I am trying to match the beginning of strings in f#. Not sure if I have to treat them as a list of characters or what. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Here is a psuedo code version of what I am trying to do
let text = "The brown fox.."
match text with
| "The"::_ -> true
| "If"::_ -> true
| _ -> false
So, I want to look at the beginning of the string and match. Note I am not matching on a list of strings just wrote the above as an idea of the essence of what I am trying to do.
Parameterized active patterns to the rescue!
let (|Prefix|_|) (p:string) (s:string) =
if s.StartsWith(p) then
Some(s.Substring(p.Length))
else
None
match "Hello world" with
| Prefix "The" rest -> printfn "Started with 'The', rest is %s" rest
| Prefix "Hello" rest -> printfn "Started with 'Hello', rest is %s" rest
| _ -> printfn "neither"
You could also use a guard on the pattern:
match text with
| txt when txt.StartsWith("The") -> true
| txt when txt.StartsWith("If") -> true
| _ -> false
Yes you have to treat them as a list of characters if you want to use a match expression.
Simply transform the string with:
let text = "The brown fox.." |> Seq.toList
Then you can use a match expression but you will have to use chars (the type of elements in the list) for each letter:
match text with
| 'T'::'h'::'e'::_ -> true
| 'I'::'f'::_ -> true
| _ -> false
As Brian suggest Parameterized Active Patterns are much nicer, there a some useful patterns here (go the end of the page).
Related
I'm de-serializing some mappings from JSON and later on I need to pattern match based on a string field of the de-serialized types like this:
let mappings = getWorkItemMappings
let result =
workItemMappings
|> Seq.find (fun (m: WorkItemMapping) -> m.Uuid = workTime.workItemUuid)
match mapping.Name with
Even if I complete the pattern match for all cases I still get Incomplete pattern matches on this expression.. Which is obvious to me due to the string type of the Name field.
Is there a way tell the compiler which values for the Name field are available?.
I think I could create a union type for the possible mapping types and try to de-serialize the JSON to this union type but I would like to if there's another option.
If you are pattern matching on a string value, the compiler has no static guarantee that it will only have certain values, because it is always possible to construct a string of a different value. The fact that it comes from JSON does not help - you may always have an invalid JSON.
The best option is to add a default case which throws a custom descriptive exception. Either one that you handle somewhere else (to indicate that the JSON file was invalid) or (if you check the validity elsewhere) something like this:
let parseFood f =
match f with
| "burger" -> 1
| "pizza" -> 2
| _ -> raise(invalidArg "f" $"Expected burger or pizza but got {f}")
Note that the F# compiler is very cautious. It does not even let you handle enum values using pattern matching, because under the cover, there are ways of creating invalid enum values! For example:
type Foo =
| A = 1
let f (a:Foo) =
match a with
| Foo.A -> 0
warning FS0104: Enums may take values outside known cases. For example, the value 'enum (0)' may indicate a case not covered by the pattern(s).
Very hard to understand what you're asking. Maybe this snippet can be of help. It demos how literal string constants can be used in pattern matching, and reused in functions. This gives some added safety and readability when adding and removing cases. If you prefer not to serialize a DU directly, then perhaps this is useful as part of the solution.
type MyDu =
| A
| B
| C
let [<Literal>] A' = "A"
let [<Literal>] B' = "B"
let [<Literal>] C' = "C"
let strToMyDuOption (s: string) =
match s with
| A' -> Some A
| B' -> Some B
| C'-> Some C
| _ -> None
let strToMyDu (s: string) =
match s with
| A' -> A
| B' -> B
| C'-> C
| s -> failwith $"MyDu case {s} is unknown."
let myDuToStr (x: MyDu) =
match x with
| A -> A'
| B -> B'
| C -> C'
// LINQPad
let dump x = x.Dump()
strToMyDuOption A' |> dump
strToMyDuOption "x" |> dump
myDuToStr A |> dump
I have a situation in finding a sequence of strings that have patterns like XXXX or CCCC or "IIII". I have tried the following code, but it does not work
let rec checkSequence roman=
let r=List.ofSeq roman
match r with
| [] -> true
| a::b::c::d::tail when (a="I" || a="X" || a="C") && a=b && a=c && a=d -> false
| head::tail -> checkSequence tail
checkSequence "CCC"
The error is: This expression was expected to have type string list but here has type string
1-How can I resolve this error?
2-Is there any simpler way to find this patterns?
If you need use a recursion on list you may do something like this:
let checkSequenceStr str =
let rec checkSequence roman =
match roman with
| [] -> true
| 'I'::'I'::'I'::'I'::tail -> false
| 'X'::'X'::'X'::'X'::tail -> false
| 'C'::'C'::'C'::'C'::tail -> false
| head::tail -> checkSequence tail
checkSequence (str |> List.ofSeq)
Or you could use .NET string methods to check patterns directly (which is easier):
let checkPattern (str : string) =
["IIII";"CCCC";"XXXX"] |> List.exists str.Contains |> not
You are using List.ofSeq, this will type force the roman parameter to be of an type list.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee340325.aspx
Therefor your error This expression was expected to have type string list but here has type string is due to calling the function wrongly, then an logical error. Therefor change:
checkSequence "CCC"
Into:
checkSequence ["C"; "C";"C"]
I would like to do some unit tests on a function that accepts a DU and returns another :
type Commands =
| Schedule of string
| Abandon of string
type Events =
| Scheduled of string
| Abandonned of string
the function is the following :
let exec state = function
| Schedule (cmd) -> Choice1Of2( Scheduled("yes"))
| Abandon(cmd) -> Choice1Of2( Abandonned ("no"))
My tests are as follows :
let result:Choice<Events,string> = exec "initial state" <| Schedule("myCommand");;
result has the following type Choice<Events,string>, I would have loved to get some quick function in order to use them like this :
assertEvent Scheduled (fun e -> Assert.Equal("should produce GameScheduled Event",gameScheduled, e)) result
But to do that I would have the following home made assert function :
let assertEvent<'TEvent> f g result =
match result with
| Choice1Of2(e) ->
match e with
| f(evt) -> g(evt)
| _ -> Assert.None("event not recognised",Some(e))
| Choice2Of2(reason) -> Assert.None("reason",Some(reason))
I was expecting the function f to allow pattern matching on the fly but it does not. Instead I have the following error :
The pattern disciminator 'f' is not defined
Am I doing somthing wrong somewhere ? my fsharp skills are not that high...
A normal function like f can't be used as a pattern discriminator, but you can pass Active Patterns around as arguments:
let assertEvent<'TEvent> (|F|_|) g result =
match result with
| Choice1Of2(e) ->
match e with
| F(evt) -> g(evt)
| _ -> Assert.None("event not recognised",Some(e))
| Choice2Of2(reason) -> Assert.None("reason",Some(reason))
This does, however, require you to also pass an Active Pattern as an argument, which is a bit cumbersome:
assertEvent
(function Scheduled(x) -> Some x | _ -> None)
(fun e -> Assert.Equal("should produce GameScheduled Event",gameScheduled, e))
result
This isn't the way I'd approach the problem, though. What I'd prefer is to write a boolean expression that attempts to pull out and compare the values that I want to verify.
For starters, you could create a little generic helper function to pull out one of the choices from Choice<'a, 'b>:
let toOption1 = function Choice1Of2 x -> Some x | _ -> None
This function has the type Choice<'a,'b> -> 'a option. (I'll leave it as an exercise to define an equivalent toOption2 function.)
Now you can define a boolean expression that pulls out the data if it's there, and compares it with an expected value:
result
|> toOption1
|> Option.map (function Scheduled x -> x | _ -> "")
|> Option.exists ((=) expected)
This is a boolean expression, so you can use Unquote to turn it into an assertion. This is similar to this approach that I've previously described.
I try to find the correct pattern to match and run an Expr<int> using the below code:
open System.Linq
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.Patterns
let runSelectQuery (q:Expr<IQueryable<'T>>) =
match q with
| Application(Lambda(builder, Call(Some builder2, miRun, [Quote body])), queryObj) ->
query.Run(Expr.Cast<Microsoft.FSharp.Linq.QuerySource<'T, IQueryable>>(body))
| _ -> failwith "Cannot run this query %s" (q.ToString())
let runCountQuery (q:Expr<int>) =
match q with
| Application(Lambda(builder, Call(None, miRun, [builder2, Quote body])), queryObj) ->
query.Run(Expr.Cast<int>(body))
| _ -> failwith "Cannot run this query %s" (q.ToString())
let countQuery source filter =
let filter = match filter with | Some filter -> filter | _ -> <# fun _ -> true #>
<# query { for item in source do
where ((%filter) item)
count } #>
The runSelectQuery correctly matches the Expr<IQueryable<'T>> pattern. However, I cannot find the correct pattern to match my generic count query Expr<int>
The pattern in the code I derived from the signature of countQuery gives me a:
This expression was expected to have type
Expr but here has type
'a * 'b
Found it! Stupidly I first tried to match the array pattern using a comma separated pattern (as is the list delimiter in C#), that obviously did not work in F# complaining the it was not a list but a tupple and thus not a Rex.
To match agains an int result or any 'T result:
let runQueryToQueryable (q:Expr<IQueryable<'T>>) =
match q with
| Application(Lambda(builder, Call(Some builder2, miRun, [Quote body])), queryObj) ->
query.Run(Expr.Cast<Microsoft.FSharp.Linq.QuerySource<'T, IQueryable>>(body))
| _ -> failwith "Cannot run this query %s" (q.ToString())
let runQueryToType (q:Expr<'T>) =
match q with
| Application(Lambda(builder, Call(None, miRun, [builder2; Quote body])), queryObj) ->
query.Run(Expr.Cast<'T>(body))
| _ -> failwith "Cannot run this query %s" (q.ToString())
Works like a charm.
What would be the most effective way to express the following code?
match cond.EvalBool() with
| true ->
match body.Eval() with
| :? ControlFlowModifier as e ->
match e with
| Break(scope) -> e :> obj //Break is a DU element of ControlFlowModifier
| _ -> next() //other members of CFM should call next()
| _ -> next() //all other values should call next()
| false -> null
cond.EvalBool returns a boolean result where false should return null
and true should either run the entire block again (its wrapped in a func called next)
or if the special value of break is found, then the loop should exit and return the break value.
Is there any way to compress that block of code to something smaller?
I think that the code that you have written is fine. Here's an alternative which I marginally prefer:
let isBreak = function | Break(_) -> true | _ -> false
if cond.EvalBool() then
match body.Eval() with
| :? ControlFlowModifier as e when isBreak e -> e :> obj
| _ -> next()
else
null
I want to point out that it appears there's a subtype hierarchy for the result type of Eval, and if instead that were also a DU, then you could do something like
match body.Eval() with
| ControlFlowModifier(Break e) -> box e
| _ -> next()
Hurray for nested patterns.
I'm not too fond of matching booleans instead of using if-else. What about
let isBreak = function Break _ -> true | _ -> false
...
if cond.EvalBool() then
match body.Eval() with
| :? ControlFlowModifier as e when isBreak e -> box e
| _ -> next()
else null
Or, if you think that special isBreak function shouldn't be necessary (I'd understand that), lets try creating a more general function: C#'s as operator
let tryCast<'T> (o : obj) =
match o with
| :? 'T as x -> Some x
| _ -> None
...
if cond.EvalBool() then
match body.Eval() |> tryCast with
| Some (Break _ as e) -> box e //Break is a DU element of ControlFlowModifier
| _ -> next() //all other values should call next()
else null
I ended up creating an active pattern for this.
Similar logic exist elsewhere so I could make it reusable
let rec next() : obj =
if cond.EvalBool() then
match body.Eval() with
| IsBreak(res) -> res
| _ -> step.Eval() |> ignore ; next()
else null
Looks decent?
To flatten the nested match constructs, you'll need to use nested patterns. This works best for discriminated unions (as pointed out by Brian - and I agree that designing F# code to use primarily discriminated unions is the best thing you can do).
Otherwise, you'll need some active patterns if you want to write the code succinctly using match (ssp posted one example, which shows active patterns specifically for your problem). However, you can do this using the following two reusable active patterns:
let (|TryCast|_|) a : 'res option =
match (box a) with
| :? 'res as r -> Some(r)
| _ -> None
let (|Value|) (l:Lazy<_>) = l.Value
The first one is like :?, but it allows you to nest other patterns to match the value (which isn't possible with as). The second one forces evaluation of lazy value (I suppose that both of them could be declared in F# libraries as they are quite useful). Now you can write:
match lazy cond.EvalBool(), lazy body.Eval() with
| Value(true), Value(TryCast((Break(scope) : ControlFlowModifier)) as e) ->
e :> obj //Break is a DU element of ControlFlowModifier
| Value(true), _ ->
next() //all other values should call next()
| _, _ -> null
EDIT: As Roger pointed out in a comment, this version of the code may not be very readable. I think a better option would be to use only TryCast and format your original code slightly differently (although this isn't completely standard indentation, it is correct and F# compiler handles it fine):
match cond.EvalBool() with
| false -> null
| true ->
match body.Eval() with
| TryCast(Break(scope) as e) -> e :> obj
| _ -> next()
This is probably the most readable option based on pattern matching, but you could also use if instad of the first match as in the version by kvb and combine it with TryCast (this really depends on personal preferences):
if cond.EvalBool() then
match body.Eval() with
| TryCast(Break(scope) as e) -> e :> obj
| _ -> next()
else null
In any case, I believe that TryCast makes the code more readable as you avoid one nesting (which is othervise required because of :? .. as ..).
In case you mean "most effective way" as shortest code, i vote to AP too:
let (|CondEval|_|) (c,_) = if c.EvalBool() then Some true else None
let (|BodyEval|_|) (_,b) =
match b.Eval() with
| ControlFlowModifier as e -> Some e
| _ -> None
match cond,body with
| CondEval _ & BodyEval e -> e :> obj
| true -> next()
| false -> null