I just ran across
http://frankniemeyer.blogspot.com/2010/04/minimalistic-native-64-bit-array.html
Which contains the line
(# "sizeof !0" type('T) : nativeint #)
I believe the technical phrase is "what the heck?" I have never in my (~8 months) of F# programming run across something even resembling that...
FSI tells me something about deprecated constructs, used only for F# libs...
And google with (# does uh...well, not much
Any direction in this?
This is the notation for inline IL emission. It used to be a more prominent feature during F#'s earlier years, but has been deprecated. A gentleman named Brian from the F# team has indicated that it is currently used mainly to bootstrap the F# compiler, and that the team had intended to mark this construct as an error, not merely a warning.
See his post here for the full story.
It's inline IL (intermediate language) code. This construct is used internally by the F# team to implement bits of the F# core library you just can't do any other way. This code will admit a warning saying it shouldn't be used any where other than the F# core libraries, so you probably don't have to worry about it too much as it should never appear in production code.
Fascinating. But I think F# already gives us the conversion operations (for this particular operation!) you need without resorting to IL.
[<Unverifiable>]
let inline ArrayOffset (itemSize:int64) (length:int64) (start:int64) (idx:int64) =
if idx < 0L || idx >= length then raise(IndexOutOfRangeException())
NativePtr.ofNativeInt(nativeint(start + (idx * itemSize)))
Related
I just ran across
http://frankniemeyer.blogspot.com/2010/04/minimalistic-native-64-bit-array.html
Which contains the line
(# "sizeof !0" type('T) : nativeint #)
I believe the technical phrase is "what the heck?" I have never in my (~8 months) of F# programming run across something even resembling that...
FSI tells me something about deprecated constructs, used only for F# libs...
And google with (# does uh...well, not much
Any direction in this?
This is the notation for inline IL emission. It used to be a more prominent feature during F#'s earlier years, but has been deprecated. A gentleman named Brian from the F# team has indicated that it is currently used mainly to bootstrap the F# compiler, and that the team had intended to mark this construct as an error, not merely a warning.
See his post here for the full story.
It's inline IL (intermediate language) code. This construct is used internally by the F# team to implement bits of the F# core library you just can't do any other way. This code will admit a warning saying it shouldn't be used any where other than the F# core libraries, so you probably don't have to worry about it too much as it should never appear in production code.
Fascinating. But I think F# already gives us the conversion operations (for this particular operation!) you need without resorting to IL.
[<Unverifiable>]
let inline ArrayOffset (itemSize:int64) (length:int64) (start:int64) (idx:int64) =
if idx < 0L || idx >= length then raise(IndexOutOfRangeException())
NativePtr.ofNativeInt(nativeint(start + (idx * itemSize)))
Reading sources of Array2D module, I've stumbled upon this interesting construct in implementation of many core functions, for example:
[<CompiledName("Get")>]
let get (array: 'T[,]) (n:int) (m:int) = (# "ldelem.multi 2 !0" type ('T) array n m : 'T #)
I can only assume that this is the syntax to inline CIL and is used here obviously to gain performance benefits. However, when I've tried to use this syntax in my program, I get an error:
warning FS0042: This construct is deprecated: it is only for use in the F# library
What exactly is this? Is there any detailed documentation?
I think that this has 2 purposes:
These functions compile down to exactly 1 CIL instruction which has to be encoded somewhere, so encoding at the source seems best.
It allows for some extra trickery with defining polymorphic Add functions in a high performance way which is hard with the F# type system.
You can actually use this but you have to specify the --compiling-fslib (undocumented) and --standalone flags in your code.
I've found some details in usenet archives: http://osdir.com/ml/lang.fsharp.general/2008-01/msg00009.html
Embedded IL in F# codes. Is this feature officially supported
Not really. The 99.9% purpose of this feature is for operations defined
in FSharp.Core.dll (called fslib.dll in 1.9.2.9 and before).
Historically it has been useful to allow end-users to embed IL in order
to access .NET IL functionality not accessible by F# library or
language constructs using their own embedded IL. The need for this is
becoming much more rare, indeed almost non-existent, now that the F#
library has matured a bit more. We expect this to continue to be the
case. It's even possible that we will make this a library-only feature
in the "product" version of F#, though we have not yet made a final
decision in this regard.
This was a message from Don Syme, dated January of 2008.
I'm following a language called 'elm' which is an attempt to bring a Haskel-esque syntax and FRP to Javascript. There has been some discussion here about implementing the pipeline operator from F# but the language designer has concerns about the increased cost (I assume in increased compilation time or compiler implementation complexity) over the more standard (in other FP langs at least) reverse pipeline operator (which elm already implements). Can anyone speak to this? [Feel free to post directly to that thread as well or I will paste back the best answers if no one else does].
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/elm-discuss/Kt0MbDyRpO4
Thanks!
In the discussion you reference, I see Evan poses two challenges:
Show me some F# project that uses it
Find some credible F# programmer talking about why it is a good idea and what costs come with it (blog post or something).
I'd answer as follows:
The forward pipe-idiom is very common in F# programming, both for stylistic (we like it) and practical (it helps type inference) reasons. Just about any F# project you'll find will use it frequently. Certainly all of my open source projects use it (Unquote, FsEye, NL found here). No doubt you'll find the same with all of the Github located F# projects including the F# compiler source itself.
Brian, a developer on the F# compiler team at Microsoft, blogged about Pipelining in F# back in 2008, a still very interesting and relevant blog which relates F# pipes to POSIX pipes. In my own estimation, there is very little cost to implementing a pipe operator. In the F# compiler, this is certainly true in every sense (it's a one-line, inline function definition).
The pipeline operator is actually incredibly simple - here is the standard definition
let inline (|>) a b = b a
Also, the . operator discussed in the thread is the reverse pipe operator in F# (<|) which enables you to eliminate some brackets.
I don't think adding pipeline operators would have a significant impact on complexity
In addition to the excellent answers already given here, I'd like to add a couple more points.
Firstly, one of the reasons why the pipeline operator is common in F# is that it helps to circumvent a shortcoming the way type inference is currently done. Specifically, if you apply an aggregate operation with a lambda function that uses OOP to a collection type inference will typically fail. For example:
Seq.map (fun z -> z.Real) zs
This fails because F# does not yet know the type of z when it encounters the property Real so it refuses to compile this code. The idiomatic fix is to use the pipeline operator:
xs |> Seq.map (fun z -> z.Real)
This is strictly uglier (IMO) but it works.
Secondly, the F# pipe operator is nice to a point but you cannot currently get the inferred type of an intermediate result. For example:
x
|> h
|> g
|> f
If there is a type error at f then the programmer will want to know the type of the value being fed into f in case the problem was actually with h or g but this is not currently possible in Visual Studio. Ironically, this was easy in OCaml with the Tuareg mode for Emacs because you could get the inferred type of any subexpression, not just an identifier.
I'm in the process of learning F# and am enjoying it so far. Almost all of the examples online use the lightweight syntax (#light); however, also give a comment about it being on for said example in most cases.
Is it better to learn F# using #light enabled or disabled? I'm planning on eventually learning it w/o it turned on but am curious on if it would be better to learn it at the beginning or work on applying it after I know the core language more.
I'd definitely prefer learning F# with the #light syntax. The non-light version is sometimes useful for understanding some tricks about the F# syntax, but the #light syntax gives you much pleasant experience.
For example - using #light
let add a b c =
let ab = a + b
printfn "%d" ab
c - ab
Using non-light you can write the same thing like this:
let add a b c =
let ab = a + b in // 'in' keyword specifies where the binding (value 'ab') is valid
printfn "%d" ab; // ';' is operator for sequencing expressions
c - ab;; // ';;' is end of a function declaration
This for example shows that you cannot write something like:
let doNothing a b =
let sum = a + b in
There is an 'in' keyword at the end but the function doesn't have any body (because there is no expression following 'in'). In this case non-light syntax is sometimes interesting to understand what's going on... But as you can see, the #light code is a lot simpler.
The "#light" will probably become the default in a future release of the language, so I would learn it that way. I think it's rare for anyone to use the heavier syntax except for OCaml-compatibility (either when cross-compiling, or because the human sitting at the keyboard knows OCaml and is making a smoother transition to F#).
Because I learned F# from an OCaml book (and I use an OCaml mode for Emacs to edit F# code), I prefer to use the "heavy" syntax. I have worked with #light code, and of course most of the F# examples are written using the light syntax so having some general familiarity is useful. That said, it's quite a bit easier to switch from heavy to light than the other way around, so it's certainly not a bad idea to learn it using the heavy syntax.
I have come across the occasional annoying bug with heavy syntax being treated as a second class citizen (combine was broken for computation expressions a couple releases back), but these are pretty rare. Generally speaking, I don't think the differences are very significant and I need to look close to determine which syntax is being used when looking at code in isolation. YMMV.
If I remember correctly, book "Expert C#" mentions that #light will be the default when F# ships and that non-light syntax is intended for compatibility only.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
This is the unabashed attempt of a similar C# question.
So what are your favorite F# hidden (or not) features?
Most of the features I've used so far aren't exactly hidden but have been quite refreshing. Like how trivial it is to overload operators compared to say C# or VB.NET.
And Async<T> has helped me shave off some real ugly code.
I'm quite new to the language still so it'd be great to learn what other features are being used in the wild.
User defined numeric literals can be defined by providing a module whose name starts with NumericLiteral and which defines certain methods (FromZero, FromOne, etc.).
In particular, you can use this to provide a much more readable syntax for calling LanguagePrimitives.GenericZero and LanguagePrimitives.GenericOne:
module NumericLiteralG = begin
let inline FromZero() = LanguagePrimitives.GenericZero
let inline FromOne() = LanguagePrimitives.GenericOne
end
let inline genericFactorial n =
let rec fact n = if (n = 0G) then 1G else n * (fact (n - 1G))
fact n
let flt = genericFactorial 30.
let bigI = genericFactorial 30I
F# has a little-used feature called "signature files". You can have a big implementation file full of public types/methods/modules/functions, but then you can hide and selectively expose that functionality to the sequel of the program via a signature file. That is, a signature file acts as a kind of screen/filter that enables you to make entities "public to this file" but "private to the rest of the program".
I feel like this is a pretty killer feature on the .Net platform, because the only other/prior tool you have for this kind of encapsulation is assemblies. If you have a small component with a few related types that want to be able to see each other's internal details, but don't want those types to have all those bits public to everyone, what can you do? Well, you can do two things:
You can put that component in a separate assembly, and make the members that those types share be "internal", and make the narrow part you want everyone else to see be "public", or
You just mark the internal stuff "internal" but you leave those types in your gigantic assembly and just hope that all the other code in the assembly chooses not to call those members that were only marked 'internal' because one other type needed to see it.
In my experience, on large software projects, everyone always does #2, because #1 is a non-starter for various reasons (people don't want 50 small assemblies, they want 1 or 2 or 3 large assemblies, for other maybe-good reasons unrelated to the encapsulation point I am raising (aside: everyone mentions ILMerge but no one uses it)).
So you chose option #2. Then a year later, you finally decide to refactor out that component, and you discover that over the past year, 17 other places now call into that 'internal' method that was really only meant for that one other type to call, making it really hard to factor out that bit because now everyone depends on those implementation details. Bummer.
The point is, there is no good way to create a moderate-size intra-assembly encapsulation scope/boundary in .Net. Often times "internal" is too big and "private" is too small.
... until F#. With F# signature files, you can create an encapsulation scope of "this source code file" by marking a bunch of stuff as public within the implementation file, so all the other code in the file can see it and party on it, but then use a signature file to hide all of the details expect the narrow public interface that component exposes to the rest of the world. This is happy. Define three highly related types in one file, let them see each others implementation details, but only expose the truly public stuff to everyone else. Win!
Signature files are perhaps not the ideal feature for intra-assembly encapsulation boundaries, but they are the only such feature I know, and so I cling to them like a life raft in the ocean.
TL;DR
Complexity is the enemy. Encapsulation boundaries are a weapon against this enemy. "private" is a great weapon but sometimes too small to be applicable, and "internal" is often too weak because so much code (entire assembly and all InternalsVisibleTo's) can see internal stuff. F# offers a scope bigger than "private to a type" but smaller than "the whole assembly", and that is very useful.
I wonder what happens if you add
<appSettings>
<add key="fsharp-navigationbar-enabled" value="true" />
</appSettings>
to your devenv.exe.config file? (Use at your own risk.)
Passing --warnon:1182 to the compiler turns on warnings about unused variables; variable names that begin with underscore are immune.
Automatically-generated comparison functions for algebraic data types (based on lexicographical ordering) is a nice feature that is relatively unknown; see
http://lorgonblog.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!701679AD17B6D310!548.entry
for an example.
Yes, F# doesn't have any 'hidden' features, but it sure does have a lot of power packed into the simple language. A less-known feature of the language, is where you can basically enable duck typing despite the fact F# is staticaly typed.
See this question
F# operator "?"
for info on the question-mark operator and how it provides the basic language mechanism to build a feature akin to 'dynamic' in C#.
Not really hidden, but as a non-ML person this escaped me for quite a while:
Pattern matching can decompose arbitrarily deep into data structures.
Here's a [incredibly arbitrary] nested tuple example; this works on lists or unions or any combinations of nested values:
let listEven =
"Manipulating strings can be intriguing using F#".Split ' '
|> List.ofArray
|> List.map (fun x -> (x.Length % 2 = 0, x.Contains "i"), x)
|> List.choose
( function (true, true), s -> Some s
| _, "F#" -> Some "language"
| _ -> None )
Use of F# as a utility scripting language may be under appreciated. F# enthusiasts tend to be quants. Sometimes you want something to back up your MP3s (or dozens of database servers) that's a little more robust than batch. I've been hunting for a modern replacement for jscript / vbscript. Lately, I've used IronPython, but F# may be more complete and the .NET interaction is less cumbersome.
I like curried functions for entertainment value. Show a curried function to a pure procedural / OOP program for at least three WTFs. Starting with this is a bad way to get F# converts, though :)
Inlined operators on generic types can have different generic constraints:
type 'a Wrapper = Wrapper of 'a with
static member inline (+)(Wrapper(a),Wrapper(b)) = Wrapper(a + b)
static member inline Exp(Wrapper(a)) = Wrapper(exp a)
let objWrapper = Wrapper(obj())
let intWrapper = (Wrapper 1) + (Wrapper 2)
let fltWrapper = exp (Wrapper 1.0)
(* won''t compile *)
let _ = exp (Wrapper 1)
There are no hidden features, because F# is in design mode. All what we have is a Technical Preview, which changes every two month.
see http://research.microsoft.com/fsharp/