It seems that I can't assign an abstract value to a ref and I'm not sure what to do.
open Big_int
let largest = ref zero_big_int;;
let depth = ref zero_big_int;;
let rec big i = (add_int_big_int i zero_big_int)
and collatz = fun num depth ->
print_endline (string_of_big_int num);
(if(eq_big_int (add_int_big_int (-1) num) zero_big_int)then(depth)else(
if eq_big_int (mod_big_int num (big 2)) zero_big_int then (collatz (div_big_int num (big 2)) (succ_big_int depth)) else (collatz (succ_big_int (mult_int_big_int 3 num)) (succ_big_int depth))))
and euler14 i =
print_endline (string_of_big_int i);
(if(lt_big_int i (big 1000000))then (
let ret = (collatz i unit_big_int) in
if(ret> !depth)then (largest:=i;depth:=ret; (euler14 (succ_big_int i))) else (euler14 (succ_big_int i))
) else (!largest));;
print_endline (string_of_big_int (euler14 (big 2)));;
The code seems to crash when I try largest:=i and depth:=ret which are both Big_nums. Is there any way around this?
2
2
1
3
3
10
5
16
8
4
2
1
Fatal error: exception Invalid_argument("equal: abstract value")
You cannot compare values of type Big_int.big_int with the polymorphic =, >, >=. Instead, you have to write your own comparison functions for all types that contain a Big_int.big_int, even if it is deeply embedded.
Using OCaml 3.12.1 or later, you can use the polymorphic comparison functions with values of type Z.t as implemented in the external library Zarith, a modern replacement for Big_int.
Being compatible with polymorphic operations is only one of the advantages of Zarith over Big_int. It is also more compact in memory, and faster.
The thing that's failing seems to be the polymorphic comparison ret > !depth, not the assignment to a ref. I would assume you can use Big_int.compare_big_int.
# let x = big_int_of_int 3;;
val x : Big_int.big_int = <abstr>
# let y = big_int_of_int 4;;
val y : Big_int.big_int = <abstr>
# x > y;;
Exception: Invalid_argument "equal: abstract value".
# compare_big_int x y;;
- : int = -1
#
(Polymorphic comparison is one of the touchy spots in OCaml.)
Related
Why am I getting Warning this expression should have type unit with this code? although it does what it should do.
let matchInf42 list =
let a = ref 0 in
let lstLength = List.length list in
let rec matchInf4242 list =
match list with
|[]->[]
|m::body->
begin
if (m < 42) then a := !a + 1;
matchInf4242 body
end
in matchInf4242 list;
if(!a = lstLength) then -1 else 0
Warning:
ocamlopt match.ml -o m
File "match.ml", line 14, characters 7-24:
14 | in matchInf4242 list;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Warning 10: this expression should have type unit.
TL;DR: The error you obtain is a typical type error (mostly)
"Mostly" because, admittedly, it is not an "error" but a mere "warning" here, yet it appears this kind of warning (Warning 10: non-unit-statement) is always worth being addressed (i.e., avoided).
It is actually an instance of the following pattern:
42; print_string "…" ;;
(* or more generally *)
any_value_not_having_type_unit; any_value_having_type_unit ;;
(* which would raise *)
> Characters 0-2:
> 42; print_string "…";;
> ^^
> Warning 10: this expression should have type unit.
> …- : unit = ()
Further details
Just to recall, unit is a singleton type (which only has the value ()) and is typically chosen to assign a return type to functions that "return no specific value" but produce some side-effect.
Actually, the sequence operator is "a bit more general / more flexible" as what we might expect:
# let semicolon i j = i; j ;;
val semicolon : 'a -> 'b -> 'b = <fun>
That is to say, it's not semicolon : unit -> 'b -> 'b, and thereby the message we got for the code i; j when i does not have the type unit, is a mere warning, not a type error.
Fixes/workarounds
Two strategies to avoid this warning:
Either ignore it by relying on the ignore function
# ignore;;
- : 'a -> unit = <fun>
# ignore 42; print_string "…";;
…- : unit = ()
Or change/fix the way you compute the left-hand side of the sequence (so its type is unit).
In the particular case of your question example, it would suffice to write this (the only change being indicated with a symbol §):
let matchInf42 list =
let a = ref 0 in
let lstLength = List.length list in
let rec matchInf4242 list =
match list with
|[] -> () (*←§*)
|m::body->
begin
if (m < 42) then a := !a + 1;
matchInf4242 body
end
in matchInf4242 list;
if(!a = lstLength) then -1 else 0
Extra remark
Finally for completeness (even though it was not explicitly part of your question), note that the example function you considered could also be implemented in a more "functional" style (without references nor sequences, avoiding also the need for calling the List.length function beforehand):
let matchInf42 l =
if List.for_all (fun m -> m < 42) l
then -1 else 0
(* or *)
let matchInf42 l =
if List.fold_left (fun r e -> r && e < 42) true l
then -1 else 0
Change
matchInf4242 list
to either
ignore (matchInf4242 list)
or
matchInf4242 list in ().
This makes the statement return () (i.e. a unit), which is what ocaml expects.
I want to find the max element in a int list.
The idea is to call find_max only once and let support do the dirty job.
The function support returns an int, the first value is 0 then when a new max is found it's value is saved, added to the result ,the previous max is changed and it's value deducted from the result.
This because :
old_max = x
result = 0 + old_max
A new max is found :
new_max= y
result = result - oldmax + new_max
So I'll save the value of new_max :
0 + old_max - old_max + new_max = new_max`.
Obviously the code above is explicative, this is my real code :
let find_max random =
let rec support rlist max =
if rlist==[] then 0
else
if (List.hd rlist) > max
then -max + (List.hd rlist) + support (List.tl rlist) (List.hd rlist)
else support (List.tl rlist) max ;;
let return = support random 0 0 ;
!return;;
let a = [1;2;3];
print_string "max element in list is : "
print_int (find_max a);
print_string "\n"
The error is on line 9 !return;;, syntax error (obviously :/ ) on ;;
There is no construct let ... = ...; in OCaml, local definition use let .. = ... in ... . You probably want to avoid using ;; altogether as a beginner too.
Also, structural equality is = and not ==. Similarly, you should never useList.hd and List.tl in your code as a beginner. Pattern matching is always the superior option.
Typically, all uses of those functions can be replaced by a simple:
match rlist with
| [] -> 0
| hd :: tl -> ...
which is shorter, clearer, and eliminate any possibility to mishandle the empty list.
Your logic is also unnecessarily complex rather than computing max - initial_value with
-max + hd + support tl hd
you can compute the maximum directly with
hd
You are then calling support support with too many argument.
We may want to use let () = ... when computing effect, rather than using ;;.
I want to define a function check_char_fun: (char -> 'a) -> (char ->' a) -> bool that, given two functions
on char, return true when both functions are the same (ie, when they are exactly the same behavior on every one of the possible values of a char) and false otherwise.
let check_char_fun f1 f2 =
let aux = true
for i=0 to 255 do
if (f1 (char_of_int i))=(f2 (char_of_int i))
then aux=false;
done;
if aux=true
then true
else false;;
I am learning OCaml, so I don't know what can I do.
You're nearly there:
let check_char_fun f1 f2 =
let aux = ref true in
for i = 0 to 255 do
if (f1 (char_of_int i)) = (f2 (char_of_int i)) then aux := false
else ()
done;
!aux
Unlike the variables in imperative languages, bindings in OCaml are immutable by default. To create a real variable, we create a bool ref which is mutable and can be changed from within the loop.
OCaml does not have a distinction between statements and expressions like the imperative languages: There are only expressions! Thats why you always need the else clause to an if; this ways the resulting expression always returns a value (in both if and else case) the type of which must be the same -- in this case of type unit (the type of the value () -- which would be void in C).
Your code is not very OCaml-like, but thats what I personally love about OCaml: The functional style is not forced down your throat and you can implement algorithms in an imperative style without entering the academic ivory tower.
First, you have to have a definition for what a "behavior" is. If your functions can raise exceptions the problem gets harder. Your code assumes the functions always return a value, which seems like a good simplification for a beginning problem.
You're also using the (somewhat out-of-date) definition of character that OCaml uses, in that codes are limited to the range 0 .. 255. This also seems OK.
So the only problem I see in your code is that you're expecting to be able to change the value of the aux variable. Variables in OCaml are immutable: you can't change the value that they're bound to.
If you want to keep your code mostly as it is, you can change aux so its value is a reference to a bool. Then you can change the boolean value inside the reference (while aux remains bound to the same reference).
To make a reference to a bool and change the value:
# let x = ref true;;
val x : bool ref = {contents = true}
# !x;;
- : bool = true
# x := false;;
- : unit = ()
# !x;;
- : bool = false
(One of the reasons to study OCaml is to learn how to work with immutable values. So I'd suggest looking for other ways to solve the problem that don't require the use of references.)
let rec range i j =
if i > j then [] else i :: (range (i+1) j);;
let check_char_fun f1 f2 =
let lc = List.map char_of_int (range 0 255) in
List.for_all (fun c -> (f1 c) = (f2 c)) lc;;
test:
#let id x =x;;
val id : 'a -> 'a = <fun>
# check_char_fun id id;;
- : bool = true
# check_char_fun id (fun x -> 'a');;
- : bool = false
Or:
exception Fails_in of char;;
let check_char_fun f1 f2 =
let lc = List.map char_of_int (range 0 255) in
List.iter (fun c ->
if (f1 c) <> (f2 c) then raise (Fails_in c)
) lc;;
# try (
check_char_fun id id
) with Fails_in c -> Printf.printf "Diff(%d)(%c)" (int_of_char c) c
;;
- : unit = ()
# try (
check_char_fun id (fun x -> 'a')
) with Fails_in c -> Printf.printf "Diff(%d)(%c)" (int_of_char c) c
;;
Diff(0)()- : unit = ()
The following applies each function to each character value in the 0 .. 255 range and compares their results, but it does not check for cases where a function raises an exception or causes a side effect elsewhere:
open Core.Std
let check_char_fun f1 f2 =
let chars = List.map ~f:char_of_int (List.range 0 256) in
List.for_all ~f:(fun c -> (f1 c) = (f2 c)) chars
this is a question about ocaml lists and tuples. I have some 2-tuples of numbers (either integers or floats) and I want to convert it to a list of lists (with 2 elements). Assuming that I have defined a num type Int of int | Float of float, the conversion should give the following:
((1,1.0),(0.4,1),(0,0)) => [[Int 1;Float 1.0];[Float 0.4; Int 1];[Int 0;Int 0]]
or more precisely
let a = (1,1.0) and b = (0.4,1) and c = (0,0) in
myconversion (a,b,c) ;;
=> [[Int 1;Float 1.0];[Float 0.4; Int 1];[Int 0;Int 0]]
the point being the values a, b, c... are defined in several places in the source files (by people who use different signatures for their tuples).
The difficulty here is that I don't know the types of the elements of the 2-tuples (int or float, that varies depending on the tuple).
Your input data can't be represented in OCaml as you describe it. OCaml is strongly typed. For example, your example input list is an invalid value in OCaml:
# [(1,1.0);(0.4,1);(0,0)];;
Error: This expression has type float but an expression was expected of type
int
So what you describe as the essence of your problem (not knowing the types) is in fact not possible. You'll have to use some other method of representing the input. For example, you could just use floats for everything. Or you could use pairs of strings.
Update
The answer for the rewritten question is the same. In OCaml it's not possible not to know the type of something statically; i.e., at the time you're writing the program (unless it can be any type at all). It's not possible (or necessary) to query the type of something at runtime. So your question doesn't have an answer (at least as far as I can see).
For OCaml, you have to think with the type system rather than against it. After a while you start to really like it (or at least that's how it worked for me). I'd start by writing down the type you want your function myconverstion to have.
Update 2
I'll repeat my advice to treat your inputs as strings. Assuming you've parsed your input up into pairs of strings, here's some code that does what you want:
let myconversion coords =
let c1 s =
if String.contains s '.' then
Float (float_of_string s)
else
Int (int_of_string s)
in
let cp (a, b) = [c1 a; c1 b] in
List.map cp coords
Here's how it works for your input (reinterpreted as strings):
# myconversion [("1", "1.0"); ("0.4", "1"); ("0", "0")];;
- : fi list list = [[Int 1; Float 1.]; [Float 0.4; Int 1]; [Int 0; Int 0]]
Update 3
Here's some (crude) code that parses a file of numbers into coordinates represented as pairs of strings. It should work as long as the tuples in the input are well formed.
let coords fname =
let ic = open_in fname in
let len = in_channel_length ic in
let buf = Buffer.create 128 in
let () = Buffer.add_channel buf ic len in
let () = close_in ic in
let s = Buffer.contents buf in
let nums = Str.(split (regexp "[^0-9.]+") s) in
let rec mkcoords sofar = function
| [] | [_] -> List.rev sofar
| a :: b :: rest -> mkcoords ((a, b) :: sofar) rest
in
mkcoords [] nums
There are two distinct problems in your setup:
you don't know the type of the tuples parameters
you want to pass them as a single n-ary tuple
For problem 2, you would have to write a function for that type specifically, whereas you could mimic a type level list type by nesting couple of tuples:
myconversion a,(b,c) ;;
The reason is that with that setup, you could write a recursive polymorphic function on the type level list:
val myconversion : type a b. (a,b) -> num list
There would still be a problem on the last element though.
So, assuming that you could pass a sequence to your conversion function, and have it process elements of that sequence one by one, you would still need to find a way of selecting the proper function of pair conversion from the tuple type: that's basically ad-hoc polymorphism, ie. you would need to be able to overload a function on its parameters' types(1). Unfortunately, OCaml doesn't support that out of the box.
One possibility would be perhaps (I have no experience doing that) to implement an extension which would extract the type information of a given expression, and generate the correct code to process it in your own code.
A flexible technique consists in having that extension generate an algebraic description of the tuples types, and use that description as an equality witness in the code which will process the tuples:
type _ w =
| U : (unit * unit) w
| IF : 'a w -> ((int * float) * 'a) w
| FI : 'a w -> ((float * int) * 'a) w
(* other constructors if necessary *)
(* data *)
let a = 1,1.0
let b = 2.0, 2
let c = 3.0, 3
let d = 4, 4.0
let l = a,(b, (c,(d,((),()))))
(* witness *)
let w = IF (FI (FI (IF U)))
(* the type parameter of w should be the same as l type *)
let rec conv : type a b. (a * b) w -> (a * b) -> num list = fun w (x, xs) ->
match w with
U -> []
| IF w' -> let i,f = x in (Int I)::(Float f)::(conv w' xs)
(* etc *)
Here, we encode the type level nil list as (unit * unit) w.
A coalgebraic approach would require to register function overloads to the conversion function polymorphic signature within the extension, and let it pick the right one from the function overload dictionary.
There's a discussion on that topic on the LtU site.
Thanks to everybody who answered. I finally found a solution, using a bit of magic:
# type num = Int of int | Float of float;;
# let to_num x = if Obj.is_int (Obj.repr x) then
Int (Obj.magic (Obj.repr x) : int)
else
Float ((Obj.magic (Obj.repr x) : float));;
# let pair_to_num (a,b) = [to_num a; to_num b];;
# let myconversion (a,b,c) = [pair_to_num a; pair_to_num b; pair_to_num c];;
and the test:
# myconversion ((1,1.0),(0.4,1),(0,0));;
- : num list list = [[Int 1; Float 1.]; [Float 0.4; Int 1]; [Int 0; Int 0]]
# myconversion ((0,0),(1,1.0),(0.4,1));;
- : num list list = [[Int 0; Int 0]; [Int 1; Float 1.]; [Float 0.4; Int 1]]
Magic, the order does not matter and the type is recorded! I can then follow didier's idea to get rid of the pair of superfluous parentheses.
i'm trying to learn ocaml right now and wanted to start with a little program, generating all bit-combinations:
["0","0","0"]
["0","0","1"]
["0","1","0"]
... and so on
My idea is the following code:
let rec bitstr length list =
if length = 0 then
list
else begin
bitstr (length-1)("0"::list);
bitstr (length-1)("1"::list);
end;;
But i get the following error:
Warning S: this expression should have type unit.
val bitstr : int -> string list -> string list = <fun>
# bitstr 3 [];;
- : string list = ["1"; "1"; "1"]
I did not understand what to change, can you help me?
Best regards
Philipp
begin foo; bar end executes foo and throws the result away, then it executes bar. Since this makes only sense if foo has side-effects and no meaningful return value ocaml emits a warning if foo has a return value other than unit, since everything else is likely to be a programmer error (i.e. the programmer does not actually intend for the result to be discarded) - as is the case here.
In this case it really does make no sense to calculate the list with "0" and then throw it away. Presumably you want to concatenate the two lists instead. You can do this using the # operator:
let rec bitstr length list =
if length = 0 then
[list]
else
bitstr (length-1)("0"::list) # bitstr (length-1)("1"::list);;
Note that I also made the length = 0 case return [list] instead of just list so the result is a list of lists instead of a flat list.
Although sepp2k's answer is spot on, I would like to add the following alternative (which doesn't match the signature you proposed, but actually does what you want) :
let rec bitstr = function
0 -> [[]]
| n -> let f e = List.map (fun x -> e :: x) and l = bitstr (n-1) in
(f "0" l)#(f "1" l);;
The first difference is that you do not need to pass an empty list to call the function bitsr 2 returns [["0"; "0"]; ["0"; "1"]; ["1"; "0"]; ["1"; "1"]]. Second, it returns a list of ordered binary values. But more importantly, in my opinion, it is closer to the spirit of ocaml.
I like to get other ideas!
So here it is...
let rec gen_x acc e1 e2 n = match n with
| 0 -> acc
| n -> (
let l = List.map (fun x -> e1 :: x) acc in
let r = List.map (fun x -> e2 :: x) acc in
gen_x (l # r) e1 e2 (n - 1)
);;
let rec gen_string = gen_x [[]] "0" "1"
let rec gen_int = gen_x [[]] 0 1
gen_string 2
gen_int 2
Result:
[["0"; "0"]; ["0"; "1"]; ["1"; "0"]; ["1"; "1"]]
[[0; 0]; [0; 1]; [1; 0]; [1; 1]]