I'm looking to add a cache to a simple compiler in OCaml. I have created a simpler version of the code that I had that reproduces the same issue. What I need for the cache is to be able to create a Map with A's as keys, so I can lookup the compile output. Here is the code:
module A
= struct
type ineq =
| LT
| EQ
| GT
type t =
...
module ACacheMapKey
= struct
type t = t
let compare a b =
match cmp a b with
| LT -> -1
| EQ -> 0
| GT -> 1
end
module CMap = Map.Make(ACacheMapKey)
let cache_map = CMap.empty
let cmp a b =
...
end
In module A, type t is a recursive AST-like type. cmp a b returns a ineq. The compile function was left out for brevity, but it just uses the cache before running through a computationally expensive process. In order to create a cache map in A, I need a compatible key module. My attempt at that is ACacheMapKey, but the type t = t doesn't refer to the parent. The error it gives is Error: The type abbreviation t is cyclic. So, is there a better way to make a cache over A? Or is there an easy way to reference the parent and make my current structure work?
Type definitions, unlike let bindings, are recursive by default. So similarly to how you would make a let binding recursive by using the rec keyword:
let rec f = ...
you can make a type definition non-recursive by using the nonrec keyword:
type nonrec t = t
Related
I have a recursive function that contains a series of matches that either make the recursive call back to the function, or make a call to failwith.
This is basically a hybrid implementation of the recursive descent parser descibed in Don Syme's Expert F# book (page 180) and the parsing example shown here: http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/pattern-matching-command-line/
Here is a snippet of my own code.
let rec parseTokenListRec tokenList optionsSoFar =
match tokenList with
| [] -> optionsSoFar
| SOURCE::t ->
match t with
| VALUE x::tt -> parseTokenListRec (returnNonValueTail t) {optionsSoFar with Source = (returnConcatHeadValues t)}
| _ -> failwith "Expected a value after the source argument."
| REGISTRY::t ->
...
A full code listing can be found at http://fssnip.net/nU
The way the code is currently written, when the function has finished working its way through the tokenList, it will return the optionsSoFar record that has been compiled via the object expression {optionsSoFar with Source = (returnConcatHeadValues t)}, or it will throw an exception if an invalid argument is found.
I want to refactor this so that the function does not rely on an exception, but will always return a value of some sort that can be handled by the calling function. The idea I have is to return a discriminated union rather than a record.
This discriminated union would be something like
type Result =
|Success of Options
|Failure of string
The problem I had when I tried to refactor the code was that I couldn't figure out how to get the success value of the DU to initialize via an object expression. Is this possible?
The examples I've looked at on MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/dd233237(v=vs.100).aspx), fsharpforfunandprofit (http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/discriminated-unions/) and elsewhere haven't quite cleared this up for me.
I'm worried that I'm not making any sense here. I'm happy to clarify if needed.
If I understand it correctly, in you current solution, the type of optionsSoFar is Options. The code becomes trickier if you change the type of optionsSoFar to your newly defined Result.
However, I think you do not need to do that - you can keep optionsSoFar : Options and change the function to return Result. This works because you never need to call the function recursively after it fails:
let rec parseTokenListRec tokenList optionsSoFar =
match tokenList with
| [] -> Success optionsSoFar
| SOURCE::t ->
match t with
| VALUE x::tt ->
{optionsSoFar with Source = (returnConcatHeadValues t)}
|> parseTokenListRec (returnNonValueTail t)
| _ -> Failure "Expected a value after the source argument."
| REGISTRY::t -> ...
If you actually wanted to update Source in a Result value, then I'd probably write something like:
module Result =
let map f = function
| Success opt -> f opt
| Failure msg -> Failure msg
Then you could write a transformation as follows:
resultSoFar
|> Result.map (fun opts -> {opts with Source = returnConcatHeadValues t})
|> parseTokenListRec (returnNonValueTail t)
I have the following code which I intend to create a Map with self defined types variable and location. I understand that the key type should be ordered (some comparator function). How shall I add these rules to make this work? Also, I find the code ugly here. Do I really need the ;; at the end of a type and module?
type variable = string;;
type location = int;;
module LocationMap = Map.Make(variable);;
module EnvironmentMap = Map.Make(location);;
EDIT
This is the rest of my code:
type variable = Variable of string
type location = Location of int
module LocationMap = Map.Make(struct type t = variable let compare = compare end)
module EnvironmentMap = Map.Make(struct type t = variable let compare = compare end)
(*file read function*)
let read_file filename =
let lines = ref [] in
let chan = open_in filename in
try
while true do
lines := input_line chan :: !lines
done;
!lines
with End_of_file ->
close_in chan;
List.rev !lines
in
(*get the inputs*)
let inputs = read_file Sys.argv.(1) in
for i = 0 to List.length inputs - 1 do
Printf.printf "%s\n" (List.nth inputs i)
done;
This has a syntax error. I am not sure why.
EDIT2
I make this work with the following edit:
type variable = Variable of string
type location = Location of int
module LocationMap = Map.Make(struct type t = variable let compare = compare end)
module EnvironmentMap = Map.Make(struct type t = variable let compare = compare end)
(*file read function*)
let read_file filename =
let lines = ref [] in
let chan = open_in filename in
try
while true do
lines := input_line chan :: !lines
done;
!lines
with End_of_file ->
close_in chan;
List.rev !lines
(*get the inputs*)
let () =
let inputs = read_file Sys.argv.(1) in
for i = 0 to List.length inputs - 1 do
Printf.printf "%s\n" (List.nth inputs i)
done;
Sorry for the long list of questions, what does let () = do here? Is it true that when I define a function with let, I do not need in?
When applying the Map.Make functor, you need to supply a struct containing your type and a compare function:
module LocationMap =
Map.Make(struct type t = variable let compare = compare end)
module EnvironmentMap =
Map.Make(struct type t = location let compare = compare end)
You never need to use ;; in compiled code. It's only required when using the toplevel, to tell it when it should evaluate what you've typed in so far.
Some people do use ;; in compiled code, but you never need to do this and I personally never do. There is always a way to get the same effect without using ;;.
Update
The let compare = compare binds the pre-existing OCaml function compare (the infamous polymorphic comparison function) to the name compare inside the struct. So, it creates a Map that uses polymorphic compare to do its comparisons. This is often what you want.
I created a file containing your definitions (without ;;) and the above code, then compiled it with ocamlc -c. There were no syntax errors. I'm positive you don't need to use ;;, as I've written many many thousands of lines of code without it.
Note that I'm not saying that if you remove ;; from syntactically correct OCaml code, the result is always syntactically correct. There are a few idioms that only work when you use ;;. I personally just avoid those idioms.
Update 2
A let at top level of a module is special, and doesn't have an in. It defines a global value of the module. OCaml treats every source file as a module (for free, as I like to say), with a name that's the same as the source file name (capitalized).
You can actually have any pattern in let pattern = expression. So let () = ... is completely normal. It just says that the expression has unit type (hence the pattern matches).
I understand in OCaml there are concepts of interfaces and module.
And I understand how to use them now.
However, what I don't understand is how to fully utilise them.
For example, in Java, let's say we have a interface Map and we also have Hashtable and HashMap that implement Map.
In code, I can do like:
Map m = new Hashtable();
m.put("key", value);
Someday, if I change my mind, I can change to Hashmap very quickly by changing Map m = new Hashtable(); to Map m = new HashMap();, right?
But how can I easily do that in Ocaml?
For example, I have MapSig and 'HashMap:MapSigand "Hashtable:MapSig in OCaml.
How can I change the implementation easily?
I don't think I can because in OCaml I have to do like:
let m = Hashtable.create ();;
Hashtable.put m key value;;
if I want to use HashMap instead, I have to replace every Hashtable with HashMap in the code, right?
Edit:
I am not only seeking a way to make a alias to modules. I also consider the validity of implementations, i.e., whether the implementation follow the desired interface.
For example, in above Java example, only if HashMap has implemented Map interface, I can replace Hashtable with HashMap. otherwise, Java compiler will complain.
but if I do module M = Hashtable in OCaml, and if HashMap does not follow MapSig and I replace Hashtable with HashMap, what will happen? I think compiler won't complain, right?
Here's an example that shows what I think you're asking for:
# module type HASH = sig type t val hash : t -> int end ;;
module type HASH = sig type t val hash : t -> int end
# module I = struct type t = int let hash i = i end ;;
module I : sig type t = int val hash : 'a -> 'a end
# module J = struct type t = int end ;;
module J : sig type t = int end
# module M : HASH = I ;;
module M : HASH
# module N : HASH = J ;;
Error: Signature mismatch:
Modules do not match: sig type t = int end is not included in HASH
The field `hash' is required but not provided
The extra ": HASH" specifies that the module must match the HASH signature (and it also restricts it to that signature).
Just as a side comment, I believe the OCaml module system is world famous for its expressivity (at least in module system circles). I'm still a beginner at it, but it is worth studying.
Since 3.12.1 OCaml allows this syntax for opening and aliasing modules:
let foo .... =
let module HashTable = HashMap in (* magic is here *)
let h = HashTable.create () in
....
So u just need to rename module what you are using where you are using it.
The most direct correspondence between your Java example and OCaml is using a functor (what OCaml calls a static function from a module to a module). So suppose you have the following implemented in OCaml:
module type Map = sig
(* For simplicity assume any key and value type is allowed *)
type ('k, 'v) t
val make : unit -> ('k, 'v) t
val put : ('k, 'v) t -> ~key:'k -> ~value:'v -> unit
end
module Hashtable : Map = struct ... end
module HashMap : Map = struct ... end
Then you would write a functor like this:
module MyFunctor(Map : Map) = struct
let my_map =
let map = Map.make () in
Map.put map ~key ~value;
map
end
Then you would instantiate a module using the functor:
module MyModule = MyFunctor(Hashtable)
And voila, changing the implementation is a one-line diff because both the module implementations conform to the Map signature:
module MyModule = MyFunctor(HashMap)
I have made a functor for format-able sets, as follows:
module type POrderedType =
sig
type t
val compare : t -> t -> int
val format : Format.formatter -> t -> unit
end
module type SET =
sig
include Set.S
val format : Format.formatter -> t -> unit
end
module MakeSet (P : POrderedType) : SET with type elt = P.t
Implementation of this is straightforward:
module MakeSet (P : OrderedType) =
struct
include Set.Make(P)
let format ff s =
let rec format' ff = function
| [] -> ()
| [v] -> Format.fprintf ff "%a" format v
| v::tl -> Format.fprintf ff "%a,# %a" format v format' tl in
Format.fprintf ff "#[<4>%a#]" format' (elements s)
end
I wanted to do something similar with maps. POrderedType is fine for keys, but I need a simpler type for values:
module type Printable =
sig
type t
val format : Format.formatter -> t -> unit
end
Then I wanted to do something similar to what I had done for sets, but I run into the following problem. Map.S values have type +'a t. I can't figure out a way to include the Map.S definition while constraining the 'a to be a Printable.t. What I want is something like the following (ignoring the fact that it is illegal):
module MakeMap (Pkey : POrderedType) (Pval : Printable) :
MAP with type key = Pkey.t and type 'a t = 'a t constraint 'a = Pval.t
Is there any way to do what I want without copying the entire signature of Map by hand?
I think the cleanest way to propose a printing function for polymorphic maps is to make the map printing function parametric over the values printing function. You can think of it this way:
functor-defined types are defined at the functor level, so providing functions for them is best done by adding new functor parameters (or enriching existing ones)
parametric types are bound (generalized) at the value level, so providing functions for them is best done by adding new parameters to the value
In OCaml, convenience tend to make people favor parametric polymorphism over functorization when possible. Functorization is sometimes necessary to enforce some type safety (here it's used to make sure that maps over different comparison functions have incompatible types), but otherwise people rather try to have polymorphism. So you're actually in the lucky situation here.
If you really want to have a functor producing monomorphic maps, well, I'm afraid you will have to copy the whole map interface and adapt it in the momonorphic case -- it's not much work.
I'm interested in generalizing some computational tools to use a Cayley Table, meaning a lookup table based multiplication operation.
I could create a minimal implementation as follows :
date CayleyTable = CayleyTable {
ct_name :: ByteString,
ct_products :: V.Vector (V.Vector Int)
} deriving (Read, Show)
instance Eq (CayleyTable) where
(==) a b = ct_name a == ct_name b
data CTElement = CTElement {
ct_cayleytable :: CayleyTable,
ct_index :: !Int
}
instance Eq (CTElement) where
(==) a b = assert (ct_cayleytable a == ct_cayleytable b) $
ct_index a == ct_index b
instance Show (CTElement) where
show = ("CTElement" ++) . show . ctp_index
a **** b = assert (ct_cayleytable a == ct_cayleytable b) $
((ct_cayleytable a) ! a) ! b
There are however numerous problems with this approach, starting with the run time type checking via ByteString comparisons, but including the fact that read cannot be made to work correctly. Any idea how I should do this correctly?
I could imagine creating a family of newtypes CTElement1, CTElement2, etc. for Int with a CTElement typeclass that provides the multiplication and verifies their type consistency, except when doing IO.
Ideally, there might be some trick for passing around only one copy of this ct_cayleytable pointer too, perhaps using an implicit parameter like ?cayleytable, but this doesn't play nicely with multiple incompatible Cayley tables and gets generally obnoxious.
Also, I've gathered that an index into a vector can be viewed as a comonad. Is there any nice comonad instance for vector or whatever that might help smooth out this sort of type checking, even if ultimately doing it at runtime?
You thing you need to realize is that Haskell's type checker only checks types. So your CaleyTable needs to be a class.
class CaleyGroup g where
caleyTable :: g -> CaleyTable
... -- Any operations you cannot implement soley by knowing the caley table
data CayleyTable = CayleyTable {
...
} deriving (Read, Show)
If the caleyTable isn't known at compile time you have to use rank-2 types. Since the complier needs to enforce the invariant that the CaleyTable exists, when your code uses it.
manipWithCaleyTable :: Integral i => CaleyTable -> i -> (forall g. CaleyGroup g => g -> g) -> a
can be implemented for example. It allows you to perform group operations on the CaleyTable. It works by combining i and CaleyTable to make a new type it passes to its third argument.