understand. The link to the page I'm reading is at the bottom. Here's the example from that page:
let rec quicksort2 = function
| [] -> []
| first::rest ->
let smaller,larger = List.partition ((>=) first) rest
List.concat [quicksort2 smaller; [first]; quicksort2 larger]
// test code
printfn "%A" (quicksort2 [1;5;23;18;9;1;3])
The part I don't understand is this: ((>=) first). What exactly is this? For contrast, this is an example from the MSDN documentation for List.partition:
let list1 = [ 1 .. 10 ]
let listEven, listOdd = List.partition (fun elem -> elem % 2 = 0) list1
printfn "Evens: %A\nOdds: %A" listEven listOdd
The first parameter (is this the right terminology?) to List.partition is obviously an anonymous function. I rewrote the line in question as this:
let smaller,larger = List.partition (fun e -> first >= e) rest
and it works the same as the example above. I just don't understand how this construct accomplishes the same thing: ((>=) first)
http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/fvsc-quicksort/
That's roughly the same thing as infix notation vs prefix notation
Operator are functions too and follow the same rule (ie. they can be partially applied)
So here (>=) first is the operator >= with first already applied as "first" operand, and gives back a function waiting for the second operand of the operator as you noticed when rewriting that line.
This construct combines two features: operator call with prefix notation and partial function application.
First, let's look at calling operators with prefix notation.
let x = a + b
The above code calls operator + with two arguments, a and b. Since this is a functional language, everything is a function, including operators, including operator +. It's just that operators have this funny call syntax, where you put the function between the arguments instead of in front of them. But you can still treat the operator just as any other normal function. To do that, you need to enclose it on parentheses:
let x = (+) a b // same thing as a + b.
And when I say "as any other function", I totally mean it:
let f = (+)
let x = f a b // still same thing.
Next, let's look at partial function application. Consider this function:
let f x y = x + y
We can call it and get a number in return:
let a = f 5 6 // a = 11
But we can also "almost" call it by supplying only one of two arguments:
let a = f 5 // a is a function
let b = a 6 // b = 11
The result of such "almost call" (technically called "partial application") is another function that still expects the remaining arguments.
And now, let's combine the two:
let a = (+) 5 // a is a function
let b = a 6 // b = 11
In general, one can write the following equivalency:
(+) x === fun y -> x + y
Or, similarly, for your specific case:
(>=) first === fun y -> first >= y
I need help reversing bits in F# as done in this question Reverse bits in number. I'm new to F# and was wondering how we can do this?
let bitreverse x =
let mutable b = 0
while x do
b >>>= 1
b|= x & 1
x >>>= 1
b
I'm not even sure the syntax is correct here. I am very knew to this language.
The direct translation into F# looks like this:
let bitreverse x =
let mutable x = x
let mutable b = 0
while x <> 0 do
b <- b <<< 1
b <- b ||| (x &&& 1)
x <- x >>> 1
b
This is highly imperative with mutable values and this isn't usually how we'd tend to go about writing code in F#. Notice that re-assignment of a mutable variable is a little different to what you might be used to in an imperative language, you have to use <- which is called the destructive update operator.
Thankfully, it's pretty straightforward to translate this into a recursive function that uses immutable values which should be a little more idiomatic
let bitreverse2 x =
let rec bitRerverseHelper b x =
match x with
|0 -> b // if 0, the recursion stops here and we return the result: b
|_ -> bitRerverseHelper ((b <<< 1) ||| (x &&& 1)) (x >>> 1) // otherwise recurse
bitRerverseHelper 0 x
F# doesn't support compound assignment, so you can't do something like b |= x & 1, you need to expand it to b <- b ||| (x &&& 1).
The argument x isn't mutable, so you need to create a local binding and mutate that. It looks weird, but you can just write let mutable x = x as the first line of your function to shadow the existing binding with a mutable one.
x is an int, not a bool, so you can't use it as the condition for your while loop. Use x <> 0 instead.
Indentation matters in F#, so make sure that while and your final b both line up with the first let.
Fixing those issues will make your code work, but idiomatic F# would probably forgo the while loop and mutation and use a recursive inner function with an accumulator instead.
I've been trying to get my head round various bits of F# (I'm coming from more of a C# background), and parsers interest me, so I jumped at this blog post about F# parser combinators:
http://santialbo.com/blog/2013/03/24/introduction-to-parser-combinators
One of the samples here was this:
/// If the stream starts with c, returns Success, otherwise returns Failure
let CharParser (c: char) : Parser<char> =
let p stream =
match stream with
| x::xs when x = c -> Success(x, xs)
| _ -> Failure
in p //what does this mean?
However, one of the things that confused me about this code was the in p statement. I looked up the in keyword in the MSDN docs:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233249.aspx
I also spotted this earlier question:
Meaning of keyword "in" in F#
Neither of those seemed to be the same usage. The only thing that seems to fit is that this is a pipelining construct.
The let x = ... in expr allows you to declare a binding for some variable x which can then be used in expr.
In this case p is a function which takes an argument stream and then returns either Success or Failure depending on the result of the match, and this function is returned by the CharParser function.
The F# light syntax automatically nests let .. in bindings, so for example
let x = 1
let y = x + 2
y * z
is the same as
let x = 1 in
let y = x + 2 in
y * z
Therefore, the in is not needed here and the function could have been written simply as
let CharParser (c: char) : Parser<char> =
let p stream =
match stream with
| x::xs when x = c -> Success(x, xs)
| _ -> Failure
p
The answer from Lee explains the problem. In F#, the in keyword is heritage from earlier functional languages that inspired F# and required it - namely from ML and OCaml.
It might be worth adding that there is just one situation in F# where you still need in - that is, when you want to write let followed by an expression on a single line. For example:
let a = 10
if (let x = a * a in x = 100) then printfn "Ok"
This is a bit funky coding style and I would not normally use it, but you do need in if you want to write it like this. You can always split that to multiple lines though:
let a = 10
if ( let x = a * a
x = 100 ) then printfn "Ok"
I'm using F# v 1.9.6.2, and I've defined a very simple computation expression:
type MaybeBuilder() =
member this.Let(x, f) =
printfn "this.Let: %A" x
this.Bind(Some x, f)
member this.Bind(x, f) =
printfn "this.Bind: %A" x
match x with
| Some(x) when x >= 0 && x <= 100 -> f(x)
| _ -> None
member this.Delay(f) = f()
member this.Return(x) = Some x
let maybe = MaybeBuilder()
I've sprinkled some print statements in the code to tell me which methods are being called in a computation expression. When I execute the following statement:
maybe {
let x = 12
let! y = Some 11
let! z = Some 30
return x + y + z
}
I expect the console to print out the following:
this.Let 12
this.Bind Some 12
this.Bind Some 11
this.Bind Some 30
But my actual results are as follows:
this.Bind: Some 11
this.Bind: Some 30
In other words, F# doesn't appear to be executing the Let member. When I re-write Let to throw an exception, the code run without an exception. Additionally, when I comment out the Let member entirely, I do not get an error message stating The field, constructor or member 'Let' is not defined, and the code executes as expected.
(I've tried investigating the code with Reflector, but as is usually the case, decompiled F# is mangled beyond readability.)
It looks like the spec for computation expressions has changed. Are let bindings no longer treated as syntax sugar, and is the Let members no longer required in computation workflows?
You had the answer yourself. From the F# spec that describes how computation expressions are translated:
{| let binds in cexpr |}C = let binds in {| cexpr |}C)
So no, you don't need to define let explicitly anymore, it's translated by the compiler.
Update: this change is mentioned in the detailed release notes of the September CTP.
Correct -- you can no longer provide a binding for let :(.
See also
http://cs.hubfs.net/forums/thread/6950.aspx