why do I need parenthesis in this dictionary initializer, in F# - dictionary

with these types:
type A =
| AA
| AB
type B =
Dictionary<int, int>()
I initialize a dictionary:
Dictionary<A, B>(dict [ (A.AA, B()); (A.AB, B()) ])
but I do not understand why I need to put parenthesis after B, in the initialization code.
the following:
Dictionary<A, B>(dict [ (A.AA, B); (A.AB, B) ])
will not compile. I understand that 'B' may represent the type and 'B()' an instance of it, but I don't understand why the '()' would represent an instance?
As an additional question:
type B =
Dictionary<int, int>()
and
type B =
Dictionary<int, int>
both seem to work. Is any of the two preferred, and, if so, why?

First of all, the declaration type B = Dictionary<int, int>() does not work for me. I get an error "Unexpected symbol '(' in member definition", exactly as I would expect. Are you sure it's working for you? Which version of F# are you using?
The type Dictionary<_,_> is a class. Classes are not the same as discriminated unions (which the type A is). They are a different sort of type.
In particular, to create a value of a class type, one needs to call a constructor and pass it some parameters. This is exactly what you're doing in your very own code:
Dictionary<A, B> (dict [ (A.AA, B()); (A.AB, B()) ])
^--------------^ ^---------------------------------^
| |
constructor |
|
parameter passed to the constructor
Some classes have multiple constructors. Dictionary is one of such types.
Some constructors have no parameters, but you still have to call them. This is what you do with empty parens.
F# models parameterless .NET methods and constructors as functions that have a single parameter, and that parameter is of type unit. This is what you're doing when you say B()
B ()
^ ^^
| |
| single parameter of type unit
|
constructor
If you just say B without a parameter, then what you get is a function of type unit -> B - that is a function that expects a single parameter of type unit and when you pass it such parameter, it would return you a value of type B.

Related

Swiftui: how do you assign the value in a "String?" object to a "String" object?

Swiftui dictionaries have the feature that the value returned by using key access is always of type "optional". For example, a dictionary that has type String keys and type String values is tricky to access because each returned value is of type optional.
An obvious need is to assign x=myDictionary[key] where you are trying to get the String of the dictionary "value" into the String variable x.
Well this is tricky because the String value is always returned as an Optional String, usually identified as type String?.
So how is it possible to convert the String?-type value returned by the dictionary access into a plain String-type that can be assigned to a plain String-type variable?
I guess the problem is that there is no way to know for sure that there exists a dictionary value for the key. The key used to access the dictionary could be anything so somehow you have to deal with that.
As described in #jnpdx answer to this SO question (How do you assign a String?-type object to a String-type variable?), there are at least three ways to convert a String? to a String:
import SwiftUI
var x: Double? = 6.0
var a = 2.0
if x != nil {
a = x!
}
if let b = x {
a = x!
}
a = x ?? 0.0
Two key concepts:
Check the optional to see if it is nil
if the optional is not equal to nil, then go ahead
In the first method above, "if x != nil" explicitly checks to make sure x is not nil be fore the closure is executed.
In the second method above, "if let a = b" will execute the closure as long as b is not equal to nil.
In the third method above, the "nil-coalescing" operator ?? is employed. If x=nil, then the default value after ?? is assigned to a.
The above code will run in a playground.
Besides the three methods above, there is at least one other method using "guard let" but I am uncertain of the syntax.
I believe that the three above methods also apply to variables other than String? and String.

Recursive type definition in flow

I'm trying to use flow 0.53.1. Could you please help me explain this weird behavior?
This code sample:
/* #flow */
type AnySupportedType =
| AnySupportedPrimitive
| AnySupportedObject
| AnySupportedArray;
type AnySupportedArray = Array<AnySupportedType>;
type AnySupportedObject = { [string]: AnySupportedType };
type AnySupportedPrimitive = boolean | number | string | void;
type DataID = string
type Data = {
id: DataID
}
const y: Data = { id: "123" }
const x: AnySupportedType = y;
Renders this error:
17: const x: AnySupportedType = y;
^ object type. This type is incompatible with
17: const x: AnySupportedType = y;
^ union: AnySupportedPrimitive | AnySupportedObject | AnySupportedArray
Link to flow.org web-based example to play with.
Actually, this has to do with mutability. Flow cannot allow this code, since you could write x.id = 5 (after the appropriate type refinements), since the AnySupportedType type allows you to set any supported type, including a number as a property.
To solve this, you need to make the object properties covariant, effectively making them read-only:
type AnySupportedObject = { +[string]: AnySupportedType };
Note the addition of the +.
Once you do this, Flow allows the original assignment but prevents you from setting properties on x.
Check out the complete example on try.
See https://flow.org/blog/2016/10/04/Property-Variance/
The answer is that Flow has two ways to type Objects. One, your AnySupportedObject, treats the object as as dictionary where you can find an item by any key (similar to Map<string, whatever>.
The other way is as a record, where there are a specific set of known keys and each key can point to its own type of value (for example, {a: number, b: string}.
Those two types have very different meanings, though often either one can apply to a specific object. The type system keeps them distinct and forces you to treat an object in one way or the other to avoid generating type errors.

How do you get the Discriminated Union Type from a Case instance?

Given these two Discriminated Unions I'd like to get the DeclaringType from a case instance.
type SingleCaseUnion =
| One
type MultiCaseUnion =
| Two
| Three
An example for each case would be as follows:
getDiscriminatedUnionType One = typeof<SingleCaseUnion> // true
getDiscriminatedUnionType Three = typeof<MultiCaseUnion> // true
My first attempt was to get the case type and get it's base class, this works because in F# a subtype is created for each case.
MultiCaseUnion.Two.GetType().BaseType = typeof<MultiCaseUnion> // true
However, for a single case union this doesn't work because no nested types are created.
SingleCaseUnion.One.GetType().BaseType = typeof<SingleCaseUnion> // false
My second attempt, which aimed to get a more robust solution was to use the FSharp Reflection helpers.
FSharpType.GetUnionCases(unionValue.GetType()).First().DeclaringType
This does work for all cases but it has to generate UnionCaseInfo instances for each case which seems somewhat unnecessary.
Is there Something built in that I may have missed? Something like:
FSharpValue.GetUnionFromCase(SingleCaseUnion.One)
How about
open FSharp.Reflection
type FSharpType =
static member GetUnionType t =
let ownType = t.GetType()
assert FSharpType.IsUnion(ownType)
let baseType = ownType.BaseType
if baseType = typeof<System.Object> then ownType else baseType
Test:
(FSharpType.GetUnionType MultiCaseUnion.Three).Name //MultiCaseUnion
(FSharpType.GetUnionType SingleCaseUnion.One).Name //SingleCaseUnion

How to map dictionary to object of specific class?

I have a given dictionary and want to map it to an object of a specific class.
All keys of the dictionary should be mapped to equally named instance variables of the object.
I guess this is a common procedure? What is the common way to accomplish it?
Consider doing something like this:
dict := { #x -> 5 . #y -> 6 } asDictionary. "dictionary as you described"
basicObj := Point basicNew. "basic instance of your object"
dict keysAndValuesDo: [ :key :val |
basicObj instVarNamed: key put: val ].
^ basicObj
This is indeed a common pattern. It is often used in serialization and materialization. You can find an implementation in
STON

Function with different argument types

I read about polymorphism in function and saw this example
fun len nil = 0
| len rest = 1 + len (tl rest)
All the other examples dealt with nil arg too.
I wanted to check the polymorphism concept on other types, like
fun func (a : int) : int = 1
| func (b : string) : int = 2 ;
and got the follow error
stdIn:1.6-2.33 Error: parameter or result constraints of clauses don't agree
[tycon mismatch]
this clause: string -> int
previous clauses: int -> int
in declaration:
func = (fn a : int => 1: int
| b : string => 2: int)
What is the mistake in the above function? Is it legal at all?
Subtype Polymorphism:
In a programming languages like Java, C# o C++ you have a set of subtyping rules that govern polymorphism. For instance, in object-oriented programming languages if you have a type A that is a supertype of a type B; then wherever A appears you can pass a B, right?
For instance, if you have a type Mammal, and Dog and Cat were subtypes of Mammal, then wherever Mammal appears you could pass a Dog or a Cat.
You can achive the same concept in SML using datatypes and constructors. For instance:
datatype mammal = Dog of String | Cat of String
Then if you have a function that receives a mammal, like:
fun walk(m: mammal) = ...
Then you could pass a Dog or a Cat, because they are constructors for mammals. For instance:
walk(Dog("Fido"));
walk(Cat("Zoe"));
So this is the way SML achieves something similar to what we know as subtype polymorphism in object-oriented languajes.
Ad-hoc Polymorphysm:
Coercions
The actual point of confusion could be the fact that languages like Java, C# and C++ typically have automatic coercions of types. For instance, in Java an int can be automatically coerced to a long, and a float to a double. As such, I could have a function that accepts doubles and I could pass integers. Some call these automatic coercions ad-hoc polymorphism.
Such form of polymorphism does not exist in SML. In those cases you are forced to manually coerced or convert one type to another.
fun calc(r: real) = r
You cannot call it with an integer, to do so you must convert it first:
calc(Real.fromInt(10));
So, as you can see, there is no ad-hoc polymorphism of this kind in SML. You must do castings/conversions/coercions manually.
Function Overloading
Another form of ad-hoc polymorphism is what we call method overloading in languages like Java, C# and C++. Again, there is no such thing in SML. You may define two different functions with different names, but no the same function (same name) receiving different parameters or parameter types.
This concept of function or method overloading must not be confused with what you use in your examples, which is simply pattern matching for functions. That is syntantic sugar for something like this:
fun len xs =
if null xs then 0
else 1 + len(tl xs)
Parametric Polymorphism:
Finally, SML offers parametric polymorphism, very similar to what generics do in Java and C# and I understand that somewhat similar to templates in C++.
So, for instance, you could have a type like
datatype 'a list = Empty | Cons of 'a * 'a list
In a type like this 'a represents any type. Therefore this is a polymorphic type. As such, I could use the same type to define a list of integers, or a list of strings:
val listOfString = Cons("Obi-wan", Empty);
Or a list of integers
val numbers = Cons(1, Empty);
Or a list of mammals:
val pets = Cons(Cat("Milo", Cons(Dog("Bentley"), Empty)));
This is the same thing you could do with SML lists, which also have parametric polymorphism:
You could define lists of many "different types":
val listOfString = "Yoda"::"Anakin"::"Luke"::[]
val listOfIntegers 1::2::3::4::[]
val listOfMammals = Cat("Misingo")::Dog("Fido")::Cat("Dexter")::Dog("Tank")::[]
In the same sense, we could have parametric polymorphism in functions, like in the following example where we have an identity function:
fun id x = x
The type of x is 'a, which basically means you can substitute it for any type you want, like
id("hello");
id(35);
id(Dog("Diesel"));
id(Cat("Milo"));
So, as you can see, combining all these different forms of polymorphism you should be able to achieve the same things you do in other statically typed languages.
No, it's not legal. In SML, every function has a type. The type of the len function you gave as an example is
fn : 'a list -> int
That is, it takes a list of any type and returns an integer. The function you're trying to make takes and integer or a string, and returns an integer, and that's not legal in the SML type system. The usual workaround is to make a wrapper type:
datatype wrapper = I of int | S of string
fun func (I a) = 1
| func (S a) = 2
That function has type
fn : wrapper -> int
Where wrapper can contain either an integer or a string.

Resources