I have a beginner question about dates and String in Haskell.
I need to get part of date (year, month or day) as String in Haskell. I found out, that if I write the following two lines in GHCi
Prelude> now <- getCurrentTime
Prelude> let mon = formatTime defaultTimeLocale "%B" now
then mon is of type String. However, I am unable to put this in a function. I tried for instance the following:
getCurrMonth = do
now <- getCurrentTime
putStrLn (formatTime defaultTimeLocale "%B" now)
But this returns type IO () and I need String (also not IO String, only String).
I understand that do statement creates a monad, which I don't want, but I have been unable to find any other solution for getting date in Haskell.
So, is there any way to write a function like this?
Thanks in advance for any help!
If you want to return a String representing the current time, it will have to be in the IO monad, as the value of the current time is always changing!
What you can do is to return a String in the IO monad:
> getCurrMonth :: IO String
> getCurrMonth = do
> now <- getCurrentTime
> return (formatTime defaultTimeLocale "%B" now)
then, from your top level (e.g. in main), you can pass the String around:
> main = do
> s <- getCurrMonth
> ... do something with s ...
If you really want a pure function of that sort, then you need to pass in the time explicitly as a parameter.
import System.Locale (defaultTimeLocale)
import System.Time (formatCalendarTime, toUTCTime, getClockTime, ClockTime)
main = do now <- getClockTime
putStrLn $ getMonthString now
getMonthString :: ClockTime -> String
getMonthString = formatCalendarTime defaultTimeLocale "%B" . toUTCTime
Notice how getMonthString can be pure since the IO action getClockTime is performed elsewhere.
I used the old-time functions, because I was testing it out on codepad, which apparently doesn't have the newer time package. :( I'm new to the old time functions so this might be off a couple hours since it uses toUTCTime.
As Don said, there's no way to avoid using monads in this situation. Remember that Haskell is a pure functional language, and therefore a function must always return the same output given a particular input. Haskell.org provides a great explanation and introduction here that is certainly worth looking at. You'd also probably benefit from monad introduction like this one or a Haskell I/O tutorial like this one. Of course there are tons more resources online you can find. Monads can initially be daunting, but they're really not as difficult as they seem at first.
Oh, and I strongly advise against using unsafePerformIO. There's a very good reason it has the word "unsafe" in the name, and it was definitely not created for situations like this. Using it will only lead to bad habits and problems down the line.
Good luck learning Haskell!
You can't get just a String, it has to be IO String. This is because getCurrMonth is not a pure function, it returns different values at different times, so it has to be in IO.
Related
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)
EDIT: The original question had unnecessary details
I have a source file which I do value analysis in Frama-C, some of the code is highlighted as dead code in the normalized window, no the original source code.
Can I obtain a slice of the original code that removes the dead code?
Short answer: there's nothing in the current Frama-C version that will let you do that directly. Moreover, if your original code contains macros, Frama-C will not even see the real original code, as it relies on an external preprocessor (e.g. cpp) to do macro expansion.
Longer answer: Each statement in the normalized (aka CIL) Abstract Syntax Tree (AST, the internal representation of C code within Frama-C) contains information about the location (start point and end point) of the original statement where it stems from, and this information is also available in the original AST (aka Cabs). It might thus be possible for someone with a good knowledge of Frama-C's inner workings (e.g. a reader of the developer's manual), to build a correspondance between both, and to use that to detect dead statement in Cabs. Going even further, one could bypass Cabs, and identify zones in the original text of the program which are dead code. Note however that it would be a tedious and quite error prone (notably because a single original statement can be expanded in several normalized ones) task.
Given your clarifications, I stand by #Virgile's answer; but for people interested in performing some simplistic dead code elimination within Frama-C, the script below, gifted by a colleague who has no SO account, could be helpful.
(* remove_dead_code.ml *)
let main () =
!Db.Value.compute ();
Slicing.Api.Project.reset_slicing ();
let selection = ref Slicing.Api.Select.empty_selects in
let o = object (self)
inherit Visitor.frama_c_inplace
method !vstmt_aux stmt =
if Db.Value.is_reachable_stmt stmt then
selection :=
Slicing.Api.Select.select_stmt ~spare:true
!selection
stmt
(Extlib.the self#current_kf);
Cil.DoChildren
end in
Visitor.visitFramacFileSameGlobals o (Ast.get ());
Slicing.Api.Request.add_persistent_selection !selection;
Slicing.Api.Request.apply_all_internal ();
Slicing.Api.Slice.remove_uncalled ();
ignore (Slicing.Api.Project.extract "no-dead")
let () = Db.Main.extend main
Usage:
frama-c -load-script remove_dead_code.ml file.c -then-last -print -ocode output.c
Note that this script does not work in all cases and could have further improvements (e.g. to handle initializers), but for some quick-and-dirty hacking, it can still be helpful.
Problem
I read in an array of strings from a file.
julia> file = open("word-pairs.txt");
julia> lines = readlines(file);
But Julia doesn't know that they're strings.
julia> typeof(lines)
Array{Any,1}
Question
Can I tell Julia this somehow?
Is it possible to insert type information onto a computed result?
It would be helpful to know the context where this is an issue, because there might be a better way to express what you need - or there could be a subtle bug somewhere.
Can I tell Julia this somehow?
No, because the readlines function explicitly creates an Any array (a = {}): https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/base/io.jl#L230
Is it possible to insert type information onto a computed result?
You can convert the array:
r = convert(Array{ASCIIString,1}, w)
Or, create your own readstrings function based on the link above, but using ASCIIString[] for the collection array instead of {}.
Isaiah is right about the limits of readlines. More generally, often you can say
n = length(A)::Int
when generic type inference fails but you can guarantee the type in your particular case.
As of 0.3.4:
julia> typeof(lines)
Array{Union(ASCIIString,UTF8String),1}
I just wanted to warn against:
convert(Array{ASCIIString,1}, lines)
that can fail (for non-ASCII) while I guess, in this case nothing needs to be done, this should work:
convert(Array{UTF8String,1}, lines)
I just started developing a frama-c plugin that is doing some kind of alias analysis. I'm using the Dataflow.Backwards analysis and now I have to go through the different assignment statements and collect some stuff about the lvalues.
Does frama-c provide me with 3-address code? Do I have some guarantees about the shape of the lvalue (or any memory access)? I mean, sth like in soot or wala that there is at most one field access, s.t., for a->b->c, there would be a temp variable like tmp=a->b; tmp->c;? I checked the manuals, but I couldn't find anything related to this.
No, there is no such normalization in Frama-C. If you really need it, you can first use a visitor in order to normalize the code so that it suits the requirements of your plug-in. It'd go like that:
class normalize prj: Visitor.frama_c_visitor =
object
inherit Visitor.frama_c_copy prj
method vinstr i =
match i with
| Set (lv,e) -> ...
....
end
let analyze () = ...
let run () =
let my_prj = File.create_project_from_visitor "my_project" (fun prj -> new normalize prj) in
Project.on my_prj analyze ()
The following module from Cil does probably what you want:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~necula/cil/ext.html#toc26. Be aware that the type of the resulting AST is the standard Cil one. You won't be getting any help from the OCaml compiler as to which constructs can be present in the simplified AST, and which ones cannot.
Note also that this module has not been ported to Frama-C so far. You will need some minor adaptation to make it work within Frama-C.
using let inline and member constraints I'll be able to make duck typing for known members but what if I would like to define a generic function like so:
let duckwrapper<'a> duck = ...
with the signature 'b -> 'a and where the returned value would be an object that implemented 'a (which would be an interface) and forwarded the calls to duck.
I've done this in C# using Reflection.Emit but I'm wondering if F# reflection, quotations or other constructs would make it easier.
Any suggestions on how to accomplish this?
EDIT
after reading Tims answer I thought I'd give a bit more details
What I was thinking of when I wrote about using quotations to help was something like:
{new IInterface with member x.SayHello() = !!<# %expr #>}
!! being an operator translating the quotation to a function and %expr being the unit of work for the method. I'd be able to translate the expression to a function (I guess) but wouldn't know how to
of course this wouldn't do the trick completely either since IInterface would be 'a which is where I hope F# reflection might have some handy functions so that I could construct a type based on a type object and some function values
EDIT
As an update to Tomas Petricek answer I'll give some code to explain my needs
type SourceRole =
abstract transfer : decimal -> context
and context(sourceAccount:account, destinationAccount) =
let source = sourceAccount
let destination = destinationAccount
member self.transfer amount =
let sourcePlayer =
{new SourceRole with
member this.transfer amount =
use scope = new TransactionScope()
let source = source.decreaseBalance amount
let destination = destination.increaseBalance amount
scope.Complete()
context(source,destination)
}
sourcePlayer.transfer(amount)
which is a try at porting "the" textbook example of DCI in F#. The source and destination are DCI roles. It's the idea that any data object that adhere's to a specific contract can play those. In this case the contract is simple. source needs a memberfunction called decreaseBalance and destination needs a member function called increaseBalance.
I can accomplish that for this specific case with let inline and member constraints.
But I'd like to write a set of functions that given an interface and an object. In this case it could be source (as the object) and
type sourceContract =
abstract decreaseBalance : decimal -> sourceContract
as the type. The result would be an object of type sourceContract that would pipe method calls to a method with the same name on the source object.
F# reflection (Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection) is an F#-friendly wrapper around the plain System.Reflection APIs, so I don't think it would add anything here.
Quotations can't define new types: (you'd need to define a new type to do your interface-based duck typing)
> <# { new IInterface with member x.SayHello = "hello" } #>;;
<# { new IInterface with member x.SayHello = "hello" } #>;;
---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
stdin(7,4): error FS0449: Quotations cannot contain object expressions
> <# type Test() = class end #>;;
<# type Test() = class end #>;;
---^^^^
stdin(8,4): error FS0010: Unexpected keyword 'type' in quotation literal
Reflection.Emit is still the way to go with this.
Edit:
I hope F# reflection might have some handy functions so that I could construct a type based on a type object and some function values
I'm afraid it doesn't. Here's the documentation on F# reflection: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ee353491.aspx
You can compile F# quotations using components from F# PowerPack. So I think you could use quotations to generate and execute code at runtime. If you write a quotation representing a function & compile it you'll get a function value that you could use to implement an interface. Here is a trivial example:
#r "FSharp.PowerPack.Linq.dll"
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
open Microsoft.FSharp.Linq.QuotationEvaluation
// Create a part using "Expr." calls explicitly
let expr = Expr.Value(13)
// Create a part using quotation syntax
let expr2 = <# (fun x -> x * %%expr) #>
// Compile & Run
let f = expr2.Compile()()
f 10
You can mix quotation syntax and calls to Expr, which makes it easier to compose code from basic blocks. The compilation is a bit stupid (currently) so the generated code won't be as efficient as usual F# code (but you'll need to measure it in your case).
I'm not quite sure I understand what exactly are you trying to do, so if you can provide more details, I can give more specific answer.