The following &greet function is pure, and can appropriately be marked with the is pure trait.
sub greet(Str:D $name) { say "Hello, $name" }
my $user = get-from-db('USER');
greet($user);
This one, however, is not:
sub greet {
my $name = get-from-db('USER');
say "Hello, $name"
}
greet($user);
What about this one, though?
sub greet(Str:D $name = get-from-db('USER')) { say "Hello, $name" }
greet();
From "inside" the function, it seems pure – when is parameters are bound to the same values, it always produces the same output, without side effects. But from outside the function, it seems impure – when called twice with the same argument, it can produce different return values. Which prospective does Raku/Rakudo take?
There are at least two strategies a language might take when implementing default values for parameters:
Treat the parameter default value as something that the compiler, upon encountering a call without enough arguments, should emit at the callsite in order to produce the extra argument to pass to the callee. This means that it's possible to support default values for parameters without any explicit support for it in the calling conventions. This also, however, requires that you always know where the call is going at compile time (or at least know it accurately enough to insert the default value, and one can't expect to use different default values in method overrides in subclasses and have it work out).
Have a calling convention powerful enough that the callee can discover that a value was not passed for the parameter, and then compute the default value.
With its dynamic nature, only the second of these really makes sense for Raku, and so that is what it does.
In a language doing strategy 1 it could arguably make sense to mark such a function as pure, insofar as the code that calculates the default lives at each callsite, and so anything doing an analysis and perhaps transformation based upon the purity will already be having to deal with the code that evaluates the default value, and can see that it is not a source of a pure value.
Under strategy 2, and thus Raku, we should understand default values as an implementation detail of the block or routine that has the default in its signature. Thus if the code calculating the default value is impure, then the routine as a whole is impure, and so the is pure trait is not suitable.
More generally, the is pure trait is applicable if for a given argument capture we can always expect the same return value. In the example given, the argument capture \() contradicts this.
An alternative factoring here would be to use multi subs instead of parameter defaults, and to mark only one candidate with is pure.
When you say that a sub is pure, then the you are guaranteeing that any given input will always produce the same output. In your last example of sub greet it looks to me that you cannot guarantee that for the default value case, as the content of the database may change, or the get-from-db may have side-effects.
Of course, if you are sure that the database doesn't change, and there aren't any side-effects, you could still apply is pure to the sub, but why would you be using a database then?
Why would you mark a sub as is pure anyway? Well, it allows the compiler to constant-fold a call to a subroutine at compile time. Take e.g.:
sub foo($a) is pure {
2 * $a
}
say foo(21); # 42
If you look at the code that is generated for this:
$ raku --target=optimize -e 'sub foo($a) is pure { 2 * $a }; say foo(21)'
then you will see this near the end:
│ │ - QAST::IVal(42)
The 42 is the constant folded call for foo(21). So this way the entire call is optimized away, because the sub was marked is pure and the parameter you provided was a constant.
Related
I have a function which requires a DateTime argument. A possibility is that a user might provide a ZonedDateTime argument. As far as I can tell there are three possible ways to catch this without breaking:
Accept both arguments in a single method, and perform a type conversion if necessary via an if... statement
function ofdatetime(dt::AbstractDateTime)
if dt::ZonedDateTime
dt = DateTime(dt, UTC)
end
...
end
Define a second method which simply converts the type and calls the first method
function ofdatetime(dt::DateTime)
...
end
function ofdatetime(dt::ZonedDateTime)
dt = DateTime(dt, UTC)
return ofdatetime(dt)
end
Redefine the entire function body for the second method
function ofdatetime(dt::DateTime)
...
end
function ofdatetime(dt::ZonedDateTime)
dt = DateTime(dt, UTC)
...
end
Of course, this doesn't apply when a different argument type implies that the function actually do something different - the whole point of multiple dispatch - but this is a toy example. I'm wondering what is best practice in these cases? It needn't be exclusively to do with time zones, this is just the example I'm working with. Perhaps a relevant question is 'how does Julia do multiple dispatch under the hood?' i.e. are arguments dispatched to relevant methods by something like an if... else/switch... case block, or is it more clever than that?
The answer in the comments is correct that, ideally, you would write your ofdatetime function such that all operations on dt within your function body are general to any AbstractDateTime; in any case where the the difference between DateTime and ZonedDateTime would matter, you can use dispatch at that point within your function to take care of the details.
Failing that, either of 2 or 3 is generally preferable to 1 in your question, since for either of those, the branch can be elided in the case that the type of df is known at compile-time. Of the latter two, 2 is probably preferable to 3 as written in your example in terms of general code style ("DRY"), but if you were able to avoid the type conversion by writing entirely different function bodies, then 3 could actually have better performance than if the type conversion is at all expensive.
In general though, the best of all worlds is to keep most your code generic to either type, and only dispatch at the last possible moment.
Does anyone know the reasons why Julia chose a design of functions where the parameters given as inputs cannot be modified? This requires, if we want to use it anyway, to go through a very artificial process, by representing these data in the form of a ridiculous single element table.
Ada, which had the same kind of limitation, abandoned it in its 2012 redesign to the great satisfaction of its users. A small keyword (like out in Ada) could very well indicate that the possibility of keeping the modifications of a parameter at the output is required.
From my experience in Julia it is useful to understand the difference between a value and a binding.
Values
Each value in Julia has a concrete type and location in memory. Value can be mutable or immutable. In particular when you define your own composite type you can decide if objects of this type should be mutable (mutable struct) or immutable (struct).
Of course Julia has in-built types and some of them are mutable (e.g. arrays) and other are immutable (e.g. numbers, strings). Of course there are design trade-offs between them. From my perspective two major benefits of immutable values are:
if a compiler works with immutable values it can perform many optimizations to speed up code;
a user is can be sure that passing an immutable to a function will not change it and such encapsulation can simplify code analysis.
However, in particular, if you want to wrap an immutable value in a mutable wrapper a standard way to do it is to use Ref like this:
julia> x = Ref(1)
Base.RefValue{Int64}(1)
julia> x[]
1
julia> x[] = 10
10
julia> x
Base.RefValue{Int64}(10)
julia> x[]
10
You can pass such values to a function and modify them inside. Of course Ref introduces a different type so method implementation has to be a bit different.
Variables
A variable is a name bound to a value. In general, except for some special cases like:
rebinding a variable from module A in module B;
redefining some constants, e.g. trying to reassign a function name with a non-function value;
rebinding a variable that has a specified type of allowed values with a value that cannot be converted to this type;
you can rebind a variable to point to any value you wish. Rebinding is performed most of the time using = or some special constructs (like in for, let or catch statements).
Now - getting to the point - function is passed a value not a binding. You can modify a binding of a function parameter (in other words: you can rebind a value that a parameter is pointing to), but this parameter is a fresh variable whose scope lies inside a function.
If, for instance, we wanted a call like:
x = 10
f(x)
change a binding of variable x it is impossible because f does not even know of existence of x. It only gets passed its value. In particular - as I have noted above - adding such a functionality would break the rule that module A cannot rebind variables form module B, as f might be defined in a module different than where x is defined.
What to do
Actually it is easy enough to work without this feature from my experience:
What I typically do is simply return a value from a function that I assign to a variable. In Julia it is very easy because of tuple unpacking syntax like e.g. x,y,z = f(x,y,z), where f can be defined e.g. as f(x,y,z) = 2x,3y,4z;
You can use macros which get expanded before code execution and thus can have an effect modifying a binding of a variable, e.g. macro plusone(x) return esc(:($x = $x+1)) end and now writing y=100; #plusone(y) will change the binding of y;
Finally you can use Ref as discussed above (or any other mutable wrapper - as you have noted in your question).
"Does anyone know the reasons why Julia chose a design of functions where the parameters given as inputs cannot be modified?" asked by Schemer
Your question is wrong because you assume the wrong things.
Parameters are variables
When you pass things to a function, often those things are values and not variables.
for example:
function double(x::Int64)
2 * x
end
Now what happens when you call it using
double(4)
What is the point of the function modifying it's parameter x , it's pointless. Furthermore the function has no idea how it is called.
Furthermore, Julia is built for speed.
A function that modifies its parameter will be hard to optimise because it causes side effects. A side effect is when a procedure/function changes objects/things outside of it's scope.
If a function does not modifies a variable that is part of its calling parameter then you can be safe knowing.
the variable will not have its value changed
the result of the function can be optimised to a constant
not calling the function will not break the program's behaviour
Those above three factors are what makes FUNCTIONAL language fast and NON FUNCTIONAL language slow.
Furthermore when you move into Parallel programming or Multi Threaded programming, you absolutely DO NOT WANT a variable having it's value changed without you (The programmer) knowing about it.
"How would you implement with your proposed macro, the function F(x) which returns a boolean value and modifies c by c:= c + 1. F can be used in the following piece of Ada code : c:= 0; While F(c) Loop ... End Loop;" asked by Schemer
I would write
function F(x)
boolean_result = perform_some_logic()
return (boolean_result,x+1)
end
flag = true
c = 0
(flag,c) = F(c)
while flag
do_stuff()
(flag,c) = F(c)
end
"Unfortunately no, because, and I should have said that, c has to take again the value 0 when F return the value False (c increases as long the Loop lives and return to 0 when it dies). " said Schemer
Then I would write
function F(x)
boolean_result = perform_some_logic()
if boolean_result == true
return (true,x+1)
else
return (false,0)
end
end
flag = true
c = 0
(flag,c) = F(c)
while flag
do_stuff()
(flag,c) = F(c)
end
Is the following add() function referentially transparent?
const appState = {
runningTotal: 0
}
function add(x, y) {
const total = x + y;
appState.runningTotal += total;
return total;
}
I'm unsure of the answer due to a handful of definitions I've found for referential transparency. Here are some in the order of my confidence of their correctness.
A function is referentially transparent if:
It can be replaced by its value and the behavior of the program remains the same
Given some input it will always produce the same output
It only depends on its input
It is stateless
Given each of the definitions above I would think the answer is:
Maybe - I think it depends on how appState.runningTotal is used elsewhere in the program, but I'm not sure.
Yes
I'm not sure - It only depends on its input to produce the output, but it also uses appState in the body of the function
No
Back to the specific question: is add() referentially transparent?
Thanks in advance!
P.S. - please let me know if I'm conflating multiple concepts, namely the concept of a pure function.
No, it isn't a referentially transparent function.
Referential transparency refers specifically to the first criteria you have listed, namely that you can freely substitute the values on the left and right hand side of an expression without changing the behaviour of the program.
add(2,3) returns the value 5 but you cannot replace instances of add(2,3) with 5 in your program because add(2, 3) also has the side effect of incrementing runningTotal by 5. Substituting add(2, 3) for 5 would result in runningTotal not being incremented, changing the behaviour of your program.
I'd go with
Maybe - It depends on how appState.runningTotal is used
as when it is not used, then it can be ignored. Obviously it is global state, but is it just for debugging or is it part of your actual application state? If the latter, then the function is not pure of course - it does change the state and replacing a call with the result value (or doing unnecessary calls whose result is dropped) would change the behaviour of your program.
But if you do consider appState.runningTotal to not be part of the semantics of your program, and non of its functionality depends on it, you might as well ignore this side effect. We do this all the time, every real world computation affects the state of the computer it runs on, and we choose to ignore that when we consider the purity of our functions.
A pure function is referentially transparent. I call it "copypastability", aka you can copy paste each part of referentially transparent code around, and it'll still work as originally intended.
All of the four criteria have to be fulfilled, although you can shrink them to the first statement. The others can all be inferred from that one.
If a function can be reasonably replaced, that means you can replace it with a map/dictionary which has input as keys and outputs as values. So it'll always return the same thing on the same input. The same analogy works just fine with the "only depends on input" and "stateless".
Say I have a Julia trait that relates to two types: one type is a sort of "base" type that may satisfy a sort of partial trait, the other is an associated type that is uniquely determined by the base type. (That is, the relation from BaseType -> AssociatedType is a function.) Together, these types satisfy a composite trait that is the one of interest to me.
For example:
using Traits
#traitdef IsProduct{X} begin
isnew(X) -> Bool
coolness(X) -> Float64
end
#traitdef IsProductWithMeasurement{X,M} begin
#constraints begin
istrait(IsProduct{X})
end
measurements(X) -> M
#Maybe some other stuff that dispatches on (X,M), e.g.
#fits_in(X,M) -> Bool
#how_many_fit_in(X,M) -> Int64
#But I don't want to implement these now
end
Now here are a couple of example types. Please ignore the particulars of the examples; they are just meant as MWEs and there is nothing relevant in the details:
type Rope
color::ASCIIString
age_in_years::Float64
strength::Float64
length::Float64
end
type Paper
color::ASCIIString
age_in_years::Int64
content::ASCIIString
width::Float64
height::Float64
end
function isnew(x::Rope)
(x.age_in_years < 10.0)::Bool
end
function coolness(x::Rope)
if x.color=="Orange"
return 2.0::Float64
elseif x.color!="Taupe"
return 1.0::Float64
else
return 0.0::Float64
end
end
function isnew(x::Paper)
(x.age_in_years < 1.0)::Bool
end
function coolness(x::Paper)
(x.content=="StackOverflow Answers" ? 1000.0 : 0.0)::Float64
end
Since I've defined these functions, I can do
#assert istrait(IsProduct{Rope})
#assert istrait(IsProduct{Paper})
And now if I define
function measurements(x::Rope)
(x.length)::Float64
end
function measurements(x::Paper)
(x.height,x.width)::Tuple{Float64,Float64}
end
Then I can do
#assert istrait(IsProductWithMeasurement{Rope,Float64})
#assert istrait(IsProductWithMeasurement{Paper,Tuple{Float64,Float64}})
So far so good; these run without error. Now, what I want to do is write a function like the following:
#traitfn function get_measurements{X,M;IsProductWithMeasurement{X,M}}(similar_items::Array{X,1})
all_measurements = Array{M,1}(length(similar_items))
for i in eachindex(similar_items)
all_measurements[i] = measurements(similar_items[i])::M
end
all_measurements::Array{M,1}
end
Generically, this function is meant to be an example of "I want to use the fact that I, as the programmer, know that BaseType is always associated to AssociatedType to help the compiler with type inference. I know that whenever I do a certain task [in this case, get_measurements, but generically this could work in a bunch of cases] then I want the compiler to infer the output type of that function in a consistently patterned way."
That is, e.g.
do_something_that_makes_arrays_of_assoc_type(x::BaseType)
will always spit out Array{AssociatedType}, and
do_something_that_makes_tuples(x::BaseType)
will always spit out Tuple{Int64,BaseType,AssociatedType}.
AND, one such relationship holds for all pairs of <BaseType,AssociatedType>; e.g. if BatmanType is the base type to which RobinType is associated, and SupermanType is the base type to which LexLutherType is always associated, then
do_something_that_makes_tuple(x::BatManType)
will always output Tuple{Int64,BatmanType,RobinType}, and
do_something_that_makes_tuple(x::SuperManType)
will always output Tuple{Int64,SupermanType,LexLutherType}.
So, I understand this relationship, and I want the compiler to understand it for the sake of speed.
Now, back to the function example. If this makes sense, you will have realized that while the function definition I gave as an example is 'correct' in the sense that it satisfies this relationship and does compile, it is un-callable because the compiler doesn't understand the relationship between X and M, even though I do. In particular, since M doesn't appear in the method signature, there is no way for Julia to dispatch on the function.
So far, the only thing I have thought to do to solve this problem is to create a sort of workaround where I "compute" the associated type on the fly, and I can still use method dispatch to do this computation. Consider:
function get_measurement_type_of_product(x::Rope)
Float64
end
function get_measurement_type_of_product(x::Paper)
Tuple{Float64,Float64}
end
#traitfn function get_measurements{X;IsProduct{X}}(similar_items::Array{X,1})
M = get_measurement_type_of_product(similar_items[1]::X)
all_measurements = Array{M,1}(length(similar_items))
for i in eachindex(similar_items)
all_measurements[i] = measurements(similar_items[i])::M
end
all_measurements::Array{M,1}
end
Then indeed this compiles and is callable:
julia> get_measurements(Array{Rope,1}([Rope("blue",1.0,1.0,1.0),Rope("red",2.0,2.0,2.0)]))
2-element Array{Float64,1}:
1.0
2.0
But this is not ideal, because (a) I have to redefine this map each time, even though I feel as though I already told the compiler about the relationship between X and M by making them satisfy the trait, and (b) as far as I can guess--maybe this is wrong; I don't have direct evidence for this--the compiler won't necessarily be able to optimize as well as I want, since the relationship between X and M is "hidden" inside the return value of the function call.
One last thought: if I had the ability, what I would ideally do is something like this:
#traitdef IsProduct{X} begin
isnew(X) -> Bool
coolness(X) -> Float64
∃ ! M s.t. measurements(X) -> M
end
and then have some way of referring to the type that uniquely witnesses the existence relationship, so e.g.
#traitfn function get_measurements{X;IsProduct{X},IsWitnessType{IsProduct{X},M}}(similar_items::Array{X,1})
all_measurements = Array{M,1}(length(similar_items))
for i in eachindex(similar_items)
all_measurements[i] = measurements(similar_items[i])::M
end
all_measurements::Array{M,1}
end
because this would be somehow dispatchable.
So: what is my specific question? I am asking, given that you presumably by this point understand that my goals are
Have my code exhibit this sort of structure generically, so that
I can effectively repeat this design pattern across a lot of cases
and then program in the abstract at the high-level of X and M,
and
do (1) in such a way that the compiler can still optimize to the best of its ability / is as aware of the relationship among
types as I, the coder, am
then, how should I do this? I think the answer is
Use Traits.jl
Do something pretty similar to what you've done so far
Also do ____some clever thing____ that the answerer will indicate,
but I'm open to the idea that in fact the correct answer is
Abandon this approach, you're thinking about the problem the wrong way
Instead, think about it this way: ____MWE____
I'd also be perfectly satisfied by answers of the form
What you are asking for is a "sophisticated" feature of Julia that is still under development, and is expected to be included in v0.x.y, so just wait...
and I'm less enthusiastic about (but still curious to hear) an answer such as
Abandon Julia; instead use the language ________ that is designed for this type of thing
I also think this might be related to the question of typing Julia's function outputs, which as I take it is also under consideration, though I haven't been able to puzzle out the exact representation of this problem in terms of that one.
Generally, I have a headache because something is wrong with my reasoning:
For 1 set of arguments, referential transparent function will always return 1 set of output values.
that means that such function could be represented as a truth table (a table where 1 set of output parameters is specified for 1 set of arguments).
that makes the logic behind such functions is combinational (as opposed to sequential)
that means that with pure functional language (that has only rt functions) it is possible to describe only combinational logic.
The last statement is derived from this reasoning, but it's obviously false; that means there is an error in reasoning. [question: where is error in this reasoning?]
UPD2. You, guys, are saying lots of interesting stuff, but not answering my question. I defined it more explicitly now. Sorry for messing up with question definition!
Question: where is error in this reasoning?
A referentially transparent function might require an infinite truth table to represent its behavior. You will be hard pressed to design an infinite circuit in combinatory logic.
Another error: the behavior of sequential logic can be represented purely functionally as a function from states to states. The fact that in the implementation these states occur sequentially in time does not prevent one from defining a purely referentially transparent function which describes how state evolves over time.
Edit: Although I apparently missed the bullseye on the actual question, I think my answer is pretty good, so I'm keeping it :-) (see below).
I guess a more concise way to phrase the question might be: can a purely functional language compute anything an imperative one can?
First of all, suppose you took an imperative language like C and made it so you can't alter variables after defining them. E.g.:
int i;
for (i = 0; // okay, that's one assignment
i < 10; // just looking, that's all
i++) // BUZZZ! Sorry, can't do that!
Well, there goes your for loop. Do we get to keep our while loop?
while (i < 10)
Sure, but it's not very useful. i can't change, so it's either going to run forever or not run at all.
How about recursion? Yes, you get to keep recursion, and it's still plenty useful:
int sum(int *items, unsigned int count)
{
if (count) {
// count the first item and sum the rest
return *items + sum(items + 1, count - 1);
} else {
// no items
return 0;
}
}
Now, with functions, we don't alter state, but variables can, well, vary. Once a variable passes into our function, it's locked in. However, we can call the function again (recursion), and it's like getting a brand new set of variables (the old ones stay the same). Although there are multiple instances of items and count, sum((int[]){1,2,3}, 3) will always evaluate to 6, so you can replace that expression with 6 if you like.
Can we still do anything we want? I'm not 100% sure, but I think the answer is "yes". You certainly can if you have closures, though.
You have it right. The idea is, once a variable is defined, it can't be redefined. A referentially transparent expression, given the same variables, always yields the same result value.
I recommend looking into Haskell, a purely functional language. Haskell doesn't have an "assignment" operator, strictly speaking. For instance:
my_sum numbers = ??? where
i = 0
total = 0
Here, you can't write a "for loop" that increments i and total as it goes along. All is not lost, though. Just use recursion to keep getting new is and totals:
my_sum numbers = f 0 0 where
f i total =
if i < length numbers
then f i' total'
else total
where
i' = i+1
total' = total + (numbers !! i)
(Note that this is a stupid way to sum a list in Haskell, but it demonstrates a method of coping with single assignment.)
Now, consider this highly imperative-looking code:
main = do
a <- readLn
b <- readLn
print (a + b)
It's actually syntactic sugar for:
main =
readLn >>= (\a ->
readLn >>= (\b ->
print (a + b)))
The idea is, instead of main being a function consisting of a list of statements, main is an IO action that Haskell executes, and actions are defined and chained together with bind operations. Also, an action that does nothing, yielding an arbitrary value, can be defined with the return function.
Note that bind and return aren't specific to actions. They can be used with any type that calls itself a Monad to do all sorts of funky things.
To clarify, consider readLn. readLn is an action that, if executed, would read a line from standard input and yield its parsed value. To do something with that value, we can't store it in a variable because that would violate referential transparency:
a = readLn
If this were allowed, a's value would depend on the world and would be different every time we called readLn, meaning readLn wouldn't be referentially transparent.
Instead, we bind the readLn action to a function that deals with the action, yielding a new action, like so:
readLn >>= (\x -> print (x + 1))
The result of this expression is an action value. If Haskell got off the couch and performed this action, it would read an integer, increment it, and print it. By binding the result of an action to a function that does something with the result, we get to keep referential transparency while playing around in the world of state.
As far as I understand it, referential transparency just means: A given function will always yield the same result when invoked with the same arguments. So, the mathematical functions you learned about in school are referentially transparent.
A language you could check out in order to learn how things are done in a purely functional language would be Haskell. There are ways to use "updateable storage possibilities" like the Reader Monad, and the State Monad for example. If you're interested in purely functional data structures, Okasaki might be a good read.
And yes, you're right: Order of evaluation in a purely functional language like haskell does not matter as in non-functional languages, because if there are no side effects, there is no reason to do someting before/after something else -- unless the input of one depends on the output of the other, or means like monads come into play.
I don't really know about the truth-table question.
Here's my stab at answering the question:
Any system can be described as a combinatorial function, large or small.
There's nothing wrong with the reasoning that pure functions can only deal with combinatorial logic -- it's true, just that functional languages hide that from you to some extent or another.
You could even describe, say, the workings of a game engine as a truth table or a combinatorial function.
You might have a deterministic function that takes in "the current state of the entire game" as the RAM occupied by the game engine and the keyboard input, and returns "the state of the game one frame later". The return value would be determined by the combinations of the bits in the input.
Of course, in any meaningful and sane function, the input is parsed down to blocks of integers, decimals and booleans, but the combinations of the bits in those values is still determining the output of your function.
Keep in mind also that basic digital logic can be described in truth tables. The only reason that that's not done for anything more than, say, arithmetic on 4-bit integers, is because the size of the truth table grows exponentially.
The error in Your reasoning is the following:
"that means that such function could be represented as a truth table".
You conclude that from a functional language's property of referential transparency. So far the conclusion would sound plausible, but You oversee that a function is able to accept collections as input and process them in contrast to the fixed inputs of a logic gate.
Therefore a function does not equal a logic gate but rather a construction plan of such a logic gate depending on the actual (at runtime determined) input!
To comment on Your comment: Functional languages can - although stateless - implement a state machine by constructing the states from scratch each time they are being accessed.