In the following code Seq.generateUnique is constrained to be of type ((Assembly -> seq<Assembly>) -> seq<Assembly> -> seq<Assembly>).
open System
open System.Collections.Generic
open System.Reflection
module Seq =
let generateUnique =
let known = HashSet()
fun f initial ->
let rec loop items =
seq {
let cachedSeq = items |> Seq.filter known.Add |> Seq.cache
if not (cachedSeq |> Seq.isEmpty) then
yield! cachedSeq
yield! loop (cachedSeq |> Seq.collect f)
}
loop initial
let discoverAssemblies() =
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies() :> seq<_>
|> Seq.generateUnique (fun asm -> asm.GetReferencedAssemblies() |> Seq.map Assembly.Load)
let test() = printfn "%A" (discoverAssemblies() |> Seq.truncate 2 |> Seq.map (fun asm -> asm.GetName().Name) |> Seq.toList)
for _ in 1 .. 5 do test()
System.Console.Read() |> ignore
I'd like it to be generic, but putting it into a file apart from its usage yields a value restriction error:
Value restriction. The value
'generateUnique' has been inferred to
have generic type val
generateUnique : (('_a -> '_b) -> '_c
-> seq<'_a>) when '_b :> seq<'_a> and '_c :> seq<'_a> Either make the
arguments to 'generateUnique' explicit
or, if you do not intend for it to be
generic, add a type annotation.
Adding an explicit type parameter (let generateUnique<'T> = ...) eliminates the error, but now it returns different results.
Output without type parameter (desired/correct behavior):
["mscorlib"; "TEST"]
["FSharp.Core"; "System"]
["System.Core"; "System.Security"]
[]
[]
And with:
["mscorlib"; "TEST"]
["mscorlib"; "TEST"]
["mscorlib"; "TEST"]
["mscorlib"; "TEST"]
["mscorlib"; "TEST"]
Why does the behavior change? How could I make the function generic and achieve the desired behavior?
generateUnique is a lot like the standard memoize pattern: it should be used to calculate memoized functions from normal functions, not do the actual caching itself.
#kvb was right about the change in the definition required for this shift, but then you need to change the definition of discoverAssemblies as follows:
let discoverAssemblies =
//"memoize"
let generator = Seq.generateUnique (fun (asm:Assembly) -> asm.GetReferencedAssemblies() |> Seq.map Assembly.Load)
fun () ->
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies() :> seq<_>
|> generator
I don't think that your definition is quite correct: it seems to me that f needs to be a syntactic argument to generateUnique (that is, I don't believe that it makes sense to use the same HashSet for different fs). Therefore, a simple fix is:
let generateUnique f =
let known = HashSet()
fun initial ->
let rec loop items =
seq {
let cachedSeq = items |> Seq.filter known.Add |> Seq.cache
if not (cachedSeq |> Seq.isEmpty) then
yield! cachedSeq
yield! loop (cachedSeq |> Seq.collect f)
}
loop initial
Related
I want a tool for testing Rx components that would work like this:
Given an order of the events specified as a 'v seq and a key selector function (keySelector :: 'v -> 'k) I want to create a Map<'k, IObservable<'k>> where the guarantee is that the groupped observables yield the values in the global order defined by the above enumerable.
For example:
makeObservables isEven [1;2;3;4;5;6]
...should produce
{ true : -2-4-6|,
false: 1-3-5| }
This is my attempt looks like this:
open System
open System.Reactive.Linq
open FSharp.Control.Reactive
let subscribeAfter (o1: IObservable<'a>) (o2 : IObservable<'b>) : IObservable<'b> =
fun (observer : IObserver<'b>) ->
let tempObserver = { new IObserver<'a> with
member this.OnNext x = ()
member this.OnError e = observer.OnError e
member this.OnCompleted () = o2 |> Observable.subscribeObserver observer |> ignore
}
o1.Subscribe tempObserver
|> Observable.Create
let makeObservables (keySelector : 'a -> 'k) (xs : 'a seq) : Map<'k, IObservable<'a>> =
let makeDependencies : ('k * IObservable<'a>) seq -> ('k * IObservable<'a>) seq =
let makeDep ((_, o1), (k2, o2)) = (k2, subscribeAfter o1 o2)
Seq.pairwise
>> Seq.map makeDep
let makeObservable x = (keySelector x, Observable.single x)
let firstItem =
Seq.head xs
|> makeObservable
|> Seq.singleton
let dependentObservables =
xs
|> Seq.map makeObservable
|> makeDependencies
dependentObservables
|> Seq.append firstItem
|> Seq.groupBy fst
|> Seq.map (fun (k, obs) -> (k, obs |> Seq.map snd |> Observable.concatSeq))
|> Map.ofSeq
[<EntryPoint>]
let main argv =
let isEven x = (x % 2 = 0)
let splits : Map<bool, IObservable<int>> =
[1;2;3;4;5]
|> makeObservables isEven
use subscription =
splits
|> Map.toSeq
|> Seq.map snd
|> Observable.mergeSeq
|> Observable.subscribe (printfn "%A")
Console.ReadKey() |> ignore
0 // return an integer exit code
...but the results are not as expected and the observed values are not in the global order.
Apparently the items in each group are yield correctly but when the groups are merged its more like a concat then a merge
The expected output is: 1 2 3 4 5
...but the actual output is 1 3 5 2 4
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks!
You describe wanting this:
{ true : -2-4-6|,
false: 1-3-5| }
But you're really creating this:
{ true : 246|,
false: 135| }
Since there's no time gaps between the items in the observables, the merge basically has a constant race condition. Rx guarantees that element 1 of a given sequence will fire before element 2, but Merge offers no guarantees around cases like this.
You need to introduce time gaps into your observables if you want Merge to be able to re-sequence in the original order.
[<ReflectedDefinition>]
module Foo =
let x = 5
let y () = 6
let z a = a
I tried to find out how to get the AST in this situation a couple of times now and keep failing. Time to ask the question here.
So far, I thought that a module would be mappped to a class with static members internally and as such, it should be the equivalent of:
[<ReflectedDefinition>]
type Foo =
static member x = 5
static member y () = 6
static member z a = a
let bar_members =
typeof<Bar>.GetMethods()
|> Array.filter (fun mi -> match mi with | MethodWithReflectedDefinition x -> true | _ -> false)
|> Array.map (fun m -> sprintf "%s: %A" (m.Name) (Expr.TryGetReflectedDefinition(m :> MethodBase) ) )
In the latter case, I could use typeof<Foo>.GetMembers() (or GetMethods()?!), cast it to Reflection.MethodBase and use this as an argument for Expr.TryGetReflectedDefinition().
But unfortunately, this is not working with the module version.
So, how to do it?
If you want to play with the code, you might want to open some namespaces:
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.DerivedPatterns
open Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection
open System.Reflection
The problem comes go down to actually getting the type of the Module. In order to do that, there's a great answer here by Phillip Trelford: https://stackoverflow.com/a/14706890/5438433
Basically, you add a helper value to your module which returns the type of that module:
[<ReflectedDefinition>]
module Foo =
type internal IMarker = interface end
let fooType = typeof<IMarker>.DeclaringType
let x = 5
let y () = 6
let z a = a
You can then use fooType to retrieve the reflected definitions.
let foo_members =
Foo.fooType.GetMethods()
|> Array.filter (fun mi -> match mi with | MethodWithReflectedDefinition x -> true | _ -> false)
|> Array.map (fun m -> sprintf "%s: %A" (m.Name) (Expr.TryGetReflectedDefinition(m :> MethodBase) ) )
I can then, e.g. print the results:
[|"get_fooType: Some PropertyGet (Some (Call (None, TypeOf, [])), DeclaringType, [])";
"get_x: Some Value (5)";
"y: Some Lambda (unitVar0, Value (6))";
"z: Some Lambda (a, a)"|]
For the use case, when the reflected definitions are in another assembly (like an F# dll, for example), you can do without the marker interface trick, as shown below:
open System
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.DerivedPatterns
open Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection
open System.Reflection
open FSharp.Reflection.FSharpReflectionExtensions
let tryGetReflectedModules (a : Assembly) : seq<TypeInfo> =
a.DefinedTypes
|> Seq.filter
(fun dt ->
dt.CustomAttributes
|> Seq.map (fun cad -> cad.AttributeType)
|> Seq.filter ((=) (typeof<ReflectedDefinitionAttribute>))
|> Seq.isEmpty
|> not
)
let astFromReflectedDefinition (mi : MethodInfo) : Expr option =
mi :> MethodBase |> Expr.TryGetReflectedDefinition
let reflectedMethodsOfAModule (m : System.Type) : (MethodInfo * Expr) [] =
m.GetMethods()
|> Array.map (fun m -> (m,astFromReflectedDefinition m))
|> Array.filter (snd >> Option.isSome)
|> Array.map (fun (x,y) -> (x, Option.get y))
let reflectAssembly (assemblyPath : string) =
let a = System.Reflection.Assembly.LoadFile(assemblyPath)
a
|> tryGetReflectedModules
|> Seq.map (fun x -> (x,reflectedMethodsOfAModule (x.AsType())))
Where, for example, the assembly I used for testing the code above looked like this:
namespace Input
[<ReflectedDefinition>]
module Api =
let trace s =
for _ in [0..3] do System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine s
[<ReflectedDefinition>]
module Foo =
let foobar (x : string) : string =
x.ToUpper()
You get the top level types in the assembly, which just so happen to be the (static) classes, representing the modules of the Fsharp assembly and test for the ReflectedDefinitionAttribute presence. Then, you take it from there.
I wrote this function which merges two lists together but as I'm fairly new to functional programming I was wondering whether there is a better (simpler) way to do it?
let a = ["a"; "b"; "c"]
let b = ["d"; "b"; "a"]
let merge a b =
// take all a and add b
List.fold (fun acc elem ->
let alreadyContains = acc |> List.exists (fun item -> item = elem)
if alreadyContains = true then
acc
else
elem :: acc |> List.rev
) b a
let test = merge a b
Expected result is: ["a"; "b"; "c"; "d"], I'm reverting the list in order to keep the original order. I thought I would be able to achieve the same using List.foldBack (and dropping List.rev) but it results in an error:
Type mismatch. Expecting a
'a
but given a
'a list
The resulting type would be infinite when unifying ''a' and ''a list'
Why is there a difference when using foldBack?
You could use something like the following
let merge a b =
a # b
|> Seq.distinct
|> List.ofSeq
Note that this will preserve order and remove any duplicates.
In F# 4.0 this will be simplified to
let merge a b = a # b |> List.distinct
If I wanted to write this in a way that is similar to your original version (using fold), then the main change I would do is to move List.rev outside of the function (you are calling List.rev every time you add a new element, which is wrong if you're adding even number of elements!)
So, a solution very similar to yours would be:
let merge a b =
(b, a)
||> List.fold (fun acc elem ->
let alreadyContains = acc |> List.exists (fun item -> item = elem)
if alreadyContains = true then acc
else elem :: acc)
|> List.rev
This uses the double-pipe operator ||> to pass two parameters to the fold function (this is not necessary, but I find it a bit nicer) and then passes the result to List.rev.
I'm trying to create a filter function accept two list parameters and return all the items in the first seq after excluded these existing (equal to A) in the second list.
type R = { A: string; B: int; ...}
let filter (xxx: seq<string) (except: list<R>) =
xxx
|> Seq.filter (fun i ->
// returns all the items in xxx which not equal to any except.A
The simplest code would be:
type R = { A: string; B: int; }
let filter where except =
let except' = except |> List.map (fun x -> x.A) |> Set.ofList
where
|> Seq.filter (not << except'.Contains)
Notes:
Since the computation only uses R.A, we retrieve these R.A values only once for performance reasons.
Converting it to Set would eliminate duplicates as they only degrade performance and not affect the final result.
Since the type of except' is inferred as Set<string>, we can use member method except'.Contains instead of Set.contains.
I think one thing would be to do
let filter (xxx: seq<string>) (except: list<R>) =
xxx
|> Seq.filter (fun i -> except |> List.exists (fun t -> t.A = i) |> not)
Fluent LINQ implementation:
let filter (where: seq<string>) except =
let contains = set (where.Except(List.map (fun x -> x.A) except)) in
where.Where contains.Contains
There is now Seq.except:
xs
|> Seq.except ys
// All xs that are not in ys
I should split seq<a> into seq<seq<a>> by an attribute of the elements. If this attribute equals by a given value it must be 'splitted' at that point. How can I do that in FSharp?
It should be nice to pass a 'function' to it that returns a bool if must be splitted at that item or no.
Sample:
Input sequence: seq: {1,2,3,4,1,5,6,7,1,9}
It should be splitted at every items when it equals 1, so the result should be:
seq
{
seq{1,2,3,4}
seq{1,5,6,7}
seq{1,9}
}
All you're really doing is grouping--creating a new group each time a value is encountered.
let splitBy f input =
let i = ref 0
input
|> Seq.map (fun x ->
if f x then incr i
!i, x)
|> Seq.groupBy fst
|> Seq.map (fun (_, b) -> Seq.map snd b)
Example
let items = seq [1;2;3;4;1;5;6;7;1;9]
items |> splitBy ((=) 1)
Again, shorter, with Stephen's nice improvements:
let splitBy f input =
let i = ref 0
input
|> Seq.groupBy (fun x ->
if f x then incr i
!i)
|> Seq.map snd
Unfortunately, writing functions that work with sequences (the seq<'T> type) is a bit difficult. They do not nicely work with functional concepts like pattern matching on lists. Instead, you have to use the GetEnumerator method and the resulting IEnumerator<'T> type. This often makes the code quite imperative. In this case, I'd write the following:
let splitUsing special (input:seq<_>) = seq {
use en = input.GetEnumerator()
let finished = ref false
let start = ref true
let rec taking () = seq {
if not (en.MoveNext()) then finished := true
elif en.Current = special then start := true
else
yield en.Current
yield! taking() }
yield taking()
while not (!finished) do
yield Seq.concat [ Seq.singleton special; taking()] }
I wouldn't recommend using the functional style (e.g. using Seq.skip and Seq.head), because this is quite inefficient - it creates a chain of sequences that take value from other sequence and just return it (so there is usually O(N^2) complexity).
Alternatively, you could write this using a computation builder for working with IEnumerator<'T>, but that's not standard. You can find it here, if you want to play with it.
The following is an impure implementation but yields immutable sequences lazily:
let unflatten f s = seq {
let buffer = ResizeArray()
let flush() = seq {
if buffer.Count > 0 then
yield Seq.readonly (buffer.ToArray())
buffer.Clear() }
for item in s do
if f item then yield! flush()
buffer.Add(item)
yield! flush() }
f is the function used to test whether an element should be a split point:
[1;2;3;4;1;5;6;7;1;9] |> unflatten (fun item -> item = 1)
Probably no the most efficient solution, but this works:
let takeAndSkipWhile f s = Seq.takeWhile f s, Seq.skipWhile f s
let takeAndSkipUntil f = takeAndSkipWhile (f >> not)
let rec splitOn f s =
if Seq.isEmpty s then
Seq.empty
else
let pre, post =
if f (Seq.head s) then
takeAndSkipUntil f (Seq.skip 1 s)
|> fun (a, b) ->
Seq.append [Seq.head s] a, b
else
takeAndSkipUntil f s
if Seq.isEmpty pre then
Seq.singleton post
else
Seq.append [pre] (splitOn f post)
splitOn ((=) 1) [1;2;3;4;1;5;6;7;1;9] // int list is compatible with seq<int>
The type of splitOn is ('a -> bool) -> seq<'a> -> seq>. I haven't tested it on many inputs, but it seems to work.
In case you are looking for something which actually works like split as an string split (i.e the item is not included on which the predicate returns true) the below is what I came up with.. tried to be as functional as possible :)
let fromEnum (input : 'a IEnumerator) =
seq {
while input.MoveNext() do
yield input.Current
}
let getMore (input : 'a IEnumerator) =
if input.MoveNext() = false then None
else Some ((input |> fromEnum) |> Seq.append [input.Current])
let splitBy (f : 'a -> bool) (input : 'a seq) =
use s = input.GetEnumerator()
let rec loop (acc : 'a seq seq) =
match s |> getMore with
| None -> acc
| Some x ->[x |> Seq.takeWhile (f >> not) |> Seq.toList |> List.toSeq]
|> Seq.append acc
|> loop
loop Seq.empty |> Seq.filter (Seq.isEmpty >> not)
seq [1;2;3;4;1;5;6;7;1;9;5;5;1]
|> splitBy ( (=) 1) |> printfn "%A"