I am trying to create a function
import Language.Reflection
foo : Type -> TT
I tried it by using the reflect tactic:
foo = proof
{
intro t
reflect t
}
but this reflects on the variable t itself:
*SOQuestion> foo
\t => P Bound (UN "t") (TType (UVar 41)) : Type -> TT
Reflection in Idris is a purely syntactic, compile-time only feature. To predict how it will work, you need to know about how Idris converts your program to its core language. Importantly, you won't be able to get ahold of reflected terms at runtime and reconstruct them like you would with Lisp. Here's how your program is compiled:
Internally, Idris creates a hole that will expect something of type Type -> TT.
It runs the proof script for foo in this state. We start with no assumptions and a goal of type Type -> TT. That is, there's a term being constructed which looks like ?rhs : Type => TT . rhs. The ?foo : ty => body syntax shows that there's a hole called foo whose eventual value will be available inside of body.
The step intro t creates a function whose argument is t : Type - this means that we now have a term like ?foo_body : TT . \t : Type => foo_body.
The reflect t step then fills the current hole by taking the term on its right-hand side and converting it to a TT. That term is in fact just a reference to the argument of the function, so you get the variable t. reflect, like all other proof script steps, only has access to the information that is available directly at compile time. Thus, the result of filling in foo_body with the reflection of the term t is P Bound (UN "t") (TType (UVar (-1))).
If you could do what you are wanting here, it would have major consequences both for understanding Idris code and for running it efficiently.
The loss in understanding would come from the inability to use parametricity to reason about the behavior of functions based on their types. All functions would effectively become potentially ad-hoc polymorphic, because they could (say) run differently on lists of strings than on lists of ints.
The loss in performance would come from representing enough type information to do the reflection. After Idris code is compiled, there is no type information left in it (unlike in a system such as the JVM or .NET or a dynamically typed system such as Python, where types have a runtime representation that code can access). In Idris, types can be very large, because they can contain arbitrary programs - this means that far more information would have to be maintained, and computation occurring at the type level would also have to be preserved and repeated at runtime.
If you're wanting to reflect on the structure of a type for further proof automation at compile time, take a look at the applyTactic tactic. Its argument should be a function that takes a reflected context and goal and gives back a new reflected tactic script. An example can be seen in the Data.Vect source.
So I suppose the summary is that Idris can't do what you want, and it probably never will be able to, but you might be able to make progress another way.
Related
In functional programming, we tend to distinguish between data and functions, but what is the difference?
If I consider a constant, I could think of it as a function, which just returns the same value:
(def x 5)
So what is the distinction between data and a function? I fail to see the difference.
Data
Data is a value (with a specific type).
For example, 5 is a value of type Integer, and "abc" is a value of type String. A composite value such as [5 "abc"] has the type Vector.
Two data values of the same type can always be compared for equality.
Data is never executed. That is, the thread of control (aka program counter or PC) never enters the data structure.
Function (aka "code")
A function's only type is "code".
Two functions are never equal, even if they are duplicates of each other.
A function produces a value (with a specific type) when it is executed (possibly with arguments).
Execution means the thread of control enters the code data structure. The code and data values encountered there have complete control over any side-effects that occur, as well as the return value.
Both compiled and interpreted code produce the same results. The only difference between them are implementation details that trade off complexity vs speed.
Eval
The (eval ...) special form accepts data as input and returns a function as output. The returned function can be executed (i.e. invoked) so the thread of control enters the function.
For clarity, the above elides details such as the reader, etc.
Macros are best viewed as a compiler extension embedded within the code, and do not affect the data vs code distinction.
Postscript
It occurred to me that the original question has not been fully answered. Consider the following:
; A Clojure Var pointing to the value 5
(def five 5)
; A Clojure Var pointing to a function that always returns the value 5
(def ->five (fn [& args] 5))
and then use these 2 Vars:
five => 5
(->five) => 5
The parentheses make all the difference.
See also:
Brave Clojure
LispCast
In languages with the property of homoiconicity, code is data and data is code.
This code data duality blurs the distinction between code and data.
(I think your question is about what is the difference between lambda and data - if lambda itself is actually also just a data structure which has to be executed ...)
In homoiconic languages, data can become lambda (if it contains the instructions for a lambda) and vice versa.
So perhaps, the distinction is only by their type (function vs. any other data structure or primitive data type).
As I'm learning Julia, I am wondering how to properly do things I might have done in Python, Java or C++ before. For example, previously I might have used an abstract base class (or interface) to define a family of models through classes. Each class might then have a method like calculate. So to call it I might have model.calculate(), where the model is an object from one of the inheriting classes.
I get that Julia uses multiple dispatch to overload functions with different signatures such as calculate(model). The question I have is how to create different models. Do I use the type system for that and create different types like:
abstract type Model end
type BlackScholes <: Model end
type Heston <: Model end
where BlackScholes and Heston are different types of model? If so, then I can overload different calculate methods:
function calculate(model::BlackScholes)
# code
end
function calculate(model::Heston)
# code
end
But I'm not sure if this is a proper and idiomatic use of types in Julia. I will greatly appreciate your guidance!
This is a hard question to answer. Julia offers a wide range of tools to solve any given problem, and it would be hard for even a core developer of the language to assert that one particular approach is "right" or even "idiomatic".
For example, in the realm of simulating and solving stochastic differential equations, you could look at the approach taken by Chris Rackauckas (and many others) in the suite of packages under the JuliaDiffEq umbrella. However, many of these people are extremely experienced Julia coders, and what they do may be somewhat out of reach for less experienced Julia coders who just want to model something in a manner that is reasonably sensible and attainable for a mere mortal.
It is is possible that the only "right" answer to this question is to direct users to the Performance Tips section of the docs, and then assert that as long as you aren't violating any of the recommendations there, then what you are doing is probably okay.
I think the best way I can answer this question from my own personal experience is to provide an example of how I (a mere mortal) would approach the problem of simulating different Ito processes. It is actually not too far off what you have put in the question, although with one additional layer. To be clear, I make no claim that this is the "right" way to do things, merely that it is one approach that utilizes multiple dispatch and Julia's type system in a reasonably sensible fashion.
I start off with an abstract type, for nesting specific subtypes that represent specific models.
abstract type ItoProcess ; end
Now I define some specific model subtypes, e.g.
struct GeometricBrownianMotion <: ItoProcess
mu::Float64
sigma::Float64
end
struct Heston <: ItoProcess
mu::Float64
kappa::Float64
theta::Float64
xi::Float64
end
Note, in this case I don't need to add constructors that convert arguments to Float64, since Julia does this automatically, e.g. GeometricBrownianMotion(1, 2.0) will work out-of-the-box, as Julia will automatically convert 1 to 1.0 when constructing the type.
However, I might want to add some constructors for common parameterizations, e.g.
GeometricBrownianMotion() = GeometricBrownianMotion(0.0, 1.0)
I might also want some functions that return useful information about my models, e.g.
number_parameter(model::GeometricBrownianMotion) = 2
number_parameter(model::Heston) = 4
In fact, given how I've defined the models above, I could actually be a bit sneaky and define a method that works for all subtypes:
number_parameter(model::T) where {T<:ItoProcess} = length(fieldnames(typeof(model)))
Now I want to add some code that allows me to simulate my models:
function simulate(model::T, numobs::Int, stval) where {T<:ItoProcess}
# code here that is common to all subtypes of ItoProcess
simulate_inner(model, somethingelse)
# maybe more code that is common to all subtypes of ItoProcess
end
function simulate_inner(model::GeometricBrownianMotion, somethingelse)
# code here that is specific to GeometricBrownianMotion
end
function simulate_inner(model::Heston, somethingelse)
# code here that is specific to Heston
end
Note that I have used the abstract type to allow me to group all code that is common to all subtypes of ItoProcess in the simulate function. I then use multiple dispatch and simulate_inner to run any code that needs to be specific to a particular subtype of ItoProcess. For the aforementioned reasons, I hesitate to use the phrase "idiomatic", but let me instead say that the above is quite a common pattern in typical Julia code.
The one thing to be careful of in the above code is to ensure that the output type of the simulate function is type-stable, that is, the output type can be uniquely determined by the input types. Type stability is usually an important factor in ensuring performant Julia code. An easy way in this case to ensure type-stability is to always return Matrix{Float64} (if the output type is fixed for all subtypes of ItoProcess then obviously it is uniquely determined). I examine a case where the output type depends on input types below for my estimate example. Anyway, for simulate I might always return Matrix{Float64} since for GeometricBrownianMotion I only need one column, but for Heston I will need two (the first for price of the asset, the second for the volatility process).
In fact, depending on how the code is used, type-stability is not always necessary for performant code (see eg using function barriers to prevent type-instability from flowing through to other parts of your program), but it is a good habit to be in (for Julia code).
I might also want routines to estimate these models. Again, I can follow the same approach (but with a small twist):
function estimate(modeltype::Type{T}, data)::T where {T<:ItoProcess}
# again, code common to all subtypes of ItoProcess
estimate_inner(modeltype, data)
# more common code
return T(some stuff generated from function that can be used to construct T)
end
function estimate_inner(modeltype::Type{GeometricBrownianMotion}, data)
# code specific to GeometricBrownianMotion
end
function estimate_inner(modeltype::Type{Heston}, data)
# code specific to Heston
end
There are a few differences from the simulate case. Instead of inputting an instance of GeometricBrownianMotion or Heston, I instead input the type itself. This is because I don't actually need an instance of the type with defined values for the fields. In fact, the values of those fields is the very thing I am attempting to estimate! But I still want to use multiple dispatch, hence the ::Type{T} construct. Note also I have specified an output type for estimate. This output type is dependent on the ::Type{T} input, and so the function is type-stable (output type can be uniquely determined by input types). But common with the simulate case, I have structured the code so that code that is common to all subtypes of ItoProcess only needs to be written once, and code that is specific to the subtypes is separted out.
This answer is turning into an essay, so I should tie it off here. Hopefully this is useful to the OP, as well as anyone else getting into Julia. I just want to finish by emphasizing that what I have done above is only one approach, there are others that will be just as performant, but I have personally found the above to be useful from a structural perspective, as well as reasonably common across the Julia ecosystem.
Given the following example for generating a lazy list number sequence:
type 'a lazy_list = Node of 'a * (unit -> 'a lazy_list);;
let make =
let rec gen i =
Node(i, fun() -> gen (i + 1))
in gen 0
;;
I asked myself the following questions when trying to understand how the example works (obviously I could not answer myself and therefore I am asking here)
When calling let Node(_, f) = make and then f(), why does the call of gen 1 inside f() succeed although gen is a local binding only existing in make?
Shouldn't the created Node be completely unaware of the existence of gen? (Obviously not since it works.)
How is a construction like this being handled by the compiler?
First of all, the questions that are asking have nothing to do with the concepts of lazy, so we can disregard this particular issue, to simplify the discussion.
As Jeffrey noted in the comment to your question, the answer is simple - it is a closure.
But let me extend it a little bit. Functional programming languages, as well as many other modern languages, including Python and C++, allows to define functions in a scope of another function and to refer to the variables available in the scope of the enclosing function. These variables are called captured variables, and the created functional object along with the captured values is called the closure.
From the compiler perspective, the implementation is rather simple (to understand). The closure is a normal value, that contains a code to be executed, as well as pointers to the extra values, that were captured from the outer scope. Since OCaml is a garbage collected language, the values are preserved, as they are referenced from a live object. In C++ the story is much more complicated, as C++ doesn't have the GC, but this is a completely different story.
Shouldn't the created Node be completely unaware of the existence of gen? (Obviously not since it works.)
The create Node is an object that has two pointers, a pointer to the initial object i, and a pointer to the anonymous function fun() -> gen (i + 1). The anonymous function has a pointer to the same initial object i. In our particular case, the i is an integer, so instead of being a pointer the i value is represented inline, but these are details that are irrelevant to the question.
I've got a symbol that represents the name of a function to be called:
julia> func_sym = :tanh
I can use that symbol to get the tanh function and call it using:
julia> eval(func_sym)(2)
0.9640275800758169
But I'd rather avoid the 'eval' there as it will be called many times and it's expensive (and func_sym can have several different values depending on context).
IIRC in Ruby you can say something like:
obj.send(func_sym, args)
Is there something similar in Julia?
EDIT: some more details on why I have functions represented by symbols:
I have a type (from a neural network) that includes the activation function, originally I included it as a funcion:
type NeuralLayer
weights::Matrix{Float32}
biases::Vector{Float32}
a_func::Function
end
However, I needed to serialize these things to files using JLD, but it's not possible to serialize a Function, so I went with a symbol:
type NeuralLayer
weights::Matrix{Float32}
biases::Vector{Float32}
a_func::Symbol
end
And currently I use the eval approach above to call the activation function. There are collections of NeuralLayers and each can have it's own activation function.
#Isaiah's answer is spot-on; perhaps even more-so after the edit to the original question. To elaborate and make this more specific to your case: I'd change your NeuralLayer type to be parametric:
type NeuralLayer{func_type}
weights::Matrix{Float32}
biases::Vector{Float32}
end
Since func_type doesn't appear in the types of the fields, the constructor will require you to explicitly specify it: layer = NeuralLayer{:excitatory}(w, b). One restriction here is that you cannot modify a type parameter.
Now, func_type could be a symbol (like you're doing now) or it could be a more functionally relevant parameter (or parameters) that tunes your activation function. Then you define your activation functions like this:
# If you define your NeuralLayer with just one parameter:
activation(layer::NeuralLayer{:inhibitory}) = …
activation(layer::NeuralLayer{:excitatory}) = …
# Or if you want to use several physiological parameters instead:
activation{g_K,g_Na,g_l}(layer::NeuralLayer{g_K,g_Na,g_l} = f(g_K, g_Na, g_l)
The key point is that functions and behavior are external to the data. Use type definitions and abstract type hierarchies to define behavior, as is coded in the external functions… but only store data itself in the types. This is dramatically different from Python or other strongly object-oriented paradigms, and it takes some getting used to.
But I'd rather avoid the 'eval' there as it will be called many times and it's expensive (and func_sym can have several different values depending on context).
This sort of dynamic dispatch is possible in Julia, but not recommended. Changing the value of 'func_sym' based on context defeats type inference as well as method specialization and inlining. Instead, the recommended approach is to use multiple dispatch, as detailed in the Methods section of the manual.
I've written an experimental function evaluator that allows me to bind simple functions together such that when the variables change, all functions that rely on those variables (and the functions that rely on those functions, etc.) are updated simultaneously. The way I do this is instead of evaluating the function immediately as it's entered in, I store the function. Only when an output value is requested to I evaluate the function, and I evaluate it each and every time an output value is requested.
For example:
pi = 3.14159
rad = 5
area = pi * rad * rad
perim = 2 * pi * rad
I define 'pi' and 'rad' as variables (well, functions that return a constant), and 'area' and 'perim' as functions. Any time either 'pi' or 'rad' change, I expect the results of 'area' and 'perim' to change in kind. Likewise, if there were any functions depending on 'area' or 'perim', the results of those would change as well.
This is all working as expected. The problem here is when the user introduces recursion - either accidental or intentional. There is no logic in my grammar - it's simply an evaluator - so I can't provide the user with a way to 'break out' of recursion. I'd like to prevent it from happening at all, which means I need a way to detect it and declare the offending input as invalid.
For example:
a = b
b = c
c = a
Right now evaluating the last line results in a StackOverflowException (while the first two lines evaluate to '0' - an undeclared variable/function is equal to 0). What I would like to do is detect the circular logic situation and forbid the user from inputing such a statement. I want to do this regardless of how deep the circular logic is hidden, but I have no idea how to go about doing so.
Behind the scenes, by the way, input strings are converted to tokens via a simple scanner, then to an abstract syntax tree via a hand-written recursive descent parser, then the AST is evaluated. The language is C#, but I'm not looking for a code solution - logic alone will be fine.
Note: this is a personal project I'm using to learn about how parsers and compilers work, so it's not mission critical - however the knowledge I take away from this I do plan to put to work in real life at some point. Any help you guys can provide would be appreciated greatly. =)
Edit: In case anyone's curious, this post on my blog describes why I'm trying to learn this, and what I'm getting out of it.
I've had a similar problem to this in the past.
My solution was to push variable names onto a stack as I recursed through the expressions to check syntax, and pop them as I exited a recursion level.
Before I pushed each variable name onto the stack, I would check if it was already there.
If it was, then this was a circular reference.
I was even able to display the names of the variables in the circular reference chain (as they would be on the stack and could be popped off in sequence until I reached the offending name).
EDIT: Of course, this was for single formulae... For your problem, a cyclic graph of variable assignments would be the better way to go.
A solution (probably not the best) is to create a dependency graph.
Each time a function is added or changed, the dependency graph is checked for cylces.
This can be cut short. Each time a function is added, or changed, flag it. If the evaluation results in a call to the function that is flagged, you have a cycle.
Example:
a = b
flag a
eval b (not found)
unflag a
b = c
flag b
eval c (not found)
unflag b
c = a
flag c
eval a
eval b
eval c (flagged) -> Cycle, discard change to c!
unflag c
In reply to the comment on answer two:
(Sorry, just messed up my openid creation so I'll have to get the old stuff linked later...)
If you switch "flag" for "push" and "unflag" for "pop", it's pretty much the same thing :)
The only advantage of using the stack is the ease of which you can provide detailed information on the cycle, no matter what the depth. (Useful for error messages :) )
Andrew