I'm trying to define a propositional logic valuation using SML structure. A valuation in propositional logic maps named variables (i.e., strings) to Boolean values.
Here is my signature:
signature VALUATION =
sig
type T
val empty: T
val set: T -> string -> bool -> T
val value_of: T -> string -> bool
val variables: T -> string list
val print: T -> unit
end;
Then I defined a matching structure:
structure Valuation :> VALUATION =
struct
type T = (string * bool) list
val empty = []
fun set C a b = (a, b) :: C
fun value_of [] x = false
| value_of ((a,b)::d) x = if x = a then b else value_of d x
fun variables [] = []
| variables ((a,b)::d) = a::(variables d )
fun print valuation =
(
List.app
(fn name => TextIO.print (name ^ " = " ^ Bool.toString (value_of valuation name) ^ "\n"))
(variables valuation);
TextIO.print "\n"
)
end;
So the valuations should look like [("s",true), ("c", false), ("a", false)]
But I can't declare like a structure valuation or make an instruction like: [("s",true)]: Valuation.T; When I tried to use the valuation in a function, I get errors like:
Can't unify (string * bool) list (*In Basis*) with
Valuation.T
Could someone help me? Thanks.
The type Valuation.T is opaque (hidden).
All you know about it is that it's called "T".
You can't do anything with it except through the VALUATION signature, and that signature makes no mention of lists.
You can only build Valuations using the constructors empty and set, and you must start with empty.
- val e = Valuation.empty;
val e = - : Valuation.T
- val v = Valuation.set e "x" true;
val v = - : Valuation.T
- val v2 = Valuation.set v "y" false;
val v2 = - : Valuation.T
- Valuation.value_of v2 "x";
val it = true : bool
- Valuation.variables v2;
val it = ["y","x"] : string list
- Valuation.print v2;
y = false
x = true
val it = () : unit
Note that every Valuation.T value is printed as "-" since the internal representation isn't exposed.
Related
This is a follow-up on this previous question, but with a different twist.
I would like to write a function which, given an object oMap, returns its count if oMap happens to be of type Map<'k,'v>, and -1 otherwise. My constraint : oMap type can only be 'discovered' at runtime.
As apparently "there is no built-in way to pattern match on a generic Map." (see link to previous question), I am using reflection for this.
namespace genericDco
module Test1 =
let gencount (oMap : obj) : int =
let otype = oMap.GetType()
let otypenm = otype.Name
if otypenm = "FSharpMap`2" then
// should work, as oMap of type Map<'a,'b>, but does not. *How to fix this?*
Map.count (unbox<Map<_,_>> oMap)
else
// fails, as oMap is not of any type Map<'a,'b>.
-1
let testfailObj : int = gencount ("foo")
// FAILS
let testsuccessObj : int =
let oMap = [| ("k1", "v1"); ("k1", "v1") |] |> Map.ofArray
gencount (box oMap)
The error being :
System.InvalidCastException: Unable to cast object of type 'Microsoft.FSharp.Collections.FSharpMap`2[System.String,System.String]' to type 'Microsoft.FSharp.Collections.FSharpMap`2[System.IComparable,System.Object]'. at Microsoft.FSharp.Core.LanguagePrimitives.IntrinsicFunctions.UnboxGeneric[T](Object source)
My question: How should I rewrite the above to get this to work?
PS : I am not looking for solutions where we know at compile time that oMap is of type Map<'k,'v>, e.g. :
module Test2 =
let gencount2<'k,'v when 'k : comparison> (gMap : Map<'k,'v>) : int =
Map.count gMap
let testsuccessStr : int =
let gMap = [| ("k1", "v1"); ("k2", "v2") |] |> Map.ofArray
gencount2<string,string> gMap
let testsuccessDbl : int =
let gMap = [| ("k1", 1.0); ("k2", 2.0); ("k3", 3.0) |] |> Map.ofArray
gencount2<string,double> gMap
== EDIT ==
Thanks to Asti's suggestion, that's the solution that worked for me :
let gencount (oMap : obj) : int =
let otype = oMap.GetType()
let propt = otype.GetProperty("Count")
try
propt.GetValue(oMap) :?> int
with
| _ -> -1
Since Map.count is just defined as let count m = m.Count, we can just go for the Count property.
let gencount<'k,'v when 'k : comparison> map =
let mtype = typeof<Map<'k, 'v>>
let propt = mtype.GetProperty("Count")
if map.GetType() = mtype then
propt.GetValue(map) :?> int
else
-1
Test:
[<EntryPoint>]
let main argv =
let m = Map.ofSeq [ ("a", 1); ("b", 2)]
printfn "%d" (gencount<string, int> m)
printfn "%d" (gencount<string, string> m)
Console.ReadKey() |> ignore
0 // return exit code 0
Using _ in place of a type will simply end up as object if no additional constraint information is available. You use unbox when you strongly know what type your value is, except that the value is boxed in.
I have a reference to a functionthat needs a parameter.
fun foo(x: Int) = 2 * x
val f: KFunction1<Int, Int> = ::foo
Is there any way to write applyArgument where
val f2: KFunction0<Int> = f1.applyArgument(42)
assertEquals("foo", f2.name)
assertEquals(84, f2())
I don't want to use a callable reference, as I need access to the name property.
hope it helps you:
fun foo(x: Int) = 2 * x
val f1 = ::foo
val f0 = { -> f1(42) }
f0() //84
KFunctions are intented to represent functions that are explicitly decleared in Kotlin code, but f2 is not declared anywhere in the code. In addition KFunction has lot of reflection properties and functions which are not relevant to the applied function f2. Therefore even if it is possible it is not recommended.
If you want to do it anyway you can simply write an applyArgument function in this way:
fun <T, R> KFunction1<T, R>.applyArgument(value: T): KFunction0<R> {
return object : KFunction<R> by this, KFunction0<R> {
override fun invoke(): R {
return this#applyArgument(value)
}
}
}
But, if what you need is to preserve the name, I would do it in a safe way. One way could be:
data class Named<out T>(val name: String, val value: T)
fun <T, R> Named<T>.map(transform: (T) -> R): Named<R> = Named(name, transform(value))
val <F : KFunction<*>> F.named: Named<F>
get() = Named(name, this)
Then use it:
fun foo(x: Int) = 2 * x
val f: Named<(Int) -> Int> = ::foo.named
val f2: Named<() -> Int> = f.map { fValue -> { fValue(42) } }
assertEquals("foo", f2.name)
assertEquals(84, f2.value())
Partial application is possible.
You may just declare a function for partial application and use it for the :: reference.
Hence, the name would not be the original function. Another approach - create your own classes/interfaces
data class MyFunction1<T, R>(val name: String, val f: (T) -> R) {
operator fun invoke(t: T) = f(t)
}
data class MyFunction0<R>(val name: String, val f: () -> R) {
operator fun invoke() = f()
}
Now define the curring:
fun MyFunction1<T, R>.curry(t: T) = MyFunction0(name){ f(t) }
(it can be a member function too)
Suppose all I know about a function is that it is of type:
int list -> int * string -> int
Is there any way of knowing in advance whether this means:
(int list -> int * string) -> int or int list -> (int * string -> int)?
Thanks,
bclayman
-> is right associative in SML type annotations, so int list -> (int * string -> int) is correct.
Consider this simple experiment in the REPL:
- fun add x y = x+y;
val add = fn : int -> int -> int
add is a function which, when fed an int, returns a function, namely the function which sends y to x + y -- hence its type is int -> (int ->int). It isn't a function which, when a fed a function from ints to ints outputs an int (which is what (int -> int) -> int would be). A somewhat artificial example of the later sort of thing is:
- fun apply_to_zero_and_increment f = 1 + f(0);
val apply_to_zero_and_increment = fn : (int -> int) -> int
If I define fun g(x) = x + 5 then apply_to_zero_and_increment g returns 6.
The function in map is pretty easy. I want to double every element in a list which can be done:
map(fn x => x * 2);
But what if I want to name this function double?
fun double = map(fn x => x * 2);
Calling this function I get
- double [1,2,3];
val it = fn : int list -> int list
How can I name this function double?
The result of map (fn x => x * 2) is a function, which can be bound to an identifier:
- val double = map (fn x => x * 2);
val double = fn : int list -> int list
- double [1,2,3];
val it = [2,4,6] : int list
The fun form is just syntactic sugar. For example:
fun name param = ...
will be desugared to:
val rec name = fn param => ...
The rec part is a keyword that lets you implement recursive function definitions.
(Scala 2.7.7:) I don't get used to 2d-Arrays. Arrays are mutable, but how do I specify a 2d-Array which is - let's say of size 3x4. The dimension (2D) is fixed, but the size per dimension shall be initializable. I tried this:
class Field (val rows: Int, val cols: Int, sc: java.util.Scanner) {
var field = new Array [Char](rows)(cols)
for (r <- (1 to rows)) {
val line = sc.nextLine ()
val spl = line.split (" ")
field (r) = spl.map (_.charAt (0))
}
def put (row: Int, col: Int, c: Char) =
todo ()
}
I get this error:
:11: error: value update is not a member of Char
field (r) = spl.map (_.charAt (0))
If it would be Java, it would be much more code, but I would know how to do it, so I show what I mean:
public class Field
{
private char[][] field;
public Field (int rows, int cols, java.util.Scanner sc)
{
field = new char [rows][cols];
for (int r = 0; r < rows; ++r)
{
String line = sc.nextLine ();
String[] spl = line.split (" ");
for (int c = 0; c < cols; ++c)
field [r][c] = spl[c].charAt (0);
}
}
public static void main (String args[])
{
new Field (3, 4, new java.util.Scanner ("fraese.fld"));
}
}
and fraese.fld would look, for example, like that:
M M M
M . M
I get some steps wide with
val field = new Array [Array [Char]](rows)
but how would I then implement 'put'? Or is there a better way to implement the 2D-Array. Yes, I could use a one-dim-Array, and work with
put (y, x, c) = field (y * width + x) = c
but I would prefer a notation which looks more 2d-ish.
for (r <- (1 to rows)) {
Should this be:
for (r <- (0 to rows - 1)) {
... starting from 0 instead of 1?
field (r) = spl.map (_.charAt (0))
Should this use the operator syntax, like this:
field (r) = spl map (_.charAt (0))
... without the '.' between spl and map?
This is my version - I replaced the Scanner with an Array[String] since I'm not really sure what the input for the scanner is supposed to be. It compiles and runs on Scala 2.7.5:
class Field (val rows: Int, val cols: Int, lines: Array[String]) {
var field = new Array [Array[Char]](rows)
// These get replaced later on, but this is how to initialize a 2D array.
for (i <- (0 to rows - 1)) {
field(i) = new Array[Char](cols)
}
for (r <- (0 to rows - 1)) {
val line = lines(r)
val spl = line.split (" ")
field(r) = spl map (_.charAt (0))
}
}
var lines = Array[String] ("A A A A A", "B B B B B", "C C C C C", "D D D D D", "E E E E E")
var test = new Field(5, 5, lines)
test.field