I'm coming to F# from a C# background and a little behind on the different lists and collections. I recently ran into a case where I needed to go from a string[] to 'T list. I ended up using list comprehension to do the cast:
let lines = File.ReadAllLines(#"C:\LinesOText.txt") // returns a string array
let listOLines = [for l in lines -> l] // use list comprehension to get the f# list
Is there a more efficient way of doing the conversion?
Use List.ofArray or Array.toList.
this should do it:
let lines = File.ReadAllLines(#"C:\LinesOText.txt") |> List.ofArray
Here's another way to do it:
let listOfLines = [yield! File.ReadAllLines(#"C:\LinesOText.txt")]
Related
Is there any simple way (without creating custom helpers) to unref(arr) where arr contains objects with ref, computed and other reactive properties?
A simple way is just to iterate the list and the iterate the propries of each object... but there must be a more simple way then this? Im looking for something like
const arr = ref([])
//some code that will fill the arr with objs. props can be ref(someting) or computed
cost req = unref(arr, deep: true)
await api.post(req)
anyone have done this in good way?
/J
I had the same question, so I made: https://www.npmjs.com/package/vue-deepunref
toRaw - is this what you are looking for?
I'm trying to learn F# at the moment and have come up on a problem I can't solve and can't find any answers for on google.
Initially I wanted a log function that would work like the printf family of functions whereby I could provide a format string and a number of arguments (statically checked) but which would add a little metadata before printing it out. With googling, I found this was possible using a function like the following:
let LogToConsole level (format:Printf.TextWriterFormat<'T>) =
let extendedFormat = (Printf.TextWriterFormat<string->string->'T> ("%s %s: " + format.Value))
let date = DateTime.UtcNow.ToString "yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss.fff"
let lvl = string level
printfn extendedFormat date lvl
having the printfn function as the last line of this function allows the varargs-like magic of the printf syntax whereby the partially-applied printfn method is returned to allow the caller to finish applying arguments.
However, if I have multiple such functions with the same signature, say LogToConsole, LogToFile and others, how could I write a function that would call them all keeping this partial-application magic?
Essential I'm looking for how I could implement a function MultiLog
that would allow me to call multiple printf-like functions from a single function call Such as in the ResultIWant function below:
type LogFunction<'T> = LogLevel -> Printf.TextWriterFormat<'T> -> 'T
let MultiLog<'T> (loggers:LogFunction<'T>[]) level (format:Printf.TextWriterFormat<'T>) :'T =
loggers
|> Seq.map (fun f -> f level format)
|> ?????????
let TheResultIWant =
let MyLog = MultiLog [LogToConsole; LogToFile]
MyLog INFO "Text written to %i outputs" 2
Perhaps the essence of this question can be caught more succintly: given a list of functions of the same signature how can I partially apply them all with the same arguments?
type ThreeArg = string -> int -> bool -> unit
let funcs: ThreeArg seq = [func1; func2; func3]
let MagicFunction = ?????
// I'd like this to be valid
let partiallyApplied = MagicFunction funcs "string"
// I'd also like this to be valid
let partiallyApplied = MagicFunction funcs "string" 255
// and this (fullyApplied will be `unit`)
let fullyApplied = MagicFunction funcs "string" 255 true
To answer the specific part of the question regarding string formatting, there is a useful function Printf.kprintf which lets you do what you need in a very simple way - the first parameter of the function is a continuation that gets called with the formatted string as an argument. In this continuation, you can just take the formatted string and write it to all the loggers you want. Here is a basic example:
let Loggers = [printfn "%s"]
let LogEverywhere level format =
Printf.kprintf (fun s ->
let date = DateTime.UtcNow.ToString "yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss.fff"
let lvl = string level
for logger in Loggers do logger (sprintf "%s %s %s" date lvl s)) format
LogEverywhere "BAD" "hi %d" 42
I don't think there is a nice and simple way to do what you wanted to do in the more general case - I suspect you might be able to use some reflection or static member constraints magic, but fortunately, you don't need to in this case!
There is almost nothing to add to a perfect #TomasPetricek answer as he is basically a "semi-god" in F#. Another alternative, which comes to mind, is to use a computation expression (see, for example: https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/computation-expressions.html). When used properly it does look like magic :) However, I have a feeling that it is a little bit too heavy for the problem, which you described.
Somewhere in the API I use I have a function which takes &[&A] as argument but I only have a vector of A objects. When I try to use this function with
following syntax
pub struct A(pub u64);
fn test(a: &[&A]){}
fn main() {
let v = vec![A(1), A(2), A(3)];
let a = &v[..];
test(a);
}
I have a error:
<anon>:12:9: 12:10 error: mismatched types:
expected `&[&A]`,
found `&[A]`
(expected &-ptr,
found struct `A`) [E0308]
I have made some attempts but without any success:
let a = &v[&..]
and
let a = &v[&A]
How can I make &[&A] from Vec<A>?
Short answer: you can't. These types are not compatible with each other.
What you could do if this is really what the API needs is
test(&v.iter().collect::<Vec<_>>());
But this allocates a new vector. If you are the author of the API, consider changing it: &[&T] is a weird type to work with since you need different owners for the slice and the objects in it. &[T] already has a pass-by-reference semantic of the inner objects.
I wonder if this is even possible at all as the question suggest.
My problem is that I cannot seem to grasp how to handle the fact that a given input value can have multiple children. The problem is easily solved by using the mutable SortedSet variable as shown below. But I would really like to find out if this is a problem possible to solve with pure recursion and creation of new un-muted lists or similar. I hope my question is clear. I fear I'm ignorant to the easy conclusion that it's not possible.
As you can see bellow the if(true) will return a list but the else will return a list of list. So the code bellow is not in working state.
let someSet = new System.Collections.Generic.SortedSet<string>()
let rec children(value:string,listSoFar) =
printfn "ID: %A" value
someSet.Add(value) works fine of course.
let newList = List.append listSoFar [value]
if(not (hasChildren(value))) then
newList
else
let tmpCollection = database.GetCollection<Collection>("Collection")
let tmpQuery = Query.EQ("Field",BsonValue.Create(value))
let tmpRes = tmpCollection.Find(tmpQuery)
[ for child in tmpRes do
yield children(child.Value,newList) ]
let resultList = children("aParentStartValue",[])
//Or do i need to use someSet values?
Unless the tree is very deeply nested (in which case, this would be inefficient), you can write the code as a recursive F# sequence expression that generates elements using yield and yield!
let rec children (value:string) = seq {
// Produce the current value as the next element of the sequence
yield value
if hasChildren value then
// If it has children, then get all the children
let tmpCollection = database.GetCollection<Collection>("Collection")
let tmpQuery = Query.EQ("Field",BsonValue.Create(value))
let tmpRes = tmpCollection.Find(tmpQuery)
// For each child, generate all its sub-children recursively
// and return all such elements as part of this sequence using 'yield!'
for child in tmpRes do
yield! children child.Value }
// Using 'List.ofSeq' to fully evaluate the lazy sequence
let resultList = List.ofSeq (children "aParentStartValue")
If the tree is more deeply nested, then the situation is a bit more difficult. When iterating over all the children, you'd need to pass the list collected so far to the first children, get the results and then pass the resulting list to the next children (using something like List.fold). But the above is clean and should work in most cases.
(Really strugging to title this question, so if anyone has suggestions feel free.)
Say I wanted to do an operation like:
take an array [1,2,3]
multiply each element by 2 (map): [2,4,6]
add the elements together (reduce): 12
multiply the result by 10: 120
I can do this pretty cleanly in underscore using chaining, like so:
arr = [1,2,3]
map = (el) -> 2*el
reduce = (s,n) -> s+n
out = (r) -> 10*r
reduced = _.chain(arr).map(map).reduce(reduce).value()
result = out(reduced)
However, it would be even nicer if I could chain the 'out' method too, like this:
result = _.chain(arr).map(map).reduce(reduce).out(out).value()
Now this would be a fairly simple addition to a library like underscore. But my questions are:
Does this 'out' method have a name in functional programming?
Does this already exist in underscore (tap comes close, but not quite).
This question got me quite hooked. Here are some of my thoughts.
It feels like using underscore.js in 'chain() mode' breaks away from functional programming paradigm. Basically, instead of calling functions on functions, you're calling methods of an instance of a wrapper object in an OOP way.
I am using underscore's chain() myself here and there, but this question made me think. What if it's better to simply create more meaningful functions that can then be called in a sequence without having to use chain() at all. Your example would then look something like this:
arr = [1,2,3]
double = (arr) -> _.map(arr, (el) -> 2 * el)
sum = (arr) -> _.reduce(arr, (s, n) -> s + n)
out = (r) -> 10 * r
result = out sum double arr
# probably a less ambiguous way to do it would be
result = out(sum(double arr))
Looking at real functional programming languages (as in .. much more functional than JavaScript), it seems you could do exactly the same thing there in an even simpler manner. Here is the same program written in Standard ML. Notice how calling map with only one argument returns another function. There is no need to wrap this map in another function like we did in JavaScript.
val arr = [1,2,3];
val double = map (fn x => 2*x);
val sum = foldl (fn (a,b) => a+b) 0;
val out = fn r => 10*r;
val result = out(sum(double arr))
Standard ML also lets you create operators which means we can make a little 'chain' operator that can be used to call those functions in a more intuitive order.
infix 1 |>;
fun x |> f = f x;
val result = arr |> double |> sum |> out
I also think that this underscore.js chaining has something similar to monads in functional programming, but I don't know much about those. Though, I have feeling that this kind of data manipulation pipeline is not something you would typically use monads for.
I hope someone with more functional programming experience can chip in and correct me if I'm wrong on any of the points above.
UPDATE
Getting slightly off topic, but one way to creating partial functions could be the following:
// extend underscore with partialr function
_.mixin({
partialr: function (fn, context) {
var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 2);
return function () {
return fn.apply(context, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments).concat(args));
};
}
});
This function can now be used to create a partial function from any underscore function, because most of them take the input data as the first argument. For example, the sum function can now be created like
var sum = _.partialr(_.reduce, this, function (s, n) { return s + n; });
sum([1,2,3]);
I still prefer arr |> double |> sum |> out over out(sum(double(arr))) though. Underscore's chain() is nice in that it reads in a more natural order.
In terms of the name you are looking for, I think what you are trying to do is just a form of function application: you have an underscore object and you want to apply a function to its value. In underscore, you can define it like this:
_.mixin({
app: function(v, f) { return f (v); }
});
then you can pretty much do what you asked for:
var arr = [1,2,3];
function m(el) { return 2*el; };
function r(s,n) { return s+n; };
function out(r) { return 10*r; };
console.log("result: " + _.chain(arr).map(m).reduce(r).app(out).value()));
Having said all that, I think using traditional typed functional languages like SML make this kind of think a lot slicker and give much lighter weight syntax for function composition. Underscore is doing a kind of jquery twist on functional programming that I'm not sure what I think of; but without static-type checking it is frustratingly easy to make errors!