I'm trying to recursively print out all an objects properties and sub-type properties etc. My object model is as follows...
type suggestedFooWidget = {
value: float ;
hasIncreasedSinceLastPeriod: bool ;
}
type firmIdentifier = {
firmId: int ;
firmName: string ;
}
type authorIdentifier = {
authorId: int ;
authorName: string ;
firm: firmIdentifier ;
}
type denormalizedSuggestedFooWidgets = {
id: int ;
ticker: string ;
direction: string ;
author: authorIdentifier ;
totalAbsoluteWidget: suggestedFooWidget ;
totalSectorWidget: suggestedFooWidget ;
totalExchangeWidget: suggestedFooWidget ;
todaysAbsoluteWidget: suggestedFooWidget ;
msdAbsoluteWidget: suggestedFooWidget ;
msdSectorWidget: suggestedFooWidget ;
msdExchangeWidget: suggestedFooWidget ;
}
And my recursion is based on the following pattern matching...
let rec printObj (o : obj) (sb : StringBuilder) (depth : int)
let props = o.GetType().GetProperties()
let enumer = props.GetEnumerator()
while enumer.MoveNext() do
let currObj = (enumer.Current : obj)
ignore <|
match currObj with
| :? string as s -> sb.Append(s.ToString())
| :? bool as c -> sb.Append(c.ToString())
| :? int as i -> sb.Append(i.ToString())
| :? float as i -> sb.Append(i.ToString())
| _ -> printObj currObj sb (depth + 1)
sb
In the debugger I see that currObj is of type string, int, float, etc but it always jumps to the defualt case at the bottom. Any idea why this is happening?
As others has pointed out, you need to invoke the GetValue member to get the value of the property - the iteration that you implemented iterates over PropertyInfo objects, which are "descriptors of the property" - not actual values. However, I don't quite understand why are you using GetEnumerator and while loop explicitly when the same thing can be written using for loop.
Also, you don't need to ignore the value returned by the sb.Append call - you can simply return it as the overall result (because it is the StringBuilder). This will actually make the code more efficient (because it enables tail-call optimizataion). As a last point, you don't need ToString in sb.Append(..), because the Append method is overloaded and works for all standard types.
So after a few simplification, you can get something like this (it's not really using the depth parameter, but I guess you want to use it for something later on):
let rec printObj (o : obj) (sb : StringBuilder) (depth : int) =
let props = o.GetType().GetProperties()
for propInfo in props do
let propValue = propInfo.GetValue(o, null)
match propValue with
| :? string as s -> sb.Append(s)
| :? bool as c -> sb.Append(c)
| :? int as i -> sb.Append(i)
| :? float as i -> sb.Append(i)
| _ -> printObj currObj sb (depth + 1)
Here is how I got it to work...
let getMethod = prop.GetGetMethod()
let value = getMethod.Invoke(o, Array.empty)
ignore <|
match value with
| :? float as f -> sb.Append(f.ToString() + ", ") |> ignore
...
In your example, enumer.Current is an object containing a PropertyInfo. This means that currObj is always a PropertyInfo object, and will always correspond to the last case in your match statement.
Since you're interested in the type of the value of the property, you'll need to call the GetValue() method of the PropertyInfo to get to the actual value of the property (as in ChaosPandion's answer).
Since an Enumerator returns its values as objects, you'll also need to cast the enum.current to a PropertyInfo before you can access GetValue.
Try replacing
let currObj = (enumer.Current : obj)
with
let currObj = unbox<PropertyInfo>(enumer.Current).GetValue (o, null)
With this change, I can get your code to work (in FSI):
> let test = {authorId = 42; authorName = "Adams"; firm = {firmId = 1; firmName = "GloboCorp inc."} };;
> string <| printObj test (new StringBuilder()) 1;;
val it : string = "42Adams1GloboCorp inc."
Are you sure the program is not behaving as expected? The debugger spans are not always reliable.
You want something like this instead.
let rec printObj (o : obj) (sb : StringBuilder) (depth : int)
let props = o.GetType().GetProperties() :> IEnumerable<PropertyInfo>
let enumer = props.GetEnumerator()
while enumer.MoveNext() do
let currObj = (enumer.Current.GetValue (o, null)) :> obj
ignore <|
match currObj with
| :? string as s -> sb.Append(s.ToString())
| :? bool as c -> sb.Append(c.ToString())
| :? int as i -> sb.Append(i.ToString())
| :? float as i -> sb.Append(i.ToString())
| _ -> printObj currObj sb (depth + 1)
sb
This is coming from the MSDN docs on the Array class:
In the .NET Framework version 2.0, the
Array class implements the
System.Collections.Generic.IList,
System.Collections.Generic.ICollection,
and
System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable
generic interfaces. The
implementations are provided to arrays
at run time, and therefore are not
visible to the documentation build
tools. As a result, the generic
interfaces do not appear in the
declaration syntax for the Array
class, and there are no reference
topics for interface members that are
accessible only by casting an array to
the generic interface type (explicit
interface implementations). The key
thing to be aware of when you cast an
array to one of these interfaces is
that members which add, insert, or
remove elements throw
NotSupportedException.
Related
I just found such question on C# and converted some code to F# but sadly it still being returning it's name. The question is: where is my mistake? or is there alternative ways to have some enum-like structure with optional string returnin when I want to get A.B.ToString()
Here is my try:
[<TypeConverter(typedefof<EnumToStringUsingDescription>)>]
type FontVariant =
| [<Description("small-caps")>] smallCaps = 0
and
type EnumToStringUsingDescription() =
inherit TypeConverter()
override X.CanConvertFrom(context : ITypeDescriptorContext, sourceType : Type) =
sourceType.Equals(typedefof<Enum>);
override X.CanConvertTo(context : ITypeDescriptorContext, destinationType : Type) =
(destinationType.Equals(typedefof<String>));
override X.ConvertFrom(context : ITypeDescriptorContext, culture : System.Globalization.CultureInfo, value : obj) =
base.ConvertFrom(context, culture, value);
override X.ConvertTo(context : ITypeDescriptorContext, culture : System.Globalization.CultureInfo, value : obj, destinationType : Type) =
if (not <| destinationType.Equals(typedefof<String>)) then
raise <| new ArgumentException("Can only convert to string.", "destinationType");
if (not <| value.GetType().BaseType.Equals(typedefof<Enum>)) then
raise <| new ArgumentException("Can only convert an instance of enum.", "value");
let name = value.ToString();
let attrs =
value.GetType().GetField(name).GetCustomAttributes(typedefof<DescriptionAttribute>, false);
if (attrs.Length > 0) then attrs.[0]
else value
There are a couple of problems here. First, adding a TypeConverter will not influence .ToString().
Second, your conversion returns the attribute, not the description in the attribute. Here's a working function.
let getEnumDescription (value: Enum) =
let typ = value.GetType()
let name = value.ToString();
let attrs = typ.GetField(name).GetCustomAttributes(typedefof<DescriptionAttribute>, false)
if (attrs.Length > 0) then (attrs.[0] :?> DescriptionAttribute).Description :> obj
else name :> obj
That said, certain libraries/frameworks will use a Type converter if available. Might look something like this. It may be that you have to implement ConvertFrom/CanConvertFrom as well, I'm not sure.
type EnumToStringUsingDescription() =
inherit TypeConverter()
override X.CanConvertTo(context : ITypeDescriptorContext, destinationType : Type) = (destinationType.Equals(typedefof<String>))
override X.ConvertTo(context : ITypeDescriptorContext, culture : System.Globalization.CultureInfo, value : obj, destinationType : Type) =
let typ = value.GetType()
if (not <| typ.IsEnum) then raise <| new ArgumentException("Can only convert from enum.", "value");
if (not <| typ.Equals typeof<string>) then raise <| new ArgumentException("Can only convert to string.", "destinationType");
getEnumDescription (value :?> Enum)
Since, as Robert mentioned, enums cannot have members, and therefore you can't override ToString, you could do something like this, as a sort of compromise:
type FontVariant =
| ``small-caps`` = 0
Then, printf works as desired:
printfn "%A" FontVariant.``small-caps``
> small-caps
Also, John's suggestion to use a discriminated union is a good one. They look just like enums, minus the numeric values:
type FontVariant =
| SmallCaps
override this.ToString() =
match this with
| SmallCaps -> "small-caps"
Use the %O format (%A will use Reflection and print the case name).
printfn "%O" FontVariant.SmallCaps
If you need the numeric value, as enums provide, you can define a property:
member this.Value =
match this with
| SmallCaps -> 0
printfn "%d" FontVariant.SmallCaps.Value
I have the following ViewModelBase in F# which I'm trying to build to learn F# with WPF.
module MVVM
open System
open System.Collections.ObjectModel
open System.ComponentModel
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations.Patterns
open System.Reactive.Linq
module Property =
let ToName(query : Expr) =
match query with
| PropertyGet(a, b, list) ->
b.Name
| _ -> ""
let SetValue<'t>(obj, query : Expr<'t>, value : 't) =
match query with
| PropertyGet(a, b, list) ->
b.SetValue(obj, value)
| _ -> ()
let GetValue<'o, 't>(obj : 'o , query : Expr<'t>) : option<'t> =
match query with
| PropertyGet(a, b, list) ->
option.Some(b.GetValue(obj) :?> 't )
| _ -> option.None
let Observe<'t>(x: INotifyPropertyChanged) (p : Expr<'t>) =
let name = ToName(p)
x.PropertyChanged.
Where(fun (v:PropertyChangedEventArgs) -> v.PropertyName = name).
Select(fun v -> GetValue(x, p).Value)
type ViewModelBase() =
let propertyChanged = new Event<_, _>()
interface INotifyPropertyChanged with
[<CLIEvent>]
member x.PropertyChanged = propertyChanged.Publish
abstract member OnPropertyChanged: string -> unit
default x.OnPropertyChanged(propertyName : string) =
propertyChanged.Trigger(x, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName))
member x.SetValue<'t>(expr : Expr<'t>, v : 't) =
Property.SetValue(x, expr, v)
x.OnPropertyChanged(expr)
member x.OnPropertyChanged<'t>(expr : Expr<'t>) =
let propName = Property.ToName(expr)
x.OnPropertyChanged(propName)
However I get an error from the compiler
Error 1 The type 'ViewModelBase' is used in an invalid way.
A value prior to 'ViewModelBase' has an inferred type involving
'ViewModelBase', which is an invalid forward reference.
However the compiler doesn't tell me what value prior is the offending part of the problem. As I'm pretty new to the type inference as used by F# I'm probably missing an obvious problem.
FYI the code is meant to be used like the below but at the moment this code is commented out and the error is only pertaining to the core code above
type TestModel() as this =
inherit MVVM.ViewModelBase()
let mutable name = "hello"
let subscription = (Property.Observe this <# this.SelectedItem #>).
Subscribe(fun v -> Console.WriteLine "Yo")
member x.SelectedItem
with get() = name
and set(v) =
x.SetValue(<# x.SelectedItem #>, v)
I found it.
let SetValue<'t>(obj, query : Expr<'t>, value : 't) =
match query with
| PropertyGet(a, b, list) ->
b.SetValue(obj, value)
| _ -> ()
was under constrained. Should be
let SetValue<'t>(obj : Object, query : Expr<'t>, value : 't) =
match query with
| PropertyGet(a, b, list) ->
b.SetValue(obj, value)
| _ -> ()
The active pattern in this question fails to compile after upgrading to VS 2012 RTM. It provides a way to do a type test and match a literal within a single pattern. For example:
let (|Value|_|) value =
match box value with
| :? 'T as x -> Some x
| _ -> None
let getValue (name: string) (r: IDataReader) =
match r.[name] with
| null | :? DBNull | Value "" -> Unchecked.defaultof<_>
| v -> unbox v
Can this be done without the active pattern? I realize a when guard could be used (:? string as s when s = "") but it can't be combined with other patterns.
kvb's variation (which doesn't do quite the same thing since it assumes the type test succeeds) can be modified to produce a similar pattern:
let (|Value|_|) x value =
match box value with
| :? 'T as y when x = y -> Some()
| _ -> None
However, there is a subtle performance difference. The original active pattern translates to:
public static FSharpOption<T> |Value|_|<a, T>(a value)
{
object obj = value;
if (!LanguagePrimitives.IntrinsicFunctions.TypeTestGeneric<T>(obj))
{
return null;
}
return FSharpOption<T>.Some((T)((object)obj));
}
that is, it does a type test and cast. It's usage (match x with Value "" -> ...) translates to:
FSharpOption<string> fSharpOption = MyModule.|Value|_|<object, string>(obj);
if (fSharpOption != null && string.Equals(fSharpOption.Value, ""))
{
...
}
Most notably, the typed value returned from the pattern is matched using the typical compiler transformations for patterns (string.Equals for strings).
The updated pattern translates to:
public static FSharpOption<Unit> |Value|_|<T, a>(T x, a value)
{
object obj = value;
if (LanguagePrimitives.IntrinsicFunctions.TypeTestGeneric<T>(obj))
{
T y = (T)((object)obj);
T y3 = y;
if (LanguagePrimitives.HashCompare.GenericEqualityIntrinsic<T>(x, y3))
{
T y2 = (T)((object)obj);
return FSharpOption<Unit>.Some(null);
}
}
return null;
}
which uses generic equality and is less efficient than matching against a literal. The usage is a bit simpler since equality is baked into the pattern:
FSharpOption<Unit> fSharpOption = MyModule.|Value|_|<string, object>("", obj);
if (fSharpOption != null)
{
...
}
Anyway, it works. But I like the original better.
You should be able to use a parameterized active pattern:
let (|Value|_|) v x =
if unbox x = v then
Some()
else None
The usage should look exactly like what you've got now.
Edit
While I don't know if the breaking change was intentional, I believe that active patterns with generic return types unrelated to the input types should usually be avoided. When combined with type inference, they can easily mask subtle errors. Consider the following example, using your original (|Value|_|) pattern:
match [1] with
| Value [_] -> "Singleton"
| _ -> "Huh?"
It seems like this isn't something you would actually ever attempt - the name implies that Value should only be used with literals; parameterized active patterns enable exactly this scenario.
I have a function that takes a parameter of type object and needs to downcast it to an option<obj>.
member s.Bind(x : obj, rest) =
let x = x :?> Option<obj>
If I pass (for example) an Option<string> as x, the last line throws the exception: Unable to cast object of type 'Microsoft.FSharp.Core.FSharpOption'1[System.String]' to type 'Microsoft.FSharp.Core.FSharpOption'1[System.Object]'.
Or, if I try a type test:
member s.Bind(x : obj, rest) =
match x with
| :? option<obj> as x1 -> ... // Do stuff with x1
| _ -> failwith "Invalid type"
then x never matches option<obj>.
In order to make this work, I currently have to specify the type the option contains (e.g. if the function is passed an option<string>, and I downcast the parameter to that rather than option<obj>, the function works.
Is there a way I can downcast the parameter to option<obj> without specifying what type the option contains? I've tried option<_>, option<#obj>, and option<'a> with the same results.
By way of background, the parameter needs to be of type obj because I'm writing an interface for a monad, so Bind needs to bind values of different types depending on the monad that implements the interface. This particular monad is a continuation monad, so it just wants to make sure the parameter is Some(x) and not None, then pass x on to rest. (The reason I need the interface is because I'm writing a monad transformer and I need a way to tell it that its parameter monads implement bind and return.)
Update: I managed to get around this by upcasting the contents of the option before it becomes a parameter to this function, but I'm still curious to know if I can type-test or cast an object (or generic parameter) to an option without worrying about what type the option contains (assuming of course the cast is valid, i.e. the object really is an option).
There isn't any nice way to solve this problem currently.
The issue is that you'd need to introduce a new generic type parameter in the pattern matching (when matching against option<'a>), but F# only allows you to define generic type parameters in function declarations. So, your only solution is to use some Reflection tricks. For example, you can define an active pattern that hides this:
let (|SomeObj|_|) =
let ty = typedefof<option<_>>
fun (a:obj) ->
let aty = a.GetType()
let v = aty.GetProperty("Value")
if aty.IsGenericType && aty.GetGenericTypeDefinition() = ty then
if a = null then None
else Some(v.GetValue(a, [| |]))
else None
This will give you None or Some containing obj for any option type:
let bind (x : obj) rest =
match x with
| SomeObj(x1) -> rest x1
| _ -> failwith "Invalid type"
bind(Some 1) (fun n -> 10 * (n :?> int))
I am not certain why you need to get your input as obj, but if your input is an Option<_>, then it is easy:
member t.Bind (x : 'a option, rest : obj option -> 'b) =
let x = // val x : obj option
x
|> Option.bind (box >> Some)
rest x
To answer your last question: you can use a slight variation of Tomas' code if you need a general-purpose way to check for options without boxing values beforehand:
let (|Option|_|) value =
if obj.ReferenceEquals(value, null) then None
else
let typ = value.GetType()
if typ.IsGenericType && typ.GetGenericTypeDefinition() = typedefof<option<_>> then
let opt : option<_> = (box >> unbox) value
Some opt.Value
else None
//val ( |Option|_| ) : 'a -> 'b option
let getValue = function
| Option x -> x
| _ -> failwith "Not an option"
let a1 : int = getValue (Some 42)
let a2 : string = getValue (Some "foo")
let a3 : string = getValue (Some 42) //InvalidCastException
let a4 : int = getValue 42 //Failure("Not an option")
I've been working on polishing up my JSON code for my ECMAScript runtime and I decided to run an experiment. The following str function has 4 logical steps which I've broken up into functions and marked them inline.
and private str (state:StringifyState) (key:string) (holder:IObject) : IDynamic =
let inline fourth (value:IDynamic) =
match value.TypeCode with
| LanguageTypeCode.Null ->
state.environment.CreateString "null" :> IDynamic
| LanguageTypeCode.Boolean ->
let v = value :?> IBoolean
state.environment.CreateString (if v.BaseValue then "true" else "false") :> IDynamic
| LanguageTypeCode.String ->
let v = value :?> IString
state.environment.CreateString (quote v.BaseValue) :> IDynamic
| LanguageTypeCode.Number ->
let v = value :?> INumber
if not (Double.IsInfinity(v.BaseValue))
then v.ConvertToString() :> IDynamic
else state.environment.CreateString "null" :> IDynamic
| LanguageTypeCode.Object ->
let v = value :?> IObject
let v = if v.Class = "Array" then ja state v else jo state v
state.environment.CreateString v :> IDynamic
| _ ->
state.environment.Undefined :> IDynamic
let inline third (value:IDynamic) =
match value.TypeCode with
| LanguageTypeCode.Object ->
let v = value :?> IObject
match v.Class with
| "Number" ->
fourth (v.ConvertToNumber())
| "String" ->
fourth (v.ConvertToString())
| "Boolean" ->
fourth (v.ConvertToBoolean())
| _ ->
fourth value
| _ ->
fourth value
let inline second (value:IDynamic) =
match state.replacerFunction with
| :? ICallable as f ->
let args = state.environment.CreateArgs ([| state.environment.CreateString key :> IDynamic; value |])
let value = f.Call (state.environment, holder :> IDynamic, args)
third value
| _ ->
third value
let inline first (value:IDynamic) =
match value with
| :? IObject as v ->
let toJSON = v.Get "toJSON"
match toJSON with
| :? ICallable as f ->
let args = state.environment.CreateArgs ([| state.environment.CreateString key :> IDynamic |])
let value = f.Call (state.environment, value, args)
second value
| _ ->
second value
| _ ->
second value
first (holder.Get key)
I compiled with full optimizations and opened up the resulting assembly with Reflector to see the results.
[CompilationArgumentCounts(new int[] { 1, 1, 1 })]
internal static IDynamic str(StringifyState state, string key, IObject holder)
{
IObject obj3;
ICallable callable;
ICallable callable2;
IArgs args;
IDynamic dynamic3;
IDynamic dynamic4;
ICallable callable3;
IDynamic dynamic5;
IBoolean flag;
IString str;
INumber number;
IObject obj4;
string str2;
INumber number2;
IObject obj5;
string str3;
IString str4;
IBoolean flag2;
IDynamic thisBinding = holder.Get(key);
IObject obj2 = thisBinding as IObject;
if (obj2 == null)
{
callable = state.replacerFunction# as ICallable;
if (callable == null)
{
switch (thisBinding.TypeCode)
{
case LanguageTypeCode.Object:
obj3 = (IObject) thisBinding;
str2 = obj3.Class;
if (!string.Equals(str2, "Number"))
{
if (string.Equals(str2, "String"))
{
dynamic3 = obj3.ConvertToString();
switch (dynamic3.TypeCode)
{
case LanguageTypeCode.Null:
return (IDynamic) state.environment#.CreateString("null");
case LanguageTypeCode.Boolean:
flag = (IBoolean) dynamic3;
return (IDynamic) state.environment#.CreateString(!flag.BaseValue ? "false" : "true");
case LanguageTypeCode.String:
str4 = (IString) dynamic3;
return (IDynamic) state.environment#.CreateString(quote(str4.BaseValue));
case LanguageTypeCode.Number:
number = (INumber) dynamic3;
if (double.IsInfinity(number.BaseValue))
{
return (IDynamic) state.environment#.CreateString("null");
}
return (IDynamic) number.ConvertToString();
// ... I removed a large amount of code.
return (IDynamic) state.environment#.Undefined;
}
Clearly the inline modifier is quite literal. The code is quite huge and with some preliminary tests is very efficient. One might consider throwing inline on all of their functions if they didn't care about the size of the resulting assemblies. What are some guidelines I can follow to know when the use of inline is appropriate? If possible I would like to avoid having to measure performance every single time to determine this.
If you are using inline solely for performance considerations, then I think that all of the typical performance-related advice applies. Most importantly, set a performance target and profile your application for hotspots. Then use inline if you have reason to believe that it will improve performance, and test to verify that it does. Keep in mind that the IL that the F# compiler generates is JIT compiled anyway, so small functions (in terms of IL size) may be inlined in the compilation to machine code even if you don't use inline in your F# code.
I typically only use inline when I want to use statically resolved type variables (e.g. because of member constraints).
I agree with kvb's answer, but here are two specific reasons not to
consider throwing inline on all of their functions if they didn't care about the size of the resulting assemblies.
The obvious case is that inlining anonymous functions won't work.
More inlining (especially of big functions) -> less (effectively) code fits into cache -> the program works slower.