I want to know if we can have a local module inside the module. This can be achieved if a functor can be passed as an argument to another functor. But I am not sure if we can do that.
My apologies if this is a vague question.
Thanks.
Yes, it is possible to define higher-order functors. Here is a simple example of a functor that applies its first argument to its second argument:
module App (F : functor (X: sig end) -> sig end) (X: sig end) = F (X)
This is however unrelated to the question of having local modules, which are very straightforward and do not require functors. The following example defines a submodule B that remains private to A:
module A : (sig val g : unit -> unit end) = struct
module B = struct
let f () = print_endline "Hello"
end
let g = B.f
end
let () = A.g () (* valid, prints Hello *)
let () = A.B.f () (* invalid *)
Related
I have a functor that takes a Set type like:
module type MySet = functor (S : Set.S) -> sig
val my_method : S.t -> S.elt -> S.elt list option
end
module MySet_Make : MySet = functor (S : Set.S) -> struct
let my_method set el = Some [el] (* whatever *)
end
module IntSet = Set.Make(Int)
module MyIntSet = MySet_Make(IntSet)
S.elt is the type of elements of the set
I want to apply [##deriving show] (from https://github.com/ocaml-ppx/ppx_deriving#plugin-show) to S.elt within my functor somehow, so that in one of my methods I can rely on having a show : S.elt -> string function available.
I feel like it must be possible but I can't work out the right syntax.
Alternatively - if there's a way to specify in the signature that the Set type S was made having elements of a "showable" type.
e.g. I can define:
module type Showable = sig
type t [##deriving show]
end
...but I can't work out how to specify that as a type constraint to elements of (S : Set.S)
You can construct new signatures that specify the exact function show you need:
module MySet_Make(S : sig
include Set.S
val show : elt -> string
end) = struct
let my_method _set el =
print_endline (S.show el);
Some [el]
end
Then you can build the actual module instance by constructing the module with the needed function:
module IntSet = struct
include Set.Make(Int)
(* For other types, this function could be created by just using [##deriving show] *)
let show = string_of_int
end
module MyIntSet = MySet_Make(IntSet)
Ok, after a couple of hours more fumbling around in the dark I found a recipe that does everything I wanted...
First we define a "showable" type, representing a module type that has had [##deriving show] (from https://github.com/ocaml-ppx/ppx_deriving#plugin-show) applied to it:
module type Showable = sig
type t
val pp : Format.formatter -> t -> unit
val show : t -> string
end
(I don't know if there's some way to get this directly from ppx_deriving.show without defining it manually?)
Then we re-define and extend the Set and Set.OrderedType (i.e. element) types to require that the elements are "showable":
module type OrderedShowable = sig
include Set.OrderedType
include Showable with type t := t
end
module ShowableSet = struct
include Set
module type S = sig
include Set.S
end
module Make (Ord : OrderedShowable) = struct
include Set.Make(Ord)
end
end
I think with the original code in my question I had got confused and used some kind of higher-order functor syntax (?) ...I don't know how it seemed to work at all, but at some point I realised my MySet_Make was returning a functor rather than a module. So we'll fix that now and just use a normal functor.
The other thing we can fix is to make MySet a further extension of ShowableSet ... so MySet_Make will take the element type as a parameter instead of another Set type. This makes the eventual code all simpler too:
module type MySet = sig
include ShowableSet.S
val my_method : t -> elt -> elt list option
val show_el : elt -> string
end
module AdjacencySet_Make (El : OrderedShowable) : AdjacencySet
with type elt = El.t
= struct
include ShowableSet.Make(El)
let my_method set el = Some [el] (* whatever *)
let show_el el = El.show el (* we can use the "showable" elements! *)
end
Then we just need an OrderedShowable version of Int as the element type. Int is already ordered so we just have to extend it by deriving "show" and then we can make a concrete MySet:
module Int' = struct
include Int
type t = int [##deriving show]
end
module MyIntSet = MySet_Make(Int')
And we can use it like:
# let myset = MyIntSet.of_list [3; 2; 8];;
# print_endline (MyIntSet.show_el 3);;
"3"
I can't find on the internet how to use the functor I've written. I will post a minimal code, if you need more contextual information tell me and I'll add, but I'm sure it's really easy to do.
I think I just don't understand what a functor is, I see things like this (I will use an analogy with Java to ilustrate my understanding since I'm new to OCaml) :
sig (=) Interface MyInterface
struct (=) Object implements MyInterface
functor (=) MyInterfaceBis extends MyInterface
The following example I'm about to give is stupid, it's just so I can understand the concept behind it :
module type tF = sig
type 'a t
val create : 'a t
end
module F : tF = struct
type 'a t = 'a list
let create = []
end
module type tF2 = functor(F : tF) -> sig
val foo : 'a F.t -> 'a F.t
end
module F2 : tF2 = functor(F : tF) -> struct
let foo f = f
end
I know I can do for example :
let test = F.create
But I don't know how to use F2.
I've tried this page but it's not using my notation and I was more confused after than before.
F2 takes in a module with type tF and produces a module with one function foo:
module NewF = F2 (F)
For more information, see the section about functors in Real World OCaml.
What I am trying to achieve is similar to a logging facility but for monitoring and streaming arbitrary data from a running simulation. Here is the simplified situation:
module Sim (V:VEC) = struct
module V = V
module M = struct type data = V.t end
let loop n init_data =
let running_data = ref init_data in
for _i = 1 to n do
(*?*) (* monitor here: data => outside world *)
rdata := process_data !rdata
done
end
While simulation loops, at the ? I may want to 'tap' data and accumulate it. Other times, I want to just let it run and disable the data stream with minimal overhead -- the ? is in a tight loop. So I want the streaming to be configurable with little cost.
What I have now is this:
module Sim (V:VEC) = struct
module V = V
module M = struct type data = V.t end
let data_monitor : (M.data -> unit) ref = ref (fun d -> ())
let loop n init_data =
let running_data = ref init_data in
for _i = 1 to n do
!data_monitor !rdata; (* monitor here *)
rdata := process_data !rdata
done
end
Ie. I put a stub monitoring function reference in there. In the actual application script I can then assign a function which e.g. accumulates the data values into a list or some such. It works.
So the question is: is this the best/lowest overhead/nicest way to achieve what I want?
This approach seems a bit hackish, I would rather use the module system instead of function pointers. However, the data type to be streamed is only defined inside the functor Sim. So making a monitoring function in another module Sampler outside of Sim and parametrizing Sim by that, seems not convenient and/or requires duplication of code or recursive modules. I tried, but I was not able to make all types equal.
Edit: Here is roughly what it tried without function refs:
module Sampler (V:VEC) : sig
module V : VEC
type data = V.t
val monitor_data : data -> unit
end
with type data = V.t = struct
module V = V
type data = V.t
let monitor_data data = store_away_the data
end
module Sim (V:VEC) (Sampler:??) : sig
...
end with type M.data = V.t
At the ?? I was not sure how to specify the output signature of Sampler, since the input signature VEC is still free; also I was not sure how exactly to make the type equality work. Maybe I'm doing it wrong here.
As discussed in the comments, you may be able to do something like this using higher-order functions (instead of having to resort to a higher-order functor):
module type VEC = sig type t end
module Vec = struct type t = unit end
module Sim (V : VEC) =
struct
module M = struct type data = V.t list end
let process x = x
let rec loop ?(monitor : M.data -> unit = ignore) n data =
if n <= 0 then data
else
(monitor [];
process data |> loop ~monitor (n - 1))
end
module MySim = Sim (Vec)
let monitor _ = print_endline "foo"
let () =
MySim.loop ~monitor 5 ()
loop above takes an optional function as argument, which you can pass with the syntax ~monitor:my_fun or ~monitor:(fun data -> ...). If you already have a value called monitor in scope, you can simply do ~monitor to pass it. If you don't pass anything, the default value is ignore (i.e. fun _ -> ()).
I also rewrote loop in recursive style. The code above prints foo 5 times. Note that your monitor function can still come from Sampler module, you just have no need to pass the whole module in when instantiating Sim.
EDIT: If you still want to declare a higher-order functor, here is how you do it (...)
EDIT 2: Changed the example given additional information that the reason for the higher-order functor is that there are multiple monitoring functions to call. Note that in this case, there are still other solutions besides a higher-order functor: you could group the functions into a record, and pass the record to loop. Similar to this, you could pass a first-class module. Or, you could create one function that takes a variant type whose cases indicate at what stage the monitoring function is being called, and carry the data associated with each stage. You can also use classes for this, though I wouldn't recommend it. The functor approach does have an advantage, however, if you are committed to declaring M inside Sim.
I have omitted the signature VEC from the sketch because I'm under the impression that the questioner understands where to add it, and there is no problem with it :)
module type SAMPLER =
sig
type data
val monitor : data -> unit
val monitor' : data list -> unit
end
(* These are created inside Sim. *)
module type DATA =
sig
type data
val show : data -> string
end
(* Note that I am using destructive substitution (:=) to avoid the need
to have a type data declared in the body of MySampler below. If you
use a regular type equality constraint, you need to add a field
"type data = Data.data" to the body. *)
module type SAMPLER_FN =
functor (Data : DATA) -> SAMPLER with type data := Data.data
(* This is the higher-order functor (it takes another functor as an
argument). *)
module Sim (Sampler_fn : SAMPLER_FN) =
struct
(* Corresponds to module "Sim.M" in the question. *)
module Data =
struct
type data = string
let show s = s
end
(* Note that without additional type constraints or rearrangements,
the type data is abstract to Sampler (more precisely, Sampler_fn
is parametric over Data). This means that Sampler_fn can't
analyze values of type data, which is why we need to provide
functions such as Data.show to Sampler_fn for instances of
Sampler_fn to be "useful". If you are trying to avoid this and
are having trouble with these specific constraints, let me
know. The ability to pass types and related values (functions
in this case) to Sampler_fn is the main argument in favor of
using a higher-order functor. *)
module Sampler = Sampler_fn (Data)
let simulate x =
(* Call one monitoring function. *)
Sampler.monitor "hi!";
(* Do some computation and call another monitoring function. *)
Sampler.monitor' ["hello"; "world"]
end
Usage:
module MySampler (Data : DATA) =
struct
let monitor data = data |> Data.show |> print_endline
let monitor' data =
data
|> List.map Data.show
|> String.concat " "
|> print_endline
end
module MySim = Sim (MySampler)
let () = MySim.simulate ()
This prints
hi!
hello world
For completeness:
Building on the functor part of antron's answer, this is what I am currently using. It is still a bit involved, and maybe it could be made more concise, but it has some nice advantages. Namely: the monitoring of individual aspects can be switched on and off in a centralized place (a module of type SAMPLER) and arbitrary types can be exported, even if they become defined only somewhere inside the simulator module.
I define the monitoring (=sampling) modules and module types like so:
module type STYPE = sig type t end
module type SSAMPLER = sig
type t
val ev : t React.event
val mon : t -> unit
end
module type SAMPLER_FN = functor (Data : STYPE) -> SSAMPLER
with type t := Data.t
(* stub sampler function for a single one *)
module Never : SAMPLER_FN = functor (Data : STYPE) -> struct
let ev = React.E.never
let mon = ignore
end
(* event primitive generating sampling function *)
module Event : SAMPLER_FN = functor (Data : STYPE) -> struct
let (ev : Data.t React.event), mon' = React.E.create ()
let mon = mon' ?step:None
end
Here, I am using the React library to generate output streams of data. The React.E.never event does nothing and corresponds to sampling being switched off. Then the full sampling configuration is specified like so:
(* the full sampling config *)
module type SAMPLER = sig
val sampler_pos : (module SAMPLER_FN)
val sampler_step : (module SAMPLER_FN)
(* and several more... *)
end
module NoSampling : SAMPLER = struct
let sampler_pos = (module Never: SAMPLER_FN)
let sampler_step = (module Never: SAMPLER_FN)
(* ... *)
end
(* default sampling config *)
module DefaultSampling : SAMPLER = struct
include NoSampling
(* this is only possible when using first class modules *)
let sampler_pos = (module Event : SAMPLER_FN)
end
One could avoid the first-class modules, but then the convenient inclusion and override in DefaultSampling would not be allowed.
In the simulation library code this is used like this:
module type VEC = sig
type t
val zeropos : t
val wiggle : t -> t
end
module Sim (V:VEC) (Sampler:SAMPLER) = struct
module V = V
module M = struct
type t = { mutable pos : V.t }
val create () = { pos=V.zeropos }
module Sampler_pos = (val Sampler.sampler_pos) (struct type nonrec t = t end)
let update f m = m.pos <- f m.pos
end
module Sampler_b = (val Sampler.sampler_b) (struct type t = int end)
let loop n (running_data:M.t) =
for i = 1 to n do
(* monitor step number: *)
Sampler_b.mon i;
(* monitor current pos: *)
Sampler_pos.mon running_data;
M.update V.wiggle running_data
done
end
Here, the sampling functors are applied at appropriate places in the simulation loop. (val ...) is again necessary only because of the first class module wrapping.
Finally, in an application script, one would then do this:
module Simulator = Sim (V) (DefaultSampling);;
let trace = Simulator.M.Sampler_pos.ev
|> React.E.fold (fun l h -> h :: l) []
|> React.S.hold [];;
let init_m = Simulator.M.create () in
Simulator.loop 100 init_m;;
React.S.value trace;;
The last line then contains the accumulated list of values of type Simulator.M.t that occurred during the loop. Monitoring of the step counter (a silly example) is switched off. By making another sampling functor of type SAMPLER and parametrizing Sim by that, one could further customize the monitoring, if desired.
I have defined an interface A to be used by several functors, and notably by MyFunctor :
module type A = sig
val basic_func: ...
val complex_func: ...
end
module MyFunctor :
functor (SomeA : A) ->
struct
...
let complex_impl params =
...
(* Here I call 'basic_func' from SomeA *)
SomeA.basic_func ...
...
end
Now I want to define a module B with implements the interface A. In particular, the implementation of complex_func should use basic_func through complex_impl in MyFunctor :
module B = struct
let basic_func = ...
let complex_func ... =
let module Impl = MyFunctor(B) in
Impl.complex_impl ...
end
However, this code doesn't compile as B is not fully declared in the context of MyFunctor(B). Obviously B depends on MyFunctor(B), which itself depends on B, so I tried to use the rec keyword on module B, but it didn't work out.
So, is it possible to do something like this ? It would be useful as I have several modules B_1, ..., B_n that use the same implementation of B_k.complex_func in terms of B_k.basic_func.
Or is there a better pattern for my problem ? I know that I can declare complex_impl as a regular function taking basic_func as a parameter, without using a functor at all :
let complex_impl basic_func params =
...
basic_func ...
...
But in my case complex_impl uses many basic functions of A, and I think that the paradigm of functors is clearer and less error-prone.
Edit : I followed this answer, but in fact, A uses some type t that is specialized in B :
module type A = sig
type t
val basic_func: t -> unit
val complex_func: t -> unit
end
module MyFunctor :
functor (SomeA : A) ->
struct
let complex_impl (x : SomeA.t) =
SomeA.basic_func x
...
end
module rec B : A = struct
type t = int
val basic_func (x : t) = ...
val complex_func (x : t) =
let module Impl = MyFunctor(B) in
Impl.complex_impl x
end
And now I get the error (for x at line Impl.complex_impl x) :
This expression has type t = int but an expression was expected of type B.t
Edit 2 : I solved this second problem with the following code :
module rec B :
A with type t = int
= struct
type t = int
...
end
You can use recursive modules just like you'd write recursive let bindings
module type A = sig
val basic_func : unit -> int
val complex_func : unit -> int
end
module MyFunctor =
functor (SomeA : A) ->
struct
let complex_impl = SomeA.basic_func
end
module rec B : A = struct
let basic_func () = 0
let complex_func () =
let module Impl = MyFunctor(B) in
Impl.complex_impl ()
end
Note (a) the module rec bit in the definition of B and (b) that I am required to provide a module signature for a recursive module definition.
# B.basic_func ();;
- : int = 0
# B.complex_func ();;
- : int = 0
There's a small caveat, however, in that this only works because the signature A has only values which are function types. It is thus known as a "safe module". If basic_func and complex_func were values instead of function types then it would fail upon compilation
Error: Cannot safely evaluate the definition
of the recursively-defined module B
I need to have two classes refering to each other. Is there any way in Ocaml to make Forward Declaration of one of them?
(I don't think it's possible as with easier stuff with word and).
Or maybe it is possible, but different way than how i tried?
Ocaml doesn't have anything like forward declarations (i.e. a promise that something will be defined eventually), but it has recursive definitions (i.e. a block of things that are declared and then immediately defined in terms of each other). Recursive definitions are possible between expressions, types, classes, and modules (and more); mutually recursive modules allow mixed sets of objects to be defined recursively.
You can solve your problem using a recursive definition with the keyword and:
class foo(x : bar) = object
method f () = x#h ()
method g () = 0
end
and bar(x : foo) = object
method h () = x#g()
end
Or you could use parameterized classes. Following the previous example you have:
class ['bar] foo (x : 'bar) =
object
method f () = x#h ()
method g () = 0
end
class ['foo] bar (x : 'foo) =
object
method h () = x#g()
end
The inferred interface is:
class ['a] foo : 'a ->
object
constraint 'a = < h : unit -> 'b; .. >
method f : unit -> 'b
method g : unit -> int
end
class ['a] bar : 'a ->
object
constraint 'a = < g : unit -> 'b; .. >
method h : unit -> 'b
end