I created a function p that checks if the square of a given value is lower than 30.
Then this function is called in an other function (as argument) to return the first value inside a list with its square less then 30 ( if p is true, basically I have to check if the function p is true or false ).
This is the code :
let p numb =
let return = (numb * numb) < 30 in return
let find p listT =
let rec support p listT =
match listT with
| []-> raise (Failure "No element in list for p")
| hd :: tl -> if p hd then hd
else support p tl in
let ret = support (p listT) in ret
let () =
let a = [5;6;7] in
let b = find p a in print_int b
But it said on the last line :
Error: This expression (p) has type int -> bool
but an expression was expected of type int -> 'a -> bool
Type bool is not compatible with type 'a -> bool
However, I don't think I'm using higher order functions in the right way, I think it should be more automatic I guess, or not?
First, note that
let return = x in return
can replaced by
x
Second, your original error is on line 10
support (p listT)
This line makes the typechecker deduce that the p argument of find is a function that takes one argument (here listT) and return another function of type int -> bool.
Here's another way to look at your problem, which is as #octachron says.
If you assume that p is a function of type int -> bool, then this recursive call:
support (p listT)
is passing a boolean as the first parameter of support. That doesn't make a lot of sense since the first parameter of support is supposed to be a function.
Another problem with this same expression is that it requires that listT be a value of type int (since this is what p expects as a parameter). But listT is a list of ints, not an int.
A third problem with this expression is that it only passes one parameter to support. But support is expecting two parameters.
Luckily the fix for all these problems is exremely simple.
Idris language tutorial has simple and understandable example of the idea of Dependent Types:
http://docs.idris-lang.org/en/latest/tutorial/typesfuns.html#first-class-types
Here is the code:
isSingleton : Bool -> Type
isSingleton True = Int
isSingleton False = List Int
mkSingle : (x : Bool) -> isSingleton x
mkSingle True = 0
mkSingle False = []
sum : (single : Bool) -> isSingleton single -> Int
sum True x = x
sum False [] = 0
sum False (x :: xs) = x + sum False xs
I decided to spend more time on this example. What bothers me in sum function is that I need to explicitly pass single : Bool value to function. I don't want to do this and I want compiler to guess what this boolean value should be. Hence I pass only Int or List Int to sum function there should be 1-to-1 correspondence between boolean value and type of argument (if I pass some other type this just mustn't type check).
Of course, I understand, this is not possible in general case. Such compiler tricks require my function isSingleton (or any other similar function) be injective. But for this case it should be possible as it seems to me...
So I started with next implementation: I just made single argument implicit.
sum : {single : Bool} -> isSingleton single -> Int
sum {single = True} x = x
sum {single = False} [] = 0
sum {single = False} (x :: xs) = x + sum' {single = False} xs
Well, it doesn't really solve my problem because I still need to call this function in the next way:
sum {single=True} 1
But I read in tutorial about auto keyword. Though I don't quite understand what auto does (because I didn't find description of it) I decided to patch my function just a little bit more:
sum' : {auto single : Bool} -> isSingleton single -> Int
sum' {single = True} x = x
sum' {single = False} [] = 0
sum' {single = False} (x :: xs) = x + sum' {single = False} xs
And it works for lists!
*DepFun> :t sum'
sum' : {auto single : Bool} -> isSingleton single -> Int
*DepFun> sum' [1,2,3]
6 : Int
But doesn't work for single value :(
*DepFun> sum' 3
When checking an application of function Main.sum':
List Int is not a numeric type
Can someone explain is it actually possible to achieve my goal in such injective function usages currently? I watched this short video about proving something is injective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ml8u7DFgAk
But I don't understand how I can use such proofs in my example.
If this is not possible what is the best way to write such functions?
The auto keyword basically tells Idris, "Find me any value of this type". So you're liable to get the wrong answer unless that type only contains one value. Idris sees {auto x : Bool} and fills it in with any old Bool, namely False. It doesn't use its knowledge of later arguments to help it choose - information doesn't flow from right to left.
One fix would be to make the information flow in the other direction. Rather using a universe-style construction as you have above, write a function accepting an arbitrary type and use a predicate to refine it to the two options you want. This way Idris can look at the type of the preceding argument and pick the only value of IsListOrInt whose type matches.
data IsListOrInt a where
IsInt : IsListOrInt Int
IsList : IsListOrInt (List Int)
sum : a -> {auto isListOrInt : IsListOrInt a} -> Int
sum x {IsInt} = x
sum [] {IsList} = 0
sum (x :: xs) {IsList} = x + sum xs
Now, in this case the search space is small enough (two values - True and False) that Idris could feasibly explore every option in a brute-force fashion and pick the first one that results in a program which passes the type checker, but that algorithm doesn't scale well when the types are much bigger than two, or when trying to infer multiple values.
Compare the left-to-right nature of the information flow in the above example with the behaviour of regular non-auto braces, which instruct Idris to find the result in a bidirectional fashion using unification. As you note, this could only succeed when the type functions in question are injective. You could structure your input as a separate, indexed datatype, and allow Idris to look at the constructor to find b using unification.
data OneOrMany isOne where
One : Int -> OneOrMany True
Many : List Int -> OneOrMany False
sum : {b : Bool} -> OneOrMany b -> Int
sum (One x) = x
sum (Many []) = 0
sum (Many (x :: xs)) = x + sum (Many xs)
test = sum (One 3) + sum (Many [29, 43])
Predicting when the machine will or won't be able to guess what you mean is an important skill in dependently-typed programming; you'll find yourself getting better at it with more experience.
Of course, in this case it's all moot because lists already have one-or-many semantics. Write your function over plain old lists; then if you need to apply it to a single value you can just wrap it in a singleton list.
I am trying to write a function in SML which when given a list of general elements, reorders its elements into equivalent classes and returns a list of these classes (type "a list list).
Leave the elements in the classes in the same order as in the original list.
A given function defines the equivalence of the elements and it returns true if the elements are equivalent or false otherwise.
I cannot seem to get a grip on the solution.
fun sample x y = x = y
Required type: fn : (''a -> ''a -> bool) -> ''a list -> ''a list list
Thank you very much for the help.
The helper function does not work correctly, all I want to do with it is see if a given element belongs to any of the classes and put it accordingly inside or create a new sublist which contains it.
fun srt listoflists func new =
case listoflists of [] => [[]]
| a::b => if func (new, hd a) = true then (new::a)::b
else if func (new, hd a) = false then a::(srt b func new) else [new]::a::b
The sample functions checks equivalence of two elements when divided by 11.
Tests are not all working, it is not adding 17 into a new class.
srt [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13]] eq 7;
val it = [[7,7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13]] : int list list
- srt [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13]] eq 5;
val it = [[7,7,7],[5,5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13]] : int list list
- srt [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13]] eq 11;
val it = [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11,11],[13,13,13]] : int list list
- srt [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13]] eq 13;
val it = [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13,13]] : int list list
- srt [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13]] eq 17;
val it = [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13],[]] : int list list
- srt [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13],[111,111,111]] eq 111;
val it = [[7,7,7],[5,5,5],[11,11,11],[13,13,13],[111,111,111,111]]
How to correct this and also once this helper function works, how to encorporate it exactly into the main function that is required.
Thank you very much.
Your example code seems like you are getting close, but has several issues
1) The basis cases is where new should be added, so in that case you should return the value [[new]] rather than [[]]
2) Your problem description suggests that func be of type ''a -> ''a -> bool but your code for srt seems to be assuming it is of type (''a * ''a) -> bool. Rather than subexpressions like func (new, hd a) you need func new (hd a) (note the parentheses location).
3) if func returns a bool then comparing the output to true is needlessly verbose, instead of if func new (hd a) = true then ... simply have if func new (hd a) then ...
4) Since you are adding [new] in the basis cases, your second clause is needlessly verbose. I see no reason to have any nested if expressions.
Since this seems to be homework, I don't want to say much more. Once you get the helper working correctly it should be fairly straightforward to use it (in the recursive case) of the overall function. Note that you could use (a # [new])::b rather than (new::a)::b if you want to avoid the need for a final mapping of rev across the final return value. # is more expensive than :: (it is O(n) rather than O(1)), but for small examples it really doesn't matter and could even be slightly better since it would avoid the final step of reversing the lists.
Long story short, I came up with this funny function set, that takes a function, f : 'k -> 'v, a chosen value, k : 'k, a chosen result, v : 'v, uses f as the basis for a new function g : 'k -> 'v that is the exact same as f, except for that it now holds that, g k = v.
Here is the (pretty simple) F# code I wrote in order to make it:
let set : ('k -> 'v) -> 'k -> 'v -> 'k -> 'v =
fun f k v x ->
if x = k then v else f x
My questions are:
Does this function pose any problems?
I could imagine repeat use of the function, like this
let kvs : (int * int) List = ... // A very long list of random int pairs.
List.fold (fun f (k,v) -> set f k v) id kvs
would start building up a long list of functions on the heap. Is this something to be concerned about?
Is there a better way to do this, while still keeping the type?
I mean, I could do stuff like construct a type for holding the original function, f, a Map, setting key-value pairs to the map, and checking the map first, the function second, when using keys to get values, but that's not what interests me here - what interest me is having a function for "modifying" a single result for a given value, for a given function.
Potential problems:
The set-modified function leaks space if you override the same value twice:
let huge_object = ...
let small_object = ...
let f0 = set f 0 huge_object
let f1 = set f0 0 small_object
Even though it can never be the output of f1, huge_object cannot be garbage-collected until f1 can: huge_object is referenced by f0, which is in turn referenced by the f1.
The set-modified function has overhead linear in the number of set operations applied to it.
I don't know if these are actual problems for your intended application.
If you wish set to have exactly the type ('k -> 'v) -> 'k -> 'v -> 'k -> 'v then I don't see a better way(*). The obvious idea would be to have a "modification table" of functions you've already modified, then let set look up a given f in this table. But function types do not admit equality checking, so you cannot compare f to the set of functions known to your modification table.
(*) Reflection not withstanding.
I need to use hashtable of mutable variable in Ocaml, but it doesn't work out.
let link = Hashtbl.create 3;;
let a = ref [1;2];;
let b = ref [3;4];;
Hashtbl.add link a b;;
# Hashtbl.mem link a;;
- : bool = true
# a := 5::!a;;
- : unit = ()
# Hashtbl.mem link a;;
- : bool = false
Is there any way to make it works?
You can use the functorial interface, which lets you supply your own hash and equality functions. Then you write functions that are based only on the non-mutable parts of your values. In this example, there are no non-mutable parts. So, it's not especially clear what you're expecting to find in the table. But in a more realistic example (in my experience) there are non-mutable parts that you can use.
If there aren't any non-mutable parts, you can add them specifically for use in hashing. You could add an arbitrary unique integer to each value, for example.
It's also possible to do hashing based on physical equality (==), which has a reasonable definition for references (and other mutable values). You have to be careful with it, though, as physical equality is a little tricky. For example, you can't use the physical address of a value as your hash key--an address can change at any time due to garbage collection.
Mutable variables that may happen to have the same content can still be distinguished because they are stored at different locations in memory. They can be compared with the physical equality operator (==). However, OCaml doesn't provide anything better than equality, it doesn't provide a nontrivial hash function or order on references, so the only data structure you can build to store references is an association list of some form, with $\Theta(n)$ access time for most uses.
(You can actually get at the underlying pointer if you play dirty. But the pointer can move under your feet. There is a way to make use of it nonetheless, but if you need to ask, you shouldn't use it. And you aren't desperate enough for that anyway.)
It would be easy to compare references if two distinct references had a distinct content. So make it so! Add a unique identifier to your references. Keep a global counter, increment it by 1 each time you create a reference, and store the counter value with the data. Now your references can be indexed by their counter value.
let counter = ref 0
let new_var x = incr counter; ref (!counter, x)
let var_value v = snd !v
let update_var v x = v := (fst !v, x)
let hash_var v = Hashtbl.hash (fst !v)
For better type safety and improved efficiency, define a data structure containing a counter value and an item.
let counter = ref 0
type counter = int
type 'a variable = {
key : counter;
mutable data : 'a;
}
let new_var x = incr counter; {key = !counter; data = x}
let hash_var v = Hashtbl.hash v.key
You can put the code above in a module and make the counter type abstract. Also, you can define a hash table module using the Hashtbl functorial interface. Here's another way to define variables and a hash table structure on them with a cleaner, more modular structure.
module Counter = (struct
type t = int
let counter = ref 0
let next () = incr counter; !counter
let value c = c
end : sig
type t
val next : unit -> t
val value : t -> int
end)
module Variable = struct
type 'a variable = {
mutable data : 'a;
key : Counter.t;
}
let make x = {key = Counter.next(); data = x}
let update v x = v.data <- x
let get v = v.data
let equal v1 v2 = v1 == v2
let hash v = Counter.value v.key
let compare v1 v2 = Counter.value v2.key - Counter.value v1.key
end
module Make = functor(A : sig type t end) -> struct
module M = struct
type t = A.t Variable.variable
include Variable
end
module Hashtbl = Hashtbl.Make(M)
module Set = Set.Make(M)
module Map = Map.Make(M)
end
We need the intermediate module Variable because the type variable is parametric and the standard library data structure functors (Hashtbl.Make, Set.Make, Map.Make) are only defined for type constructors with no argument. Here's an interface that exposes both the polymorphic interface (with the associated functions, but no data structures) and a functor to build any number of monomorphic instances, with an associated hash table (and set, and map) type.
module Variable : sig
type 'a variable
val make : 'a -> 'a variable
val update : 'a variable -> 'a -> unit
val get : 'a variable -> 'a
val equal : 'a -> 'a -> bool
val hash : 'a variable -> int
val compare : 'a variable -> 'b variable -> int
end
module Make : functor(A : sig type t end) -> sig
module M : sig
type t = A.t variable.variable
val make : A.t -> t
val update : t -> A.t -> unit
val get : t -> A.t
val equal : t -> t -> bool
val hash : t -> int
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
module Hashtbl : Hashtbl.S with type key = M.t
module Set : Set.S with type key = M.t
module Map : Map.S with type key = M.t
end
Note that if you expect that your program may generate more than 2^30 variables during a run, an int won't cut it. You need two int values to make a 2^60-bit value, or an Int64.t.
Note that if your program is multithreaded, you need a lock around the counter, to make the incrementation and lookup atomic.