How to create and use my own structure/signature in SML/NJ? - functional-programming

I'm new to functional programming and I want to create my own structure/signature called Dictionary. So far I have this in file called dictionary-en.sml:
(* The signature DICTIONARY defines a type and a programming interface for
the dictionary data structure. The data structure allows us to store
data in the form of (key, value) pairs and to query the data using a key. *)
signature DICTIONARY =
sig
(* The structure has to implement a dictionary type. It defines key type,
which has to support equality checking, and a value type for the data
stored in the dictionary. *)
type (''key, 'value) dict
(* Creates an empty dictionary. *)
val empty: (''key, 'value) dict
(* Returns true if a key exists in the dictionary. *)
val exists: (''key, 'value) dict -> ''key -> bool
end
And I have this in file solution.sml:
structure Dictionary :> DICTIONARY =
struct
type (''key, 'value) dict = (''key * 'value) list
val empty = []
fun exists dict key =
case dict of
[] => false
| (k, _ )::rep => if k = key
then true
else exists rep key
end
But I don't how to use this.
When I wrote in REPL:
- Dictionary.exists [(3,"c"), (5, "e"), (7, "g")] 3;
I got this error:
stdIn:1.2-3.7 Error: operator and operand do not agree [tycon mismatch]
operator domain: (''Z,'Y) Dictionary.dict
operand: ([int ty] * string) list
in expression:
Dictionary.exists ((3,"c") :: (5,"e") :: (<exp>,<exp>) :: nil)
Can someone please help me? I don't know what I did wrong.

In the function
fun exists dict key =
case dict of
[] => []
| (k, _ )::rep => if k = key
then true
else exists rep key
I spot two issues:
You can't return [] in one place and true in another.
Instead of if P then true else Q, write P orelse Q.
You're using :> which means that the module is opaque, so you can only access the things specified in the signature. The internal list representation is not mentioned in the signature, so you can't refer to a dict as a list, even though you may know that that's how it's implemented. This is a feature.
I would probably call exists for member, since List.exists is a higher-order predicate, e.g. List.exists (fn x => x > 5) [3, 6, 9]. You could also deviate from any standard library naming and say containsKey and containsValue, or something like that.
Besides the insert function that molbdnilo suggested, you may like to have a fromList function.
Here's a refactored version (comments omitted for brevity, but I think your comments are good!):
signature DICTIONARY =
sig
type (''key, 'value) dict
val empty: (''key, 'value) dict
val member: ''key -> (''key, 'value) dict -> bool
val insert: (''key * 'value) -> (''key, 'value) dict -> (''key, 'value) dict
val fromList: (''key * 'value) list -> (''key, 'value) dict
end
structure Dictionary :> DICTIONARY =
struct
type (''key, 'value) dict = (''key * 'value) list
val empty = []
fun member key [] = false
| member key ((key2, _)::dict) =
key = key2 orelse member key dict
fun insert (key, value) [] = [(key, value)]
| insert (key, value) ((key2, value2)::dict) =
if key = key2
then (key, value) :: dict
else (key2, value2) :: insert (key, value) dict
fun fromList pairs = foldl (fn (pair, dict) => insert pair dict) empty pairs
end
But since you're building a dictionary module, there are two things you want to consider:
Make it possible to use some kind of binary tree as internal representation, requiring that the keys can be ordered rather than compared for equality.
Since Standard ML doesn't have special syntax like ''key to express that something can be ordered (Haskell generalises this as type classes, but Standard ML has only the special syntax ''key), this is a good case for using functors, which is the name given to higher-order modules, aka parameterised modules.
Here's an example signature, functor and structure that you can fill out:
signature ORD = sig
type t
val compare : t * t -> order
end
signature DICT = sig
type key
type 'value dict
val empty: 'value dict
val member: key -> 'value dict -> bool
val insert: key * 'value -> 'value dict -> 'value dict
val fromList: (key * 'value) list -> 'value dict
end
functor Dict (Ord : ORD) :> DICT = struct
type key = Ord.t
type 'value dict = (key * 'value) list
val empty = ...
fun member _ _ = raise Fail "not implemented"
fun insert _ _ = raise Fail "not implemented"
fun fromList _ = raise Fail "not implemented"
end
At this point you can change type 'value dict into using a binary tree, and when you need to decide whether to go left or right in this binary tree, you can write:
case Ord.compare (key1, key2) of
LESS => ...
| EQUAL => ...
| GREATER => ...
And when you need a dictionary where the key is some particular orderable type, you can create a module using this functor:
structure IntDict = Dict(struct
type t = int
val compare = Int.compare
end)
structure StringDict = Dict(struct
type t = string
val compare = String.compare
end)
See also Standard ML functor examples for more examples.

You can't access the internal representation; the entire interface is given by the signature.
You need to add to the signature some way to create a dictionary without depending on the representation used in a particular structure.
For instance,
val insert : (''key * 'value) -> (''key, 'value) dict -> (''key, 'value) dict
would let you write
Dictionary.exists (Dictionary.insert (3,"c") Dictionary.empty) 3;
Implementation left as an exercise.

Related

Having a module and an instance of it as parameters to an OCaml function

I want to write a function that takes modules that implement a certain signature and instances of the same type as those modules, but apparently I can't do that because of an issue related to the scope of the module (the module and it's instance are both parameters, therefore the instance doesn't know the type of the module).
Here is an example:
let f (type a) (module M: Set.S with type elt = a) (pr: a -> unit) (m: M.t) =
M.iter pr m;;
Where M is a Set module with elements of type a, and pr can be a printer for elements of type a.
And the message of the error caused by it (which I don't find to be super clear):
Line 1, characters 69-78:
Error: This pattern matches values of type M.t
but a pattern was expected which matches values of type 'a
The type constructor M.t would escape its scope
I tried to solve this by considering that the problem is caused by the scope of the parameters covering only the body of the function, so I put the last argument inside the body of the function like this:
let f (type a) (module M: Set.S with type elt = a) (pr : a -> unit) =
fun (m : M.t) ->
M.iter pr m;;
But the error message is still present:
Line 2, characters 7-16:
Error: This pattern matches values of type M.t
but a pattern was expected which matches values of type 'a
The type constructor M.t would escape its scope
So is there a way to do it?
OCaml core language (outside of the module system) is not dependently typed. In fantasy syntax, your function would have type function (module M: Set.S with type elt = 'a) -> ('a -> unit) -> M.t. In this type, M is a value, thus the type is dependently typed, and cannot be implemented in OCaml.
In your case, it is possible to make the type not dependent by restricting the class of modules accepted as arguments with a with constraint
let f (type a t ) (module M: Set.S with type elt = a and type t = t)
pr m = M.iter pr m
module String_set = Set.Make(String)
let () = f (module String_set) ignore String_set.empty
A possible other solution is to store the value along with the first class module and its existential quantifications:
module type packed = sig
type a
module Impl: Set.S with type elt = a
val value: Impl.t
end
let g (type a) (module P: packed with type a = a)
pr = P.Impl.iter pr P.value
But for more complex functions, there is no other choices than using functors at the module level.
Aside: if you wonder why the module type Set.S with type elt = a and type t = t in the first variant above is a (necessary) restriction consider this packed module:
let random_int_set: (module Set.S with type elt = int) =
let compare =
if Random.int 3 > 1 then Stdlib.compare
else (fun x y -> Stdlib.compare y x)
in
let module S = Set.Make(struct type t = int let compare = compare end) in
(module S)
Here, the set type is based on a random compare function. Thus the type of set is incompatible with all other Sets. Consequently, it is only possible to use such module with a packed value:
module P = struct
type a = int
module Impl = (val random_int_set)
let value = Impl.empty
end
let () = g (module P) ignore

How can I determine the json path to a field within a record without actually hard coding the path?

I would like to work with the following type
type RecordPath<'a,'b> = {
Get: 'a -> 'b
Path:string
}
It's purpose is to define a getter for going from record type 'a to some field within 'a of type 'b. It also gives the path to that field for the json representation of the record.
For example, consider the following fields.
type DateWithoutTimeBecauseWeirdlyDotnetDoesNotHaveThisConcept = {
Year:uint
Month:uint
Day:uint
}
type Person = {
FullName:string
PassportNumber:string
BirthDate:DateWithoutTimeBecauseWeirdlyDotnetDoesNotHaveThisConcept
}
type Team = {
TeamName:string
TeamMembers:Person list
}
An example RecordPath might be
let birthYearPath = {
Get = fun (team:Team) -> team.TeamMembers |> List.map (fun p -> p.BirthDate.Year)
Path = "$.TeamMember[*].BirthDate.Year" //using mariadb format for json path
}
Is there some way of letting a library user create this record without ever actually needing to specify the string explicitly. Ideally there is some strongly typed way of the user specifying the fields involved. Maybe some kind of clever use of reflection?
It just occurred to me that with a language that supports macros, this would be possible. But can it be done in F#?
PS: I notice that I left out the s in "TeamMembers" in the path. This is the kind of thing I want to guard against to make it easier on the user.
As you noted in the comments, F# has a quotation mechanism that lets you do this. You can create those explicitly using <# ... #> notation or implicitly using a somewhat more elengant automatic quoting mechanism. The quotations are farily close representations of the F# code, so converting them to the desired path format is not going to be easy, but I think it can be done.
I tried to get this to work at least for your small example. First, I needed a helper function that does two transformations on the code and turns:
let x = e1 in e2 into e2[x <- e1] (using the notation e2[x <- e1] to mean a subsitution, i.e. expression e2 with all occurences of x replaced by e1)
e1 |> fun x -> e2 into e2[x <- e1]
This is all I needed for your example, but it's likely you'll need a few more cases:
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
let rec simplify dict e =
let e' = simplifyOne dict e
if e' <> e then simplify dict e' else e'
and simplifyOne dict = function
| Patterns.Call(None, op, [e; Patterns.Lambda(v, body)])
when op.Name = "op_PipeRight" ->
simplify (Map.add v e dict) body
| Patterns.Let(v, e, body) -> simplify (Map.add v e dict) body
| ExprShape.ShapeVar(v) when Map.containsKey v dict -> dict.[v]
| ExprShape.ShapeVar(v) -> Expr.Var(v)
| ExprShape.ShapeLambda(v, e) -> Expr.Lambda(v, simplify dict e)
| ExprShape.ShapeCombination(o, es) ->
ExprShape.RebuildShapeCombination(o, List.map (simplify dict) es)
With this pre-processing, I managed to write an extractPath function like this:
let rec extractPath var = function
| Patterns.Call(None, op, [Patterns.Lambda(v, body); inst]) when op.Name = "Map" ->
extractPath var inst + "[*]." + extractPath v.Name body
| Patterns.PropertyGet(Some(Patterns.Var v), p, []) when v.Name = var -> p.Name
| Patterns.PropertyGet(Some e, p, []) -> extractPath var e + "." + p.Name
| e -> failwithf "Unexpected expression: %A" e
This looks for (1) a call to map function, (2) a property access on a variable that represents the data source and (3) a property access where the instance has some more property accesses.
The following now works for your small example (but probably for nothing else!)
type Path =
static member Make([<ReflectedDefinition(true)>] f:Expr<'T -> 'R>) =
match f with
| Patterns.WithValue(f, _, Patterns.Lambda(v, body)) ->
{ Get = f :?> 'T -> 'R
Path = "$." + extractPath v.Name (simplify Map.empty body) }
| _ -> failwith "Unexpected argument"
Path.Make(fun (team:Team) -> team.TeamMembers |> List.map (fun p -> p.BirthDate.Year))
The way I solved this is
let jsonPath userExpr =
let rec innerLoop expr state =
match expr with
|Patterns.Lambda(_, body) ->
innerLoop body state
|Patterns.PropertyGet(Some parent, propInfo, []) ->
sprintf ".%s%s" propInfo.Name state |> innerLoop parent
|Patterns.Call (None, _, expr1::[Patterns.Let (v, expr2, _)]) when v.Name = "mapping"->
let parentPath = innerLoop expr1 "[*]"
let childPath = innerLoop expr2 ""
parentPath + childPath
|ExprShape.ShapeVar x ->
state
|_ ->
failwithf "Unsupported expression: %A" expr
innerLoop userExpr "" |> sprintf "$%s"
type Path =
static member Make([<ReflectedDefinition(true)>] f:Expr<'T -> 'R>) =
match f with
|Patterns.WithValue(f, _, expr) ->
let path = jsonPath expr
{
Get = f :?> 'T -> 'R
Path = path
}
| _ -> failwith "Unexpected argument"
Caveat: I don't know enough about these techniques to tell if Tomas' answer performs better in some edge cases than mine.

Why this dictionary function is not working

I am trying to create and use a dictionary with code from here:
import Data.List (lookup)
insert :: Eq a => (a,b) -> [(a,b)] -> [(a,b)]
insert (a,b) [] = [(a,b)]
insert (a,b) ((c,d):rest) = if a == c
then (a,b) : rest
else (c,d) : insert (a,b) rest
dict :: [(String, String)]
dict = [("", "")]
main = do
insert ("onekey", "onevalue") dict
print dict
print $ lookup "onekey" dict
But I am getting following error:
$ runghc rndict.hs
rndict.hs:22:1: error:
• Couldn't match expected type ‘IO t0’ with actual type ‘[()]’
• In the expression: main
When checking the type of the IO action ‘main’
rndict.hs:24:9: error:
• Couldn't match type ‘IO’ with ‘[]’
Expected type: [()]
Actual type: IO ()
• In a stmt of a 'do' block: print dict
In the expression:
do { insert ("onekey", "onevalue") dict;
print dict;
print $ lookup "onekey" dict }
In an equation for ‘main’:
main
= do { insert ("onekey", "onevalue") dict;
print dict;
print $ lookup "onekey" dict }
rndict.hs:25:9: error:
• Couldn't match type ‘IO’ with ‘[]’
Expected type: [()]
Actual type: IO ()
• In a stmt of a 'do' block: print $ lookup "onekey" dict
In the expression:
do { insert ("onekey", "onevalue") dict;
print dict;
print $ lookup "onekey" dict }
In an equation for ‘main’:
main
= do { insert ("onekey", "onevalue") dict;
print dict;
print $ lookup "onekey" dict }
What is the problem and what is the correct way to use dictionaries in Haskell?
You need to use let to bind the new dictionary to a name:
import Data.List (lookup)
insert :: Eq a => (a,b) -> [(a,b)] -> [(a,b)]
insert (a,b) [] = [(a,b)]
insert (a,b) ((c,d):rest) = if a == c
then (a,b) : rest
else (c,d) : insert (a,b) rest
dict :: [(String, String)]
dict = [("", "")]
main = do
let d = insert ("onekey", "onevalue") dict
print d
print $ lookup "onekey" d
You ask about inserting multiple elements. For this you could use a fold to write a function called insertMany. You should probably be using foldl' but I'll leave that as an exercise to find out why.
import Data.List (lookup)
insert :: Eq a => (a,b) -> [(a,b)] -> [(a,b)]
insert (a,b) [] = [(a,b)]
insert (a,b) ((c,d):rest) = if a == c
then (a,b) : rest
else (c,d) : insert (a,b) rest
insertMany :: Eq a => [(a,b)] -> [(a,b)] -> [(a,b)]
insertMany elements dict =
foldl (flip insert) dict elements
dict :: [(String, String)]
dict = [("", "")]
main = do
let d = insert ("onekey", "onevalue") dict
print d
print $ lookup "onekey" d
print $ insertMany [("onekey", "newvalue"), ("anotherkey", "anothervalue")]
dict

Implementing Okasaki's bootstrapped heaps in OCaml, why doesn't it compile?

(A minimal non-compiling example can be found at https://gist.github.com/4044467, see more background below.)
I am trying to implement Bootstrapped Heaps introduced in Chapter 10 of Okasaki's Purely Functional Data Structure. The following is a simplified version of my non-compiling code.
We're to implement a heap with following signature:
module type ORDERED =
sig
type t
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
module type HEAP =
sig
module Elem : ORDERED
type heap
val empty : heap
val insert : Elem.t -> heap -> heap
val find_min : heap -> Elem.t
val delete_min : heap -> heap
end
We say a data structure is bootstrapped when its implementation depends on another implementation of the same kind of data structure. So we have a heap like this (the actual implementation is not important):
module SomeHeap (Element : ORDERED) : (HEAP with module Elem = Element) =
struct
module Elem = Element
type heap
let empty = failwith "skipped"
let insert = failwith "skipped"
let find_min = failwith "skipped"
let delete_min = failwith "skipped"
end
Then, the bootstrapped heap we're going to implement, which can depend on any heap implementation, is supposed to have the following signature:
module BootstrappedHeap
(MakeH : functor (Element : ORDERED) -> HEAP with module Elem = Element)
(Element : ORDERED) : (HEAP with module Elem = Element)
So we can use it like this:
module StringHeap = BootstrappedHeap(SomeHeap)(String)
The implementation of BootstrappedHeap, according to Okasaki, is like this:
module BootstrappedHeap
(MakeH : functor (Element : ORDERED) -> HEAP with module Elem = Element)
(Element : ORDERED) : (HEAP with module Elem = Element) =
struct
module Elem = Element
module rec BootstrappedElem :
sig
type t =
| E
| H of Elem.t * PrimH.heap
val compare : t -> t -> int
end =
struct
type t =
| E
| H of Elem.t * PrimH.heap
let compare t1 t2 = match t1, t2 with
| H (x, _), H (y, _) -> Elem.compare x y
| _ -> failwith "unreachable"
end
and PrimH : (HEAP with module Elem = BootstrappedElem) =
MakeH(BootstrappedElem)
type heap
let empty = failwith "not implemented"
let insert = failwith "not implemented"
let find_min = failwith "not implemented"
let delete_min = failwith "not implemented"
end
But this is not compiling! The error message is:
File "ordered.ml", line 52, characters 15-55:
Error: In this `with' constraint, the new definition of Elem
does not match its original definition in the constrained signature:
Modules do not match:
sig type t = BootstrappedElem.t end
is not included in
ORDERED
The field `compare' is required but not provided
The line 52 is the line
and PrimH : (HEAP with module Elem = BootstrappedElem) =
I think BootstrappedElem did implement ORDERED as it has both t and compare, but I failed to see why the compiler fails to find the compare function.
Change the signature of BootstrappedElem to
module rec BootstrappedElem : ORDERED
will make it compiling but this will hide the type constructor E and T in BootstrappedElem to make it impossible to implement the later parts.
The whole non-compiling code can be downloaded at https://raw.github.com/gist/4044281/0ce0336c40b277e59cece43dbadb9b94ce6efdaf/ordered.ml
I believe this might be a bug in the type-checker. I have reduced your code to the following example:
module type ORDERED =
sig
type t
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
module type CARRY = sig
module M : ORDERED
end
(* works *)
module HigherOrderFunctor
(Make : functor (X : ORDERED) -> (CARRY with module M = X))
= struct
module rec Base
: (ORDERED with type t = string)
= String
and Other
: (CARRY with module M = Base)
= Make(Base)
end
(* does not work *)
module HigherOrderFunctor
(Make : functor (X : ORDERED) -> (CARRY with module M = X))
= struct
module rec Base
: sig
(* 'compare' seems dropped from this signature *)
type t = string
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
= String
and Other
: (CARRY with module M = (Base : sig type t = string val compare : t -> t -> int end))
= Make(Base)
end
I don't understand why the first code works and the second (which seems equivalent) doesn't. I suggest you wait a bit to see if an expert comes with an explanation (Andreas?), then consider sending a bug report.
In this case, a solution is to first bind the signature that seems mishandled:
(* works again *)
module HigherOrderFunctor
(Make : functor (X : ORDERED) -> (CARRY with module M = X))
= struct
(* bind the problematic signature first *)
module type S = sig
type t = string
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
module rec Base : S = String
and Other : (CARRY with module M = Base) = Make(Base)
end
However, that is not possible in your setting, because the signature of BootstrappedElem is mutually recursive with BootstrappedHeap.
A workaround is to avoid the apparently-delicate with module ... construct and replace it with a simple type equality with type Elem.t = ...:
module BootstrappedHeap
(MakeH : functor (Element : ORDERED) -> HEAP with module Elem = Element)
(Element : ORDERED) : (HEAP with module Elem = Element) =
struct
module Elem = Element
module rec BootstrappedElem :
sig
type t =
| E
| H of Elem.t * PrimH.heap
val compare : t -> t -> int
end =
struct
type t =
| E
| H of Elem.t * PrimH.heap
let compare t1 t2 = match t1, t2 with
| H (x, _), H (y, _) -> Elem.compare x y
| _ -> failwith "unreachable"
end
and PrimH : (HEAP with type Elem.t = BootstrappedElem.t) =
MakeH(BootstrappedElem)
type heap
let empty = failwith "not implemented"
let insert = failwith "not implemented"
let find_min = failwith "not implemented"
let delete_min = failwith "not implemented"
end
You could also avoid the mutual recursion and define both BootstrappedElem and BootstrappedHeap in one recursive knot, by defining BootstrappedElem inside the recursive BootstrappedHeap.
module BootstrappedHeap
(MakeH : functor (Element : ORDERED) -> HEAP with module Elem = Element)
(Element : ORDERED) : (HEAP with module Elem = Element) =
struct
module rec BootstrappedHeap : sig
module Elem : sig
type t = E | H of Element.t * BootstrappedHeap.heap
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
include (HEAP with module Elem := Elem)
end = struct
module Elem = struct
type t = E | H of Element.t * BootstrappedHeap.heap
let compare t1 t2 = match t1, t2 with
| H (x, _), H (y, _) -> Element.compare x y
| _ -> failwith "unreachable"
end
include (MakeH(Elem) : HEAP with module Elem := Elem)
end
module Elem = Element
type heap
let empty = failwith "not implemented"
let insert = failwith "not implemented"
let find_min = failwith "not implemented"
let delete_min = failwith "not implemented"
end
This style corresponds naturally to your decision of embedding Elem in the HEAP signature and using with module ... for refinement. Another solution would have been to define HEAP as a functor returning a signature, used as HEAP(Elem).S, and I suppose a different recursive style could have been chosed. Not to say that this would have been better: I think the "abstract module" style is more convenient.

Hashtable of mutable variable in Ocaml

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.

Resources