I have defined a list of values: data : int list and a function f: int -> unit, and a piece of code:
for i = 0 to (List.length data) - 1 do
let d = List.nth data i in
f d
done
Now, I would like to set a maximal running time for f. For instance, if f d exceeds a certain time maximal, the execution of f d stops, and we carry on with the next element of data.
Does anyone know how to do it?
Update1:
Following the comments, I would like to add that, the application of f to a good part of elements of data will end up by raising an exception. This is normal and accepted. So the code looks like:
List.iter
(fun d ->
try
(f d)
with
| e ->
printf "%s\n" (Printexc.to_string e))
data
Something like this might work for you:
exception Timeout
let run_with_timeout t f x =
try
Sys.set_signal Sys.sigalrm (Sys.Signal_handle (fun _ -> raise Timeout));
ignore (Unix.alarm t);
f x;
ignore (Unix.alarm 0);
Sys.set_signal Sys.sigalrm Sys.Signal_default
with Timeout -> Sys.set_signal Sys.sigalrm Sys.Signal_default
Here's a session that shows how it works:
$ ocaml
OCaml version 4.00.1
# #load "unix.cma";;
# #use "rwt.ml";;
exception Timeout
val run_with_timeout : int -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> unit = <fun>
# run_with_timeout 2 Printf.printf "yes\n";;
yes
- : unit = ()
# run_with_timeout 2 (fun () -> while true do () done) ();;
- : unit = ()
#
Your code would be something like this:
List.iter (run_with_timeout 10 f) data
(This code hasn't been thorougly tested but it shows a way that might work.)
Update
As the comments have shown, this code isn't suitable if f x might throw an exception (or if you're using alarms for some other purpose). I encourage gsg to post his/her improved solution. The edit seems to have been rejected.
This is based on Jeffrey's answer, with some modifications to improve exception safety:
exception Timeout
let run_with_timeout timeout f x =
let old_handler = Sys.signal Sys.sigalrm
(Sys.Signal_handle (fun _ -> raise Timeout)) in
let finish () =
ignore (Unix.alarm 0);
ignore (Sys.signal Sys.sigalrm old_handler) in
try
ignore (Unix.alarm timeout);
ignore (f x);
finish ()
with Timeout -> finish ()
| exn -> finish (); raise exn
Related
I'm studying continuations because I want to make some interesting use of coroutines... anyway, I want to better understand one implementation I found.
To do so I want to rewrite the implementation without using the computation expression (continuation Monad), but I'm not quite able to do it.
I have this:
type K<'T,'r> = (('T -> 'r) -> 'r)
let returnK x = (fun k -> k x)
let bindK m f = (fun k -> m (fun a -> f a k))
let runK (c:K<_,_>) cont = c cont
let callcK (f: ('T -> K<'b,'r>) -> K<'T,'r>) : K<'T,'r> =
fun cont -> runK (f (fun a -> (fun _ -> cont a))) cont
type ContinuationBuilder() =
member __.Return(x) = returnK x
member __.ReturnFrom(x) = x
member __.Bind(m,f) = bindK m f
member this.Zero () = this.Return ()
let K = new ContinuationBuilder()
/// The coroutine type from http://fssnip.net/7M
type Coroutine() =
let tasks = new System.Collections.Generic.Queue<K<unit,unit>>()
member this.Put(task) =
let withYield = K {
do! callcK (fun exit ->
task (fun () ->
callcK (fun c ->
tasks.Enqueue(c())
exit ())))
if tasks.Count <> 0 then
do! tasks.Dequeue() }
tasks.Enqueue(withYield)
member this.Run() =
runK (tasks.Dequeue()) ignore
// from FSharpx tests
let ``When running a coroutine it should yield elements in turn``() =
// This test comes from the sample on http://fssnip.net/7M
let actual = System.Text.StringBuilder()
let coroutine = Coroutine()
coroutine.Put(fun yield' -> K {
actual.Append("A") |> ignore
do! yield' ()
actual.Append("B") |> ignore
do! yield' ()
actual.Append("C") |> ignore
do! yield' ()
})
coroutine.Put(fun yield' -> K {
actual.Append("1") |> ignore
do! yield' ()
actual.Append("2") |> ignore
do! yield' ()
})
coroutine.Run()
actual.ToString() = "A1B2C"
``When running a coroutine it should yield elements in turn``()
So, I want rewrite the Put member of the Coroutine class without using the computation expression K.
I have read of course this and this and several other articles about catamorphisms but it is not quite easy to rewrite this continuation monand as it is to rewrite the Write Monad for example...
I try several ways, this is one of them:
member this.Put(task) =
let withYield =
bindK
(callcK (fun exit ->
task (fun () ->
callcK (fun c ->
tasks.Enqueue(c())
exit ()))))
(fun () ->
if tasks.Count <> 0
then tasks.Dequeue()
else returnK ())
tasks.Enqueue(withYield)
Of course it does not work :(
(By the way: there is some extensive documentation of all rules the compiler apply to rewrite the computation in plain F#?)
Your version of Put is almost correct. Two issues though:
The bindK function is being used backwards, the parameters need to be swaped.
task should be passed a Cont<_,_> -> Cont<_,_>, not a unit -> Cont<_,_> -> Cont<_,_>.
Fixing those issues it could look like this:
member this.Put(task) =
let withYield =
bindK
(fun () ->
if tasks.Count <> 0
then tasks.Dequeue()
else returnK ())
(callcK (fun exit ->
task (
callcK (fun c ->
tasks.Enqueue(c())
exit ()))))
tasks.Enqueue(withYield)
Of course it is not too elegant.
When using bind it is better to declare an operator >>=:
let (>>=) c f = bindK f c
that way
do! translates to putting >>= fun () -> after
let! a = translates to putting >>= fun a -> after
and then your code will look a little bit better:
member this.Put2(task) =
let withYield =
callcK( fun exit ->
task( callcK (fun c ->
tasks.Enqueue(c())
exit())
)
) >>= fun () ->
if tasks.Count <> 0 then
tasks.Dequeue()
else returnK ()
tasks.Enqueue withYield
I'm trying to build pipeline for message handling using free monad pattern, my code looks like that:
module PipeMonad =
type PipeInstruction<'msgIn, 'msgOut, 'a> =
| HandleAsync of 'msgIn * (Async<'msgOut> -> 'a)
| SendOutAsync of 'msgOut * (Async -> 'a)
let private mapInstruction f = function
| HandleAsync (x, next) -> HandleAsync (x, next >> f)
| SendOutAsync (x, next) -> SendOutAsync (x, next >> f)
type PipeProgram<'msgIn, 'msgOut, 'a> =
| Act of PipeInstruction<'msgIn, 'msgOut, PipeProgram<'msgIn, 'msgOut, 'a>>
| Stop of 'a
let rec bind f = function
| Act x -> x |> mapInstruction (bind f) |> Act
| Stop x -> f x
type PipeBuilder() =
member __.Bind (x, f) = bind f x
member __.Return x = Stop x
member __.Zero () = Stop ()
member __.ReturnFrom x = x
let pipe = PipeBuilder()
let handleAsync msgIn = Act (HandleAsync (msgIn, Stop))
let sendOutAsync msgOut = Act (SendOutAsync (msgOut, Stop))
which I wrote according to this article
However it's important to me to have those methods asynchronous (Task preferably, but Async is acceptable), but when I created a builder for my pipeline, I can't figure out how to use it - how can I await a Task<'msgOut> or Async<'msgOut> so I can send it out and await this "send" task?
Now I have this piece of code:
let pipeline log msgIn =
pipe {
let! msgOut = handleAsync msgIn
let result = async {
let! msgOut = msgOut
log msgOut
return sendOutAsync msgOut
}
return result
}
which returns PipeProgram<'b, 'a, Async<PipeProgram<'c, 'a, Async>>>
In my understanding, the whole point of the free monad is that you don't expose effects like Async, so I don't think they should be used in the PipeInstruction type. The interpreter is where the effects get added.
Also, the Free Monad really only makes sense in Haskell, where all you need to do is define a functor, and then you get the rest of the implementation automatically. In F# you have to write the rest of the code as well, so there is not much benefit to using Free over a more traditional interpreter pattern.
That TurtleProgram code you linked to was just an experiment -- I would not recommend using Free for real code at all.
Finally, if you already know the effects you are going to use, and you are not going to have more than one interpretation, then using this approach doesn't make sense. It only makes sense when the benefits outweigh the complexity.
Anyway, if you did want to write an interpreter version (rather than Free) this is how I would do it:
First, define the instructions without any effects.
/// The abstract instruction set
module PipeProgram =
type PipeInstruction<'msgIn, 'msgOut,'state> =
| Handle of 'msgIn * ('msgOut -> PipeInstruction<'msgIn, 'msgOut,'state>)
| SendOut of 'msgOut * (unit -> PipeInstruction<'msgIn, 'msgOut,'state>)
| Stop of 'state
Then you can write a computation expression for it:
/// A computation expression for a PipeProgram
module PipeProgramCE =
open PipeProgram
let rec bind f instruction =
match instruction with
| Handle (x,next) -> Handle (x, (next >> bind f))
| SendOut (x, next) -> SendOut (x, (next >> bind f))
| Stop x -> f x
type PipeBuilder() =
member __.Bind (x, f) = bind f x
member __.Return x = Stop x
member __.Zero () = Stop ()
member __.ReturnFrom x = x
let pipe = PipeProgramCE.PipeBuilder()
And then you can start writing your computation expressions. This will help flush out the design before you start on the interpreter.
// helper functions for CE
let stop x = PipeProgram.Stop x
let handle x = PipeProgram.Handle (x,stop)
let sendOut x = PipeProgram.SendOut (x, stop)
let exampleProgram : PipeProgram.PipeInstruction<string,string,string> = pipe {
let! msgOut1 = handle "In1"
do! sendOut msgOut1
let! msgOut2 = handle "In2"
do! sendOut msgOut2
return msgOut2
}
Once you have described the the instructions, you can then write the interpreters. And as I said, if you are not writing multiple interpreters, then perhaps you don't need to do this at all.
Here's an interpreter for a non-async version (the "Id monad", as it were):
module PipeInterpreterSync =
open PipeProgram
let handle msgIn =
printfn "In: %A" msgIn
let msgOut = System.Console.ReadLine()
msgOut
let sendOut msgOut =
printfn "Out: %A" msgOut
()
let rec interpret instruction =
match instruction with
| Handle (x, next) ->
let result = handle x
result |> next |> interpret
| SendOut (x, next) ->
let result = sendOut x
result |> next |> interpret
| Stop x ->
x
and here's the async version:
module PipeInterpreterAsync =
open PipeProgram
/// Implementation of "handle" uses async/IO
let handleAsync msgIn = async {
printfn "In: %A" msgIn
let msgOut = System.Console.ReadLine()
return msgOut
}
/// Implementation of "sendOut" uses async/IO
let sendOutAsync msgOut = async {
printfn "Out: %A" msgOut
return ()
}
let rec interpret instruction =
match instruction with
| Handle (x, next) -> async {
let! result = handleAsync x
return! result |> next |> interpret
}
| SendOut (x, next) -> async {
do! sendOutAsync x
return! () |> next |> interpret
}
| Stop x -> x
First of all, I think that using free monads in F# is very close to being an anti-pattern. It is a very abstract construction that does not fit all that great with idiomatic F# style - but that is a matter of preference and if you (and your team) finds this way of writing code readable and easy to understand, then you can certainly go in this direction.
Out of curiosity, I spent a bit of time playing with your example - although I have not quite figured out how to fix your example completely, I hope the following might help to steer you in the right direction. The summary is that I think you will need to integrate Async into your PipeProgram so that the pipe program is inherently asynchronous:
type PipeInstruction<'msgIn, 'msgOut, 'a> =
| HandleAsync of 'msgIn * (Async<'msgOut> -> 'a)
| SendOutAsync of 'msgOut * (Async<unit> -> 'a)
| Continue of 'a
type PipeProgram<'msgIn, 'msgOut, 'a> =
| Act of Async<PipeInstruction<'msgIn, 'msgOut, PipeProgram<'msgIn, 'msgOut, 'a>>>
| Stop of Async<'a>
Note that I had to add Continue to make my functions type-check, but I think that's probably a wrong hack and you might need to remote that. With these definitions, you can then do:
let private mapInstruction f = function
| HandleAsync (x, next) -> HandleAsync (x, next >> f)
| SendOutAsync (x, next) -> SendOutAsync (x, next >> f)
| Continue v -> Continue v
let rec bind (f:'a -> PipeProgram<_, _, _>) = function
| Act x ->
let w = async {
let! x = x
return mapInstruction (bind f) x }
Act w
| Stop x ->
let w = async {
let! x = x
let pg = f x
return Continue pg
}
Act w
type PipeBuilder() =
member __.Bind (x, f) = bind f x
member __.Return x = Stop x
member __.Zero () = Stop (async.Return())
member __.ReturnFrom x = x
let pipe = PipeBuilder()
let handleAsync msgIn = Act (async.Return(HandleAsync (msgIn, Stop)))
let sendOutAsync msgOut = Act (async.Return(SendOutAsync (msgOut, Stop)))
let pipeline log msgIn =
pipe {
let! msgOut = handleAsync msgIn
log msgOut
return! sendOutAsync msgOut
}
pipeline ignore 0
This now gives you just plain PipeProgram<int, unit, unit> which you should be able to evaluate by having a recursive asynchronous functions that acts on the commands.
I am writing a form of form of transform in OCaml that takes in a function and also accepts a list to transform. I understand something is wrong with my pattern matching in terms of type-checking, as it will not compile and claims the types do not match but I am not sure what exactly is wrong with my cases.
I receive an actual declaration error underlining the name of the function when I attempt to compile.
let rec convert (fun: 'b -> 'c option) (l: 'b list) : 'c list =
begin match l with
| [] -> []
| h::tl -> if f h = Some h then h :: convert f tl
else convert f tl
end
I wrote the following test, which should pass in order to ensure the function works properly.
let test () : bool =
let f = func x -> if x > 3 then Some (x + 1) else None in
convert f [-1; 3; 4] = [5]
;; run_test "Add one" test
I am pretty confident the error is somewhere in my second pattern match.
You should provide the exact error message in the future when asking about a compilation error (as well as the position the compiler complains about).
In h :: convert f tl, convert f tl is 'c list, but h is 'b, so you can't combine them like this. Neither does f h = Some h make sense: f h is 'c option and Some h is 'b option. You probably want to match f h instead:
| h::tl -> match f h with
| Some h1 -> ...
| None -> ...
I'm currently generating a sequence in a similar way to:
migrators
|> Seq.map (fun m -> m())
The migrator function is ultimately returning a discriminated union like:
type MigratorResult =
| Success of string * TimeSpan
| Error of string * Exception
I want to stop the map once I encounter my first Error but I need to include the Error in the final sequence.
I have something like the following to display a final message to the user
match results |> List.rev with
| [] -> "No results equals no migrators"
| head :: _ ->
match head with
| Success (dt, t) -> "All migrators succeeded"
| Error (dt, ex) -> "Migration halted owing to error"
So I need:
A way to stop the mapping when one of the map steps produces an Error
A way to have that error be the final element added to the sequence
I appreciate there may be a different sequence method other than map that will do this, I'm new to F# and searching online hasn't yielded anything as yet!
I guess there are multiple approaches here, but one way would be to use unfold:
migrators
|> Seq.unfold (fun ms ->
match ms with
| m :: tl ->
match m () with
| Success res -> Some (Success res, tl)
| Error res -> Some (Error res, [])
| [] -> None)
|> List.ofSeq
Note the List.ofSeq at the end, that's just there for realizing the sequence. A different way to go would be to use sequence comprehensions, some might say it results in a clearer code.
The ugly things Tomaš alludes to are 1) mutable state, and 2) manipulation of the underlying enumerator. A higher-order function which returns up to and including when the predicate holds would then look like this:
module Seq =
let takeUntil pred (xs : _ seq) = seq{
use en = xs.GetEnumerator()
let flag = ref true
while !flag && en.MoveNext() do
flag := not <| pred en.Current
yield en.Current }
seq{1..10} |> Seq.takeUntil (fun x -> x % 5 = 0)
|> Seq.toList
// val it : int list = [1; 2; 3; 4; 5]
For your specific application, you'd map the cases of the DU to a boolean.
(migrators : seq<MigratorResult>)
|> Seq.takeUntil (function Success _ -> false | Error _ -> true)
I think the answer from #scrwtp is probably the nicest way to do this if your input is reasonably small (and you can turn it into an F# list to use pattern matching). I'll add one more version, which works when your input is just a sequence and you do not want to turn it into a list.
Essentially, you want to do something that's almost like Seq.takeWhile, but it gives you one additional item at the end (the one, for which the predicate fails).
To use a simpler example, the following returns all numbers from a sequence until one that is divisible by 5:
let nums = [ 2 .. 10 ]
nums
|> Seq.map (fun m -> m % 5)
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun n -> n <> 0)
So, you basically just need to look one element ahead - to do this, you could use Seq.pairwise which gives you the current and the next element in the sequence"
nums
|> Seq.map (fun m -> m % 5)
|> Seq.pairwise // Get sequence of pairs with the next value
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun (p, n) -> p <> 0) // Look at the next value for test
|> Seq.mapi (fun i (p, n) -> // For the first item, we return both
if i = 0 then [p;n] else [n]) // for all other, we return the second
|> Seq.concat
The only ugly thing here is that you then need to flatten the sequence again using mapi and concat.
This is not very nice, so a good thing to do would be to define your own higher-order function like Seq.takeUntilAfter that encapsulates the behavior you need (and hides all the ugly things). Then your code could just use the function and look nice & readable (and you can experiment with other ways of implementing this).
In C/C++ you can implement a direct threaded interpreter with an array of function pointers. The array represents your program - an array of operations. Each of the operation functions must end in a call to the next function in the array, something like:
void op_plus(size_t pc, uint8_t* data) {
*data += 1;
BytecodeArray[pc+1](pc+1, data); //call the next operation in the array
}
The BytecodeArray is an array of function pointers. If we had an array of these op_plus operations then length of the array would determine how ofter we'd be incrementing the contents of data. (of course, you'd need to add some sort of terminating operation as the last operation in the array).
How would one go about implementing something like this in OCaml? I may be trying to translate this code too literally: I was using an OCaml Array of functions as in the C++. The problem with that is that I keep ending up with something like:
let op_plus pc data = Printf.printf "pc: %d, data_i: %d \n" pc data;
let f = (op_array.(pc+1)) in
f (pc+1) (data+1) ;;
Where op_array is an Array defined in the scope above and then redefine it later to be filled with a bunch of op_plus functions... however, the op_plus function uses the previous definition of op_array. It's a chicken&egg problem.
Another alternative would be using CPS and avoid explicit function array altogether. Tail call optimization still applies in this case.
I don't know how do you generate the code, but let's make not unreasonable assumption that at some point you have an array of VM instructions you want to prepare for execution. Every instruction is still represented as a function, but instead of program counter it receives continuation function.
Here is the simplest example:
type opcode = Add of int | Sub of int
let make_instr opcode cont =
match opcode with
| Add x -> fun data -> Printf.printf "add %d %d\n" data x; cont (data + x)
| Sub x -> fun data -> Printf.printf "sub %d %d\n" data x; cont (data - x)
let compile opcodes =
Array.fold_right make_instr opcodes (fun x -> x)
Usage (look at inferred types):
# #use "cpsvm.ml";;
type opcode = Add of int | Sub of int
val make_instr : opcode -> (int -> 'a) -> int -> 'a = <fun>
val compile : opcode array -> int -> int = <fun>
# let code = [| Add 13; Add 42; Sub 7 |];;
val code : opcode array = [|Add 13; Add 42; Sub 7|]
# let fn = compile code;;
val fn : int -> int = <fun>
# fn 0;;
add 0 13
add 13 42
sub 55 7
- : int = 48
UPDATE:
It's easy to introduce [conditional] branching in this model. if continuation is constructed from two arguments: iftrue-continuation and iffalse-continuation, but has the same type as every other continuation function. The problem is that we don't know what constitutes these continuations in case of backward branching (backward, because we compile from tail to head). That's easy to overcome with destructive updates (though maybe more elegant solution is possible if you are compiling from a high level language): just leave "holes" and fill them later when branch target is reached by the compiler.
Sample implementation (I've made use of string labels instead of integer instruction pointers, but this hardly matters):
type label = string
type opcode =
Add of int | Sub of int
| Label of label | Jmp of label | Phi of (int -> bool) * label * label
let make_instr labels opcode cont =
match opcode with
| Add x -> fun data -> Printf.printf "add %d %d\n" data x; cont (data + x)
| Sub x -> fun data -> Printf.printf "sub %d %d\n" data x; cont (data - x)
| Label label -> (Hashtbl.find labels label) := cont; cont
| Jmp label ->
let target = Hashtbl.find labels label in
(fun data -> Printf.printf "jmp %s\n" label; !target data)
| Phi (cond, tlabel, flabel) ->
let tcont = Hashtbl.find labels tlabel
and fcont = Hashtbl.find labels flabel in
(fun data ->
let b = cond data in
Printf.printf "branch on %d to %s\n"
data (if b then tlabel else flabel);
(if b then !tcont else !fcont) data)
let compile opcodes =
let id = fun x -> x in
let labels = Hashtbl.create 17 in
Array.iter (function
| Label label -> Hashtbl.add labels label (ref id)
| _ -> ())
opcodes;
Array.fold_right (make_instr labels) opcodes id
I've used two passes for clarity but it's easy to see that it can be done in one pass.
Here is a simple loop that can be compiled and executed by the code above:
let code = [|
Label "entry";
Phi (((<) 0), "body", "exit");
Label "body";
Sub 1;
Jmp "entry";
Label "exit" |]
Execution trace:
# let fn = compile code;;
val fn : int -> int = <fun>
# fn 3;;
branch on 3 to body
sub 3 1
jmp entry
branch on 2 to body
sub 2 1
jmp entry
branch on 1 to body
sub 1 1
jmp entry
branch on 0 to exit
- : int = 0
UPDATE 2:
Performance-wise, CPS representation is likely to be faster than array-based, because there is no indirection in case of linear execution. Continuation function is stored directly in the instruction closure. In the array-based implementation it has to increment program counter and perform array access (with an extra bounds checking overhead) first.
I've made some benchmarks to demonstrate it. Here is an implementation of array-based interpreter:
type opcode =
Add of int | Sub of int
| Jmp of int | Phi of (int -> bool) * int * int
| Ret
let compile opcodes =
let instr_array = Array.make (Array.length opcodes) (fun _ data -> data)
in Array.iteri (fun i opcode ->
instr_array.(i) <- match opcode with
| Add x -> (fun pc data ->
let cont = instr_array.(pc + 1) in cont (pc + 1) (data + x))
| Sub x -> (fun pc data ->
let cont = instr_array.(pc + 1) in cont (pc + 1) (data - x))
| Jmp pc -> (fun _ data ->
let cont = instr_array.(pc) in cont (pc + 1) data)
| Phi (cond, tbranch, fbranch) ->
(fun _ data ->
let pc = (if cond data then tbranch else fbranch) in
let cont = instr_array.(pc) in
cont pc data)
| Ret -> fun _ data -> data)
opcodes;
instr_array
let code = [|
Phi (((<) 0), 1, 3);
Sub 1;
Jmp 0;
Ret
|]
let () =
let fn = compile code in
let result = fn.(0) 0 500_000_000 in
Printf.printf "%d\n" result
Let's see how it compares to the CPS-based interpreter above (with all debug tracing stripped, of course). I used OCaml 3.12.0 native compiler on Linux/amd64. Each program was run 5 times.
array: mean = 13.7 s, stddev = 0.24
CPS: mean = 11.4 s, stddev = 0.20
So even in tight loop CPS performs considerably better than array. If we unroll loop and replace one sub instruction with five, figures change:
array: mean = 5.28 s, stddev = 0.065
CPS: mean = 4.14 s, stddev = 0.309
It's interesting that both implementations actually beat OCaml bytecode interpreter. The following loop takes 17 seconds to execute on my machine:
for i = 500_000_000 downto 0 do () done
You should not redefine op_array, you should fill it in with instructions by modifying it in place so that it's the same op_array that your functions already refer to. Unfortunately, you can't change the size of an array dynamically in OCaml.
I see two solutions:
1) if you don't need to change the sequence of "instructions", define them in a mutual recursion with the array op_array. OCaml allows mutually recursive functions and values that start with the application of a constructor to be defined. Something like:
let rec op_plus pc data = ...
and op_array = [| ... |]
2) Or use an additional indirection: make op_array a reference to an array of instructions, and refer in the functions to (!op_array).(pc+1). Later, after you have defined all the instructions, you can make op_array point to an array of the right size, full of the instructions you intend.
let op_array = ref [| |] ;;
let op_plus pc data = ... ;;
op_array := [| ... |] ;;
One more option (if the size is known beforehand) - initially fill the array with void instructions :
let op_array = Array.create size (fun _ _ -> assert false)
let op_plus = ...
let () = op_array.(0) <- op_plus; ...