I was trying to create a function using a higher-order function in Erlang. To my surprisement, this seems to not be okay. Here's a simplified example of the error I'm getting.
-module(test).
-export([main/0]).
X = 1.
main() ->
io:format("~p~n", [X]).
And in erl:
> c(test).
test.erl:4: syntax error before: X
test.erl:7: variable 'X' is unbound
error
Do you have any idea what could be done to circumvent this?
There are no global variables in Erlang. You can use a function instead, like this for example:
-module(test).
-export([main/0]).
x() ->
1.
main() ->
io:format("~p~n", [x()]).
For something as simple as a literal 1 you could also define a preprocessor macro, like this:
-define(X, 1).
main() ->
io:format("~p~n", [?X]).
but given that your question mentions higher-order functions, you probably don't want to use the preprocessor.
Related
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 was trying to copy a tactic file that might help proving my theorem, however, there seems to be having some problems.
The original tactic is like this:
fun typechk_step_tac tyrls =
FIRSTGOAL (test_assume_tac ORELSE' filt_resolve_tac tyrls 4);
(* Output:
Value or constructor (filt_resolve_tac) has not been declared
*)
I tried to find this tactic in the internet, but there is not much explanation of this. I saw that some theory file in 2009 use this method, and for 2020 one, a theory file use a similar method called filt_resolve_from_net_tac, which I think the types of them are different, so I am not sure about how to use them.
Other than the filt_resolve_tac, the tactic file used a function called ref like this:
val basictypeinfo = ref([]:thm list);
(* Output:
Value or constructor (ref) has not been declared
*)
However, the Isabelle 2020 seems know something about the ref, since when I changed something:
val basictypeinfo = [];
fun addT typelist = (basictypeinfo := (typelist #(!basictypeinfo)));
(* It shows error:
Type error in function application.
Function: ! : 'a ref -> 'a
Argument: basictypeinfo : 'a list
Reason: Can't unify 'a ref (*In Basis*) with 'a list (*In Basis*) (Different type constructors)
*)
It clearly shows that ref is like a type, and it is defined in the Isabelle right?
Therefore the ref in ref([]:the list) should be similar to a casting function, and I found that there is a thing called Unsynchronized.ref which solves the type problem, may I know are they the same thing in this context?
In the later part of the files, there are also some tactic and rule set seems to be not defined, for example:
etac: Value or constructor (etac) has not been declared
(*
I saw Prof. Paulson had shown this tactic in his Isabelle lecture,
but I couldn't find it in the Isabelle manual or the implementation manual,
is the name of it changed?
*)
ZF_typechecks: I couldn't find any rule sets that has this name in the whole ZF directory.
Sorry to have so many questions, it seems that the tactic file is no longer really well-supported by the new Isabelle, are there still people using Isar/ML to define new tactic? Or most people are doing this with the method declaration in the Isabelle? And which part of the Isabelle/Isar reference manual should I read to master this skill? Thank you very much indeed.
Usually the multiple dispatch in julia is straightforward if one of the parameters in a function changes data type, for example Float64 vs Complex{Float64}. How can I implement multiple dispatch if the parameter is an integer, and I want two functions, one for even and other for odd values?
You may be able to solve this with a #generated function: https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/metaprogramming/#Generated-functions-1
But the simplest solution is to use an ordinary branch in your code:
function foo(x::MyType{N}) where {N}
if isodd(N)
return _oddfoo(x)
else
return _evenfoo(x)
end
end
This may seem as a defeat for the type system, but if N is known at compile-time, the compiler will actually select only the correct branch, and you will get static dispatch to the correct function, without loss of performance.
This is idiomatic, and as far as I know the recommended solution in most cases.
I expect that with type dispatch you ultimately still are calling after a check on odd versus even, so the most economical of code, without a run-time penatly, is going to be having the caller check the argument and call the proper function.
If you nevertheless have to be type based, for some reason unrelated to run-time efficiency, here is an example of such:
abstract type HasParity end
struct Odd <: HasParity
i::Int64
Odd(i::Integer) = new(isodd(i) ? i : error("not odd"))
end
struct Even <: HasParity
i::Int64
Even(i::Integer) = new(iseven(i) ? i : error("not even"))
end
parity(i) = return iseven(i) ? Even(i) : Odd(i)
foo(i::Odd) = println("$i is odd.")
foo(i::Even) = println("$i is even.")
for n in 1:4
k::HasParity = parity(n)
foo(k)
end
So here's other option which I think is cleaner and more multiple dispatch oriented (given by a coworker). Let's think N is the natural number to be checked and I want two functions that do different stuff depending if N is even or odd. Thus
boolN = rem(N,2) == 0
(...)
function f1(::Val{true}, ...)
(...)
end
function f1(::Val{false}, ...)
(...)
end
and to call the function just do
f1(Val(boolN))
As #logankilpatrick pointed out the dispatch system is type based. What you are dispatching on, though, is well established pattern known as a trait.
Essentially your code looks like
myfunc(num) = iseven(num) ? _even_func(num) : _odd_func(num)
The problem is the following:
I have an abstract type MyAbstract and derived composite types MyType1 and MyType2:
abstract type MyAbstract end
struct MyType1 <: MyAbstract
somestuff
end
struct MyType2 <: MyAbstract
someotherstuff
end
I want to specify some general behaviour for objects of type MyAbstract, so I have a function
function dosth(x::MyAbstract)
println(1) # instead of something useful
end
This general behaviour suffices for MyType1 but when dosth is called with an argument of type MyType2, I want some additional things to happen that are specific for MyType2 and, of course, I want to reuse the existing code, so I tried the following, but it did not work:
function dosth(x::MyType2)
dosth(x::MyAbstract)
println(2)
end
x = MyType2("")
dosth(x) # StackOverflowError
This means Julia did not recognize my attempt to treat x like its "supertype" for some time.
Is it possible to call an overloaded function from the overwriting function in Julia? How can I elegantly solve this problem?
You can use the invoke function
function dosth(x::MyType2)
invoke(dosth, Tuple{MyAbstract}, x)
println(2)
end
With the same setup, this gives the follow output instead of a stack overflow:
julia> dosth(x)
1
2
There's a currently internal and experimental macro version of invoke which can be called like this:
function dosth(x::MyType2)
Base.#invoke dosth(x::MyAbstract)
println(2)
end
This makes the calling syntax quite close to what you wrote.
I'm trying to do something like this:
-module(count).
-export([main/0]).
sum(X, Sum) -> X + Sum.
main() ->
lists:foldl(sum, 0, [1,2,3,4,5]).
but see a warning and code fails:
function sum/2 is unused
How to fix the code?
NB: this is just a sample which illustrates problem, so there is no reason to propose solution which uses fun-expression.
Erlang has slightly more explicit syntax for that:
-module(count).
-export([main/0]).
sum(X, Sum) -> X + Sum.
main() ->
lists:foldl(fun sum/2, 0, [1,2,3,4,5]).
See also "Learn you some Erlang":
If function names are written without a parameter list then those names are interpreted as atoms, and atoms can not be functions, so the call fails.
...
This is why a new notation has to be added to the language in order to let you pass functions from outside a module. This is what fun Module:Function/Arity is: it tells the VM to use that specific function, and then bind it to a variable.