I am trying to write a script that grades homework written in OCaml. What I have our two files, homework.ml and testRunner.ml. The homework.ml has functions implemented by the student with names as required by the homework. For eg. say the student was asked to implement a function that calculates the square of a number with function name square. The student can skip writing the function if he does not know the answer.
My testRunner.ml can run the functions from homework.ml but it fails if the student does not have the said function implemented complaining about Unbound value square in this case.
Is there a way in OCaml to check if a function exists before making a call to it? I tried to wrap the function call in a try...with but turns out this still does not work.
print_string "my_function [] 5 = ";
try
print_endline (string_of_int (my_function [] 5)); (* This fails because the student did not write the my_function function *)
with _ -> print_string "Error";;
Apologies if this has already been asked somewhere, I could not find it.
Functions in OCaml are static, meaning function names must refer to specific implementations at compile-time.
The simplest solution would therefore be to provide the student with a homework.ml file that provides default implementations for every function that needs to be implemented. This could also include descriptions of the assignments as comments associated with each function. For example:
(* (Optional) Implement a function [square] which squares the integer [x] *)
let square x =
failwith "not implemented"
But you can also provide default implementations in testRunner.ml and include the contents of homework.ml after them. If square is not defined there it will then fall back to the earlier defined default implementation, and if it is defined the student's implementation will shadow the default. For sandboxing purposes it's also a good idea to do this in a submodule:
module H = struct
let square _ =
failwith "not implemented"
include Homework (* This will essentially include the contents of homework.ml at this point *)
end
let () =
print_string "square 5 = ";
try
print_endline (string_of_int (H.square 5))
with
_ -> print_string "Error"
Related
Is there a good way to use type information to choose to do different things?
For example, this isn't valid Haskell, but I don't see why it couldn't be:
tostring :: (Show b) => b -> String
tostring x = f x where f = if b == String then tail . init . show else show
The important part is not getting the correct string out, but using the type of b as a way to switch between functionality/functions.
#chi's answer already demonstrates how to use Typeable to do run-time type checking, but I'd like to point out that to me, this looks like exactly the thing typeclasses are meant for. For your example, the only problem is that you don't like the Show implementation for String: In that case, just create your own typeclass!
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleInstances #-}
{-# LANGUAGE UndecidableInstances #-}
-- The class
class MyShow a where
myShow :: a -> String
-- The instance for String
-- (The `OVERLAPPING` pragma is required, because
-- otherwise GHC won't know which instance to choose for String)
instance {-# OVERLAPPING #-} MyShow [Char] where
myShow = tail . init . show
-- For everything that is not a String, just copy the Show instance
instance Show a => MyShow a where
myShow = show
EDIT: As pointed out by leftaroundabout, overlapping instances are complicated and can lead to some unexpected behavior. Look at the example at the bottom of the documentation.
I will answer the question as it is. Haskell erases all type information during compile time, mostly for efficiency reasons. By default, when a polymorphic function is called, e.g. f :: a->a, no type information is available, and f has no way to know what a actually is -- in this case, f can only be the identity function, fail to terminate, or raise an error.
For the rare cases where type information is needed, there is Typeable. A polymorphic function having type f :: Typeable a => ... is passed a run-time description of the type a, allowing it to test it. Essentially, the Typeable a constraint forces Haskell to keep the runtime information until run time. Note that such type information must be known at the call site -- either because f is called with a completely known type, or because f is called with a partially known type (say f x with x :: Maybe b) but there are suitable Typeable constraints in scope (Typeable b, in the previous example).
Anyway, here's an example:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeApplications, ScopedTypeVariables, GADTs #-}
import Data.Typeable
tostring :: forall b. (Show b, Typeable b) => b -> String
tostring x = case eqT #b #String of -- if b==String
Just Refl -> x -- then
Nothing -> show x -- else
Note how we were able to return x in the "then" branch, since there it is known to be a String.
I was desperately looking for the last hour for a method in the OCaml Library which converts an 'a to a string:
'a -> string
Is there something in the library which I just haven't found? Or do I have to do it different (writing everything by my own)?
It is not possible to write a printing function show of type 'a -> string in OCaml.
Indeed, types are erased after compilation in OCaml. (They are in fact erased after the typechecking which is one of the early phase of the compilation pipeline).
Consequently, a function of type 'a -> _ can either:
ignore its argument:
let f _ = "<something>"
peek at the memory representation of a value
let f x = if Obj.is_block x then "<block>" else "<immediate>"
Even peeking at the memory representation of a value has limited utility since many different types will share the same memory representation.
If you want to print a type, you need to create a printer for this type. You can either do this by hand using the Fmt library (or the Format module in the standard library)
type tree = Leaf of int | Node of { left:tree; right: tree }
let pp ppf tree = match tree with
| Leaf d -> Fmt.fp ppf "Leaf %d" d
| Node n -> Fmt.fp ppf "Node { left:%a; right:%a}" pp n.left pp n.right
or by using a ppx (a small preprocessing extension for OCaml) like https://github.com/ocaml-ppx/ppx_deriving.
type tree = Leaf of int | Node of { left:tree; right: tree } [##deriving show]
If you just want a quick hacky solution, you can use dump from theBatteries library. It doesn't work for all cases, but it does work for primitives, lists, etc. It accesses the underlying raw memory representation, hence is able to overcome (to some extent) the difficulties mentioned in the other answers.
You can use it like this (after installing it via opam install batteries):
# #require "batteries";;
# Batteries.dump 1;;
- : string = "1"
# Batteries.dump 1.2;;
- : string = "1.2"
# Batteries.dump [1;2;3];;
- : string = "[1; 2; 3]"
If you want a more "proper" solution, use ppx_deriving as recommended by #octachron. It is much more reliable/maintainable/customizable.
What you are looking for is a meaningful function of type 'a. 'a -> string, with parametric polymorphism (i.e. a single function that can operate the same for all possible types 'a, even those that didn’t exist when the function was created). This is not possible in OCaml. Here are explications depending on your programming background.
Coming from Haskell
If you were expecting such a function because you are familiar with the Haskell function show, then notice that its type is actually show :: Show a => a -> String. It uses an instance of the typeclass Show a, which is implicitly inserted by the compiler at call sites. This is not parametric polymorphism, this is ad-hoc polymorphism (show is overloaded, if you want). There is no such feature in OCaml (yet? there are projects for the future of the language, look for “modular implicits” or “modular explicits”).
Coming from OOP
If you were expecting such a function because you are familiar with OO languages in which every value is an object with a method toString, then this is not the case of OCaml. OCaml does not use the object model pervasively, and run-time representation of OCaml values retains no (or very few) notion of type. I refer you to #octachron’s answer.
Again, toString in OOP is not parametric polymorphism but overloading: there is not a single method toString which is defined for all possible types. Instead there are multiple — possibly very different — implementations of a method of the same name. In some OO languages, programmers try to follow the discipline of implementing a method by that name for every class they define, but it is only a coding practice. One could very well create objects that do not have such a method.
[ Actually, the notions involved in both worlds are pretty similar: Haskell requires an instance of a typeclass Show a providing a function show; OOP requires an object of a class Stringifiable (for instance) providing a method toString. Or, of course, an instance/object of a descendent typeclass/class. ]
Another possibility is to use https://github.com/ocaml-ppx/ppx_deriving with will create the function of Path.To.My.Super.Type.t -> string you can then use with your value. However you still need to track the path of the type by hand but it is better than nothing.
Another project provide feature similar to Batterie https://github.com/reasonml/reason-native/blob/master/src/console/README.md (I haven't tested Batterie so can't give opinion) They have the same limitation: they introspect the runtime encoding so can't get something really useable. I think it was done with windows/browser in mind so if cross plat is required I will test this one before (unless batterie is already pulled). and even if the code source is in reason you can use with same API in OCaml.
This is my simple OCaml code to print out a merged list.
let rec merge cmp x y = match x, y with
| [], l -> l
| l, [] -> l
| hx::tx, hy::ty ->
if cmp hx hy
then hx :: merge cmp tx (hy :: ty)
else hy :: merge cmp (hx :: tx) ty
let rec print_list = function
| [] -> ()
| e::l -> print_int e ; print_string " " ; print_list l
;;
print_list (merge ( <= ) [1;2;3] [4;5;6]) ;;
I copied the print_list function from Print a List in OCaml, but I had to add ';;' after the function's implementation in order to avoid this error message.
File "merge.ml", line 11, characters 47-57:
Error: This function has type int list -> unit
It is applied to too many arguments; maybe you forgot a `;'.
My question is why ';;' is needed for print_list while merge is not?
The ;; is, in essence, a way of marking the end of an expression. It's not necessary in source code (though you can use it if you like). It is useful in the toplevel (the OCaml REPL) to cause the evaluation of what you've typed so far. Without such a symbol, the toplevel has no way to know whether you're going to type more of the expression later.
In your case, it marks the end of the expression representing the body of the function print_list. Without this marker, the following symbols look like they're part of the same expression, which leads to a type error.
For top-level expressions in OCaml files, I prefer to write something like the following:
let () = print_list (merge ( <= ) [1;2;3] [4;5;6])
If you code this way you don't need to use the ;; token in your source files.
This is an expansion of Jeffrey's answer.
As you know, when doing language parsing, a program has to break the flow in manageable lexical elements, and expect these so called lexemes (or tokens) to follow certain syntactic rules, allowing to regroup lexemes in larger units of meaning.
In many languages, the largest syntactic element is the statement, which diversifies in instructions and definitions. In these same languages, the structure of the grammar requires a special lexeme to indicate the end of some of these units, usually either instructions or statements. Others use instead a lexeme to separate instructions (rather than end each of them), but it's basically the same idea.
In OCaml, the grammar follows patterns which, within the algorithm used to parse the language, permits to elide such instruction terminator (or separator) in various circumstances. The keyword let for instance, is always necessary to introduce a new definition. This can be used to detect the end of the preceding statement at the outermost level of program statements (the top level).
However, you can easily see the problem it induces: the interactive version of Ocaml always need the beginning of a new statement to be able to figure out the previous one, and a user would never be able to provide statements one by one! The ;; special token was thus defined(*) to indicate the end of a top level statement.
(*): I actually seem to recall that the token was originally in OCaml ancestors, but then made optional when OCaml was devised; however, don't quote me on that.
Want to print list without using sequence operator:-
This is my program, I want to make this program without ";" operator and without using "let" for assigning variables !
let rec print_row = function
[]->()
|h::t -> print_int h; Printf.printf(" "); print_row t;;
You want to implement a generic approach for applying functions over any type of lists. You can go about this in the following manner using List.map:
print_string (String.concat " " (List.map string_of_int [1;2;3;4]));;
You can learn more about List.map here
This looks like a school assignment, so I'll just make some suggestions.
If you're trying to reformulate the function into more idiomatic OCaml, one thing to think of is the functions in the List module. In particular, you could write a function that does what you want to do for each element of the list, then look in the List module for a way to call a function for every element of a list.
If you just want to eliminate the ; operator (which is pretty unlikely I realize), you can always rewrite a; b as let _ = a in b.
I just start learning haskell and pattern matching. I just don't understand how it implemented, is the [] and (x:_) evaluates to the different type and the function implementations for this pattern recognized because of polymorphism, or I just wrong and there is another technique used.
head' :: [a] -> a
head' [] = error "Can't call head on an empty list, dummy!"
head' (x:_) = x
Or lets consider this pattern matching function:
tell :: (Show a) => [a] -> String
tell [] = "The list is empty"
tell (x:[]) = "The list has one element: " ++ show x
tell (x:y:[]) = "The list has two elements: " ++ show x ++ " and " ++ show y
tell (x:y:_) = "This list is long. The first two elements are: " ++ show x ++ " and " ++ show y
I think I wrong because each list with different number of elements can't have deferent type. Can you explain me how haskell knows which pattern is correct for some function implementation? I understand how it works logically but not deep. Explain it to me please.
There's a bit of a level of indirection between the syntax in Haskell and the implementation at runtime. The list syntax that you see in most source is actually a bit of sugar for what is actually a fairly regular data type. The following two lines are equivalent:
data List a = Nil | Cons a (List a)
data [a] = [] | a : [a] -- pseudocode
So when you type in [a,b,c] this translates into the internal representation as (a : (b : (c : []))).
The pattern matching you'll see at the top level bindings in are also a bit of syntactic sugar ( sans some minor details ) for case statements which deconstruct the data types onto the right hand side of the case of the pattern match. The _ symbol is a builtin for the wildcard pattern which matches any expression ( so long as the pattern is well-typed ) but does add a variable to the RHS scope.
head :: [a] -> a
head x = case x of
(a : _) -> a
I think I wrong because each list with different number of elements can't have deferent type. Can you explain me how haskell knows which pattern is correct for some function implementation?
So to answer your question [] and (x:_) are both of the same type (namely [a] or List a in our example above). The list datatype is also recursive so all recursive combinations of Cons'ing values of type a have the same type, namely [a].
When the compiler typechecks the case statement it runs along each of the LHS columns and ensures that all the types are equivalent or can be made equivalent using a process called unification. The same is done on the right hand side of the cases.
Haskell "knows" which pattern is correct by trying each branch sequentially and unpacking the matched value to see if it has the same number of cons elements as the pattern and then proceeding to the branch which does, or failing with a pattern match error if none match. The same process is done for any pattern matching on data types, not just lists.
There are two separate sets of checks:
in compile time (before the program is run) the compiler simply checks that the types of the cases conform to the function's signature and that the calls to the function conform to the function's signature.
In runtime, when we have access to the actual input, a similar, but different, set of checks is executed: these checks take the * actual* input (not its type) at hand and determine which of the cases matches it.
So, to answer your question: the decision is made in compile time where we have not only the type but also the actual value.