I am currently using the Map functor to create a string map: module StringMap = Map.Make(String).
I then am trying to insert a set of mappings of strings to a list of 'a objects into the StringMap. to check if the key already exists, I am doing the following:
match StringMap.find_opt key my_map with
| None -> StringMap.add key [child] my_map
| Some l -> StringMap.add key (child::l) my_map
However, when I compile, I get an error saying the binding for find_opt has an unbound value, even though it is defined in the signature: https://ocaml.org/learn/tutorials/map.html.
I have also tried using StringMap.mem key my_map, but get the following error:
Error: This expression has type string but an expression was expected of type
'a StringMap.t =
(StringMap.Key.t, 'a, StringMap.Key.comparator_witness)
Base__Map.t
I've looked around to see if there is a typing error or something but have been unable to find anything. Any ideas as to why I am getting either of these errors?
According to the error message you're using Base (or Core) library, which are substitutions for the OCaml standard library and have the different interface. In particular, the find function in the Map interface already returns an option type, and thus there is no find_opt function.
Perhaps, you've used some example from the jbuilder tutorial that enables this library automatically.
You can either switch to the standard library or enable the compatibility with the vanilla OCaml standard library by opening the compatibility module Caml, e.g.,
open Caml
(* your code goes below *)
Related
What's the use of Sproxy in purescript?
In Pursuit, it's written as
data SProxy (sym :: Symbol)
--| A value-level proxy for a type-level symbol.
and what is meant by Symbol in purescipt?
First, please note that PureScript now has polykinds since version 0.14 and most functions now use Proxy instead of SProxy. Proxy is basically a generalisation of SProxy.
About Symbols and Strings
PureScript knows value level strings (known as String) and type level strings (known as Symbol).
A String can have any string value at runtime. The compiler does not track the value of the string.
A Symbol is different, it can only have one value (but remember, it is on the type level). The compiler keeps track of this string. This allows the compiler to type check certain expressions.
Symbols in Practice
The most prominent use of Symbols is in records. The difference between a Record and a String-Map is that the compiler knows about the keys at compile time and can typecheck lookups.
Now, sometimes we need to bridge the gap between these two worlds: The type level and the value level world. Maybe you know that PureScript records are implemented as JavaScript objects in the official compiler. This means we need to somehow receive a string value from our symbol. The magical function reflectSymbol allows us to turn a symbol into a string. But a symbol is on the type level. This means we can only write a symbol where we can write types (so for example in type definition after ::). This is where the Proxy hack comes in. The SProxy is a simple value that "stores" the type by applying it.
For example the get function from purescript-records allows us to get a value at a property from a record.
get :: forall proxy r r' l a. IsSymbol l => Cons l a r' r => proxy l -> Record r -> a
If we apply the first paramerter we get:
get (Proxy :: Proxy "x") :: forall r a. { x :: a | r } -> a
Now you could argue that you can get the same function by simply writing:
_.x :: forall r a. { x :: a | r } -> a
It has exactly the same type. This leads to one last question:
But why?
Well, there are certain meta programming szenarios, where you don't programm for a specific symbol, but rather for any symbol. Imagine you want to write a JSON serialiser for any record. You might want to "iterate" over every property of the record, get the value, turn the value itself into JSON and then concatinate the key value pair with all the other keys and values.
An example for such an implementation can be found here
This is maybe not the most technical explanation of it all, but this is how I understand it.
I want to parse and compile a function that I have written at runtime, for example I have the following string I generated at runtime:
let str = "fun x y z -> [x; y; z;]"
I am looking for something that will allow me to do something similar to:
let myfun = eval str
(* eval returns the value returned by the code in the string so myfun will
have the type: 'a -> 'a -> 'a -> 'a list*)
Is there a way to do that in OCaml? I came across Dynlink but I am looking for a simpler way to do it.
There is no easier solution than compiling the code and Dynlinking the resulting library.
Or equivalently, one can use the REPL, write the string to the file system and them load it with #use.
Depending on your precise use case, MetaOCaml might be an alternative.
Another important point is that types cannot depend on values in a non-dependently typed language. Thus the type of eval needs to be restricted. For instance, in the Dynlinking path, the type of dynamically linked functions will be determined by the type of the hooks used to register them.
I define an outer syntax command, imake to write some code to a file and do some other things. The intended usage is as follows:
theory Scratch
imports Complex_Main "~/Is0/IsS"
begin
imake ‹myfile›
end
The above example will write some contents to the file myfile. myfile should be a path relative to the location of the Scratch theory.
ML ‹val this_path = File.platform_path(Resources.master_directory #{theory})
I would like to be able to use the value this_path in specifying myfile. The imake command is defined in the import ~/Is0/IsS and currently looks as follows:
ML‹(*imake*)
val _ = Outer_Syntax.improper_command #{command_spec "imake"} ""
(Parse.text >>
(fn path => Toplevel.keep
(fn _ => Gc.imake path)))›
The argument is pased using Parse.text, but I need feed it the path based on the ML value this_path, which is defined later (in the Scratch theory). I searched around a lot, trying to figure out how to use something like Parse.const, but I won't be able to figure anything out any time soon.
So: It's important that I use, in some way, Resources.master_directory #{theory} in Scratch.thy, so that imake gets the folder Scratch is in, which will come from the use of #{theory} in Scratch.
If I'm belaboring the last point, it's because in the past, I wasted a lot of time getting the wrong folder, because I didn't understand how to use the command above correctly.
How can I achieve this?
Your minimal examples uses Resource.master_directory with the parameter #{theory} to define your path. #{theory} refers (statically) to the theory at the point where you write down the antiquotation. This is mostly for interactive use, when you explore stuff. For code which is used in other places, you must use the dynamically passed context and extract the theory from it.
The function Toplevel.keep you use takes a function Toplevel.state -> unit as an argument. The Toplevel.state contains a context (see chapter 1 of the Isabelle Implementation Manual), which again contains the current theory; with Toplevel.theory_of you can extract the theory from the state. For example, you could use
Toplevel.keep (fn state => writeln
(File.platform_path (Resources.master_directory (Toplevel.theory_of state))))
to define a command that prints the master_directory for your current theory.
Except in simple cases, it is very likely that you do not only need the theory, but the whole context (which you can get with Toplevel.context_of).
Use setup from preceding (parts of the) theory
In the previous section, I assumed that you always want to use the master directory. For the case where the path should be configurable, Isabelle knows the concept of configuration options.
In your case, you would need to define an configuration option before you declare your imake command
ML ‹
val imake_path = Attrib.setup_config_string #{binding imake_path}
(K path)
› (* declares an option imake_path with the value `path` as default value *)
Then, the imake command can refer to this attribute to retrieve the path via Config.get:
Toplevel.keep (fn state =>
let val path = Config.get (Toplevel.context_of state) imake_path
in ... end)
The value of imake_path can then be set in Isar (only as a string):
declare [[imake_path="/tmp"]]
or in ML, via Config.map (for updating proof contexts) or Config.map_global (for updating theories). Note that you need to feed the updated context back to the system. Isar has the command setup (takes an ML expression of type theory -> theory) for that:
setup ‹Config.map_global imake_path (K "/tmp")›
Configuration options are described in detail in the Isar Implementation Manual, section 1.1.5.
Note: This mechanism does not allow you to automatically set imake_path to the master directory for each new theory. You need to set it manually, e.g. by adding
setup ‹
Config.map imake_path
(K (File.platform_path (Resources.master_directory #{theory})))
›
at the beginning of each theory.
The more general mechanism behind configuration options is context data. For details, see section 1.1 and in particular section 1.1.4 of the Isabelle Implementation Manual). This mechanism is used in a lot of places in Isabelle; the simpset, the configuration of the simplifier, is one example for this.
using let inline and member constraints I'll be able to make duck typing for known members but what if I would like to define a generic function like so:
let duckwrapper<'a> duck = ...
with the signature 'b -> 'a and where the returned value would be an object that implemented 'a (which would be an interface) and forwarded the calls to duck.
I've done this in C# using Reflection.Emit but I'm wondering if F# reflection, quotations or other constructs would make it easier.
Any suggestions on how to accomplish this?
EDIT
after reading Tims answer I thought I'd give a bit more details
What I was thinking of when I wrote about using quotations to help was something like:
{new IInterface with member x.SayHello() = !!<# %expr #>}
!! being an operator translating the quotation to a function and %expr being the unit of work for the method. I'd be able to translate the expression to a function (I guess) but wouldn't know how to
of course this wouldn't do the trick completely either since IInterface would be 'a which is where I hope F# reflection might have some handy functions so that I could construct a type based on a type object and some function values
EDIT
As an update to Tomas Petricek answer I'll give some code to explain my needs
type SourceRole =
abstract transfer : decimal -> context
and context(sourceAccount:account, destinationAccount) =
let source = sourceAccount
let destination = destinationAccount
member self.transfer amount =
let sourcePlayer =
{new SourceRole with
member this.transfer amount =
use scope = new TransactionScope()
let source = source.decreaseBalance amount
let destination = destination.increaseBalance amount
scope.Complete()
context(source,destination)
}
sourcePlayer.transfer(amount)
which is a try at porting "the" textbook example of DCI in F#. The source and destination are DCI roles. It's the idea that any data object that adhere's to a specific contract can play those. In this case the contract is simple. source needs a memberfunction called decreaseBalance and destination needs a member function called increaseBalance.
I can accomplish that for this specific case with let inline and member constraints.
But I'd like to write a set of functions that given an interface and an object. In this case it could be source (as the object) and
type sourceContract =
abstract decreaseBalance : decimal -> sourceContract
as the type. The result would be an object of type sourceContract that would pipe method calls to a method with the same name on the source object.
F# reflection (Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection) is an F#-friendly wrapper around the plain System.Reflection APIs, so I don't think it would add anything here.
Quotations can't define new types: (you'd need to define a new type to do your interface-based duck typing)
> <# { new IInterface with member x.SayHello = "hello" } #>;;
<# { new IInterface with member x.SayHello = "hello" } #>;;
---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
stdin(7,4): error FS0449: Quotations cannot contain object expressions
> <# type Test() = class end #>;;
<# type Test() = class end #>;;
---^^^^
stdin(8,4): error FS0010: Unexpected keyword 'type' in quotation literal
Reflection.Emit is still the way to go with this.
Edit:
I hope F# reflection might have some handy functions so that I could construct a type based on a type object and some function values
I'm afraid it doesn't. Here's the documentation on F# reflection: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ee353491.aspx
You can compile F# quotations using components from F# PowerPack. So I think you could use quotations to generate and execute code at runtime. If you write a quotation representing a function & compile it you'll get a function value that you could use to implement an interface. Here is a trivial example:
#r "FSharp.PowerPack.Linq.dll"
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
open Microsoft.FSharp.Linq.QuotationEvaluation
// Create a part using "Expr." calls explicitly
let expr = Expr.Value(13)
// Create a part using quotation syntax
let expr2 = <# (fun x -> x * %%expr) #>
// Compile & Run
let f = expr2.Compile()()
f 10
You can mix quotation syntax and calls to Expr, which makes it easier to compose code from basic blocks. The compilation is a bit stupid (currently) so the generated code won't be as efficient as usual F# code (but you'll need to measure it in your case).
I'm not quite sure I understand what exactly are you trying to do, so if you can provide more details, I can give more specific answer.
Let's say I have a Foo.fsx script that contains this code:
module Bar =
let foobar = "foo"+"bar"
open Bar
let a = System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()
let ty = a.GetType("Foo.Bar") // but it returns null here
How can I achieve that? Thanks!
This is a tricky question, because F# interactive compiles all types into types with some mangled names (and the executing assembly can contain multiple versions of the same type).
I managed to do it using a simple trick - you'd add an additional type to the module - then you can use typeof<..> to get information about this type. The type inside a module is compiled as a nested type, so you can get the name of the type representing the module from this (nested) type:
module Bar =
let foobar = "foo"+"bar"
type A = A
// Get type of 'Bar.A', the name will be something like "FSI_0001+Bar+A",
// so we remove the "+A" from the name and get "FSI_0001+Bar"
let aty = typeof<Bar.A>
let barName = aty.FullName.Substring(0, aty.FullName.Length - "+A".Length)
let barTy = aty.Assembly.GetType(barName)
// Get value of the 'foobar' property - this works!
barTy.GetProperty("foobar").GetValue(null, [| |])
You could probably simply search all types in the assembly looking for +Bar. That would work as well. The benefit of the trick above is that you get a reference to the specific version of the type (if you interactively run the code multiple times, you'll get a reference to the module corresponding to the current Bar.A type)
As a side-note, there were some discussions about supporting moduleof<Bar> (or something like that) in future versions of F# - this is a bit inelegant as it is not a real function/value like typeof, but it would very useful!