let () = Random.self_init();;
let _ = Random.self_init ();;
│- : unit = ()
It seems "let ()" returns nothing ?
Sincerely!
let is the keyword used to define new variables, like in the following construct:
let pattern = expr
For instance
let a = 2
assigns the value 2 to the name a. (Note this is not a way to assign a value to an already existing variable, but this is another topic).
But the pattern to the left of the = sign can be more than just a name. For instance
let (a,b) = (42,"foo")
defines both a and b, to be respectively 42 and "foo".
Of course, the types on both sides must match.
Which is the case here: both sides are of type int * string.
The expressions to the right of the = sign can also be elaborated, for instance
let foo =
let temp = String.make 10 'a' in
temp.[2] <- 'b';
temp
defines foo as the string "aabaaaaaaa". (As a side note, it also ensures that temp is local to this code snippet).
Now, let's use both: on the left, a pattern matching values of type unit, and on the right, an expression of type unit:
let () = Printf.printf "Hello world!\n"
Which explains the let () = construct.
Now, about the let _, one simply needs to know that _ can be used in a pattern as a wildcard: it matches values of any type and does not bind any name. For instance
let (a,_) = (42,"foo")
defines a as 42, and discards the value "foo". _ means "I know there is something here and I explicitly say I will not use it, so I don't name it". Here _ was used to match values of type string, but it can match value of any type, like int * string:
let _ = (42,"foo")
which does not define any variable and is not very useful. Such constructs are useful when the right hand side has side effects, like this:
let _ = Printf.printf "Hello world!\n"
which explains the second part of the question.
Practical purposes
Both are used and it's rather a matter of taste whether to use one or the other.
let () = is slightly safer as it has the compiler check that the right hand side is of type unit.
A value of any other type than unit is often a bug.
let _ = is slightly shorter (I've seen this argument). (Note that with an editor that automatically closes parenthesizes, the number of keystrokes is the same ;-)
I'm not an OCaml expert, although let me share something :)
The let in OCaml can represent two things:
The way you can assign variables;
The way you can declare functions or assign functions to names;
Using examples, you can see clearly how it works:
Assigning variables:
# let ten = 10;;
val ten : int = 10
# let hello_world_string = "Hello World";;
val hello_world_string : string = "Hello World"
Declaring functions:
# let sum a b = a+b;;
val sum : int -> int -> int = <fun>
# sum 2 3;;
- : int = 5
So, answering the question the difference between let ()= and let _= is:
At first example, you are declaring a function that doesn't have name, parameters nor instructions that should output an unit. The second example, you aren't assigning to _, that is OCaml's wildcard, any value.
As we can see below, we can define a function, that will be executed immediatly because we won't be able to call it anymore:
# let () = print_string "Hello";;
Hello
Or assign to OCaml's wildcard a type and value, or a function:
# let _ = 10;;
- : int = 10
# let _ = print_string "Maybe I answered your question :) ";;
Maybe I answered your question :) - : unit = ()
Related
I am trying to get the value of a type in my code. There is a x which is a stmt and the value is ("x" 1).
I want to get that "x" and use it as a key to find a value in a hashtable.
What I am asking is how to extract the "x".
type variable = string
type expr = int
type arrayref = variable * expr
type stmt = Dim of arrayref
let x = Dim("x",1);;
let aa (sbc:stmt) = match sbc with
|Dim a -> None;;
I should replace None to some codes, but no idea how to do that.
I'm not completely sure, but I think you're asking how to access a component of a compound value. For tuples and variants, the way to do this is with pattern matching. So you have that right. You just need to make your pattern a little deeper. To get the "x" from your value x you would do something like this:
let extracted_value =
match x with
| Dim (k, _) -> k
in
. . .
Since there is only one constructor in your stmt type (at least right now), you can do this without a match as follows:
let Dim (extracted_value, _) = x in
. . .
This works because there is a single pattern that is exhaustive. For types with more constructors you need to use match to handle all the possibilities.
If this isn't what you're asking, maybe try asking again in a different way.
Update
To print the string you could write something like this:
let Dim (k, _) = x in print_string k
I want to do several things inside a if then else.
I read a string and then I check it's lenght. If it's 3 it does X, if it's 4 it does Y.
I tried:
let str = read_line ()
let first_approach () =
if String.lenght str = 3
then let char1 = String.get str 0
let char2 = String.get str 1
let char3 = String.get str 2
else ()
let second_approach () =
if String.lenght str = 3
then let char1 = String.get str 0
let char2 = String.get str 1
let char3 = String.get str 2
let char4 = String.get str 3
else ()
I want to know how to make all things inside then work. Because I get Syntax error.
Thank you in advance.
There are quite a few problems with this code.
At the outermost level of a module (e.g., a source file or REPL input), you can use let var = val to define a global variable. In your code you're using this construct to define str, for example.
However, whenever let appears anywhere else (inside a declaration or expression) it is used to define a local variable, and must be followed by in and the expression in which the local definition is used. Since you don't have in in your definitions of first_approach and second_approach, your code isn't syntactically valid.
Since the definitions inside first_approach and second_approach are local, there will be no effect after you call them. The definitions for char1 and so on, even if syntactically corrected, won't be global. (As #melpomene says, the code doesn't do anything.)
If you have several expressions separated by ; you can use begin / end to group them into one expression after then or else.
let f x =
if x > 5 then
begin
Printf.printf "x is quite large\n";
Printf.printf "adios\n"
end
If a string s is of length 3, there is no character String.get s 3.
# let s = "abc";;
val s : string = "abc"
# String.get s 3;;
Exception: Invalid_argument "index out of bounds".
You can assign multiple variables in a single let using
let (a, b, c) = (1, 2, 3)
Or using your string example:
let (char1, char2, char3, char4_opt) =
if String.lenght str = 3
then (str.[0], str.[1], str.[2], None)
else (str.[0], str.[1], str.[2], Some str.[3])
Note: I used char4_opt with an option type because there is nothing to put in there for length 3 strings.
I am C# dev that has just starting to learn F# and I have a few questions about unit testing. Let's say I want to the following code:
let input () = Console.In.ReadLine()
type MyType= {Name:string; Coordinate:Coordinate}
let readMyType =
input().Split(';')
|> fun x -> {Name=x.[1]; Coordinate = {
Longitude = float(x.[4].Replace(",","."))
Latitude =float(x.[5].Replace(",","."))
}}
As you can notice, there are a few points to take in consideration:
readMyType is calling input() with has a side effect.
readMyType assume many thing on the string read (contains ';' at least 6 columns, some columns are float with ',')
I think the way of doing this would be to:
inject the input() func as parameter
try to test what we are getting (pattern matching?)
Using NUnit as explained here
To be honest I'm just struggling to find an example that is showing me this, in order to learn the syntax and other best practices in F#. So if you could show me the path that would be very great.
Thanks in advance.
First, your function is not really a function. It's a value. The distinction between functions and values is syntactic: if you have any parameters, you're a function; otherwise - you're a value. The consequence of this distinction is very important in presence of side effects: values are computed only once, during initialization, and then never change, while functions are executed every time you call them.
For your specific example, this means that the following program:
let main _ =
readMyType
readMyType
readMyType
0
will ask the user for only one input, not three. Because readMyType is a value, it gets initialized once, at program start, and any subsequent reference to it just gets the pre-computed value, but doesn't execute the code over again.
Second, - yes, you're right: in order to test this function, you'd need to inject the input function as a parameter:
let readMyType (input: unit -> string) =
input().Split(';')
|> fun x -> {Name=x.[1]; Coordinate = {
Longitude = float(x.[4].Replace(",","."))
Latitude =float(x.[5].Replace(",","."))
}}
and then have the tests supply different inputs and check different outcomes:
let [<Test>] ``Successfully parses correctly formatted string``() =
let input() = "foo;the_name;bar;baz;1,23;4,56"
let result = readMyType input
result |> should equal { Name = "the_name"; Coordinate = { Longitude = 1.23; Latitude = 4.56 } }
let [<Test>] ``Fails when the string does not have enough parts``() =
let input() = "foo"
(fun () -> readMyType input) |> shouldFail
// etc.
Put these tests in a separate project, add reference to your main project, then add test runner to your build script.
UPDATE
From your comments, I got the impression that you were seeking not only to test the function as it is (which follows from your original question), but also asking for advice on improving the function itself, so as to make it more safe and usable.
Yes, it is definitely better to check error conditions within the function, and return appropriate result. Unlike C#, however, it is usually better to avoid exceptions as control flow mechanism. Exceptions are for exceptional situations. For such situations that you would have never expected. That is why they are exceptions. But since the whole point of your function is parsing input, it stands to reason that invalid input is one of the normal conditions for it.
In F#, instead of throwing exceptions, you would usually return a result that indicates whether the operation was successful. For your function, the following type seems appropriate:
type ErrorMessage = string
type ParseResult = Success of MyType | Error of ErrorMessage
And then modify the function accordingly:
let parseMyType (input: string) =
let parts = input.Split [|';'|]
if parts.Length < 6
then
Error "Not enough parts"
else
Success
{ Name = parts.[0]
Coordinate = { Longitude = float(parts.[4].Replace(',','.')
Latitude = float(parts.[5].Replace(',','.') }
}
This function will return us either MyType wrapped in Success or an error message wrapped in Error, and we can check this in tests:
let [<Test>] ``Successfully parses correctly formatted string``() =
let input() = "foo;the_name;bar;baz;1,23;4,56"
let result = readMyType input
result |> should equal (Success { Name = "the_name"; Coordinate = { Longitude = 1.23; Latitude = 4.56 } })
let [<Test>] ``Fails when the string does not have enough parts``() =
let input() = "foo"
let result = readMyType input
result |> should equal (Error "Not enough parts)
Note that, even though the code now checks for enough parts in the string, there are still other possible error conditions: for example, parts.[4] may be not a valid number.
I am not going to expand on this further, as that will make the answer way too long. I will only stop to mention two points:
Unlike C#, verifying all error conditions does not have to end up as a pyramid of doom. Validations can be nicely combined in a linear-looking way (see example below).
The F# 4.1 standard library already provides a type similar to ParseResult above, named Result<'t, 'e>.
For more on this approach, check out this wonderful post (and don't forget to explore all links from it, especially the video).
And here, I will leave you with an example of what your function could look like with full validation of everything (keep in mind though that this is not the cleanest version still):
let parseFloat (s: string) =
match System.Double.TryParse (s.Replace(',','.')) with
| true, x -> Ok x
| false, _ -> Error ("Not a number: " + s)
let split n (s:string) =
let parts = s.Split [|';'|]
if parts.Length < n then Error "Not enough parts"
else Ok parts
let parseMyType input =
input |> split 6 |> Result.bind (fun parts ->
parseFloat parts.[4] |> Result.bind (fun lgt ->
parseFloat parts.[5] |> Result.bind (fun lat ->
Ok { Name = parts.[1]; Coordinate = { Longitude = lgt; Latitude = lat } } )))
Usage:
> parseMyType "foo;name;bar;baz;1,23;4,56"
val it : Result<MyType,string> = Ok {Name = "name";
Coordinate = {Longitude = 1.23;
Latitude = 4.56;};}
> parseMyType "foo"
val it : Result<MyType,string> = Error "Not enough parts"
> parseMyType "foo;name;bar;baz;badnumber;4,56"
val it : Result<MyType,string> = Error "Not a number: badnumber"
This is a little follow-up to the excellent answer of #FyodorSoikin trying to explore the suggestion
keep in mind though that this is not the cleanest version still
Making the ParseResult generic
type ParseResult<'a> = Success of 'a | Error of ErrorMessage
type ResultType = ParseResult<Defibrillator> // see the Test Cases
we can define a builder
type Builder() =
member x.Bind(r :ParseResult<'a>, func : ('a -> ParseResult<'b>)) =
match r with
| Success m -> func m
| Error w -> Error w
member x.Return(value) = Success value
let builder = Builder()
so we get a concise notation:
let parse input =
builder {
let! parts = input |> split 6
let! lgt = parts.[4] |> parseFloat
let! lat = parts.[5] |> parseFloat
return { Name = parts.[1]; Coordinate = { Longitude = lgt; Latitude = lat } }
}
Test Cases
Tests are always fundamental
let [<Test>] ``3. Successfully parses correctly formatted string``() =
let input = "foo;the_name;bar;baz;1,23;4,56"
let result = parse input
result |> should equal (ResultType.Success { Name = "the_name"; Coordinate = { Longitude = 1.23; Latitude = 4.56 } })
let [<Test>] ``3. Fails when the string does not have enough parts``() =
let input = "foo"
let result = parse input
result |> should equal (ResultType.Error "Not enough parts")
let [<Test>] ``3. Fails when the string does not contain a number``() =
let input = "foo;name;bar;baz;badnumber;4,56"
let result = parse input
result |> should equal (ResultType.Error "Not a number: badnumber")
Notice the usage of a specific ParseResult from the generic one.
minor note
Double.TryParse is just enough in the following
let parseFloat (s: string) =
match Double.TryParse s with
| true, x -> Success x
| false, _ -> Error ("Not a number: " + s)
Why is this Ocaml statement giving me a syntax error?
let a = 0;; if a = 0 then let b = 0;;
Do if then else statements always have to return a value?
EDIT: Here is the code I am struggling with. I want to apply this function over a list with the map function. The function is supposed to look at each word in the list wordlist and add to the stringmap. If it has already been added to the string map then add 1 to its password.
module StringMap = Map.Make(String)
let wordcount = StringMap.empty
let findword testword =
let wordcount = (if (StringMap.mem testword wordcount)
then (StringMap.add testword ((StringMap.find testword wordcount)+1) wordcount)
else (StringMap.add testword 1 wordcount))
List.map findword wordlist
You can only have an if then without else if the then expression evaluates to unit () Otherwise, the expression will not type check. An if without an else is equivalent to writing if x then y else () which can only type check if y is unit.
Check this out for a reference.
(Terminology note: there are no statements in OCaml because everything is an expression, so the term "if statement" doesn't quite apply. I still understood what you meant, but I thought this was worth noting)
Yes, if is an expression in OCaml, not a statement. The best way to look at it is that there are no statements in OCaml. Everything is an expression. (Admittedly there are expressions that return (), which are similar to statements.)
You can only have if b then e if the type of e is unit (i.e., if it returns ()).
Note also that you can't just say let v = e, except at the top level of a module. At the top level it defines a global name in the module. In other cases you need to say let v = e1 in e2; the let defines a local symbol v for use in the expression e2.
One answer to the let b = problem - it works like this:
let a = 0
let b = if a = 0 then 0 else 1
(* or whatever value you need in the else branch *)
And then the Map problem: the manual says Map is applicative - that means Stringmap.add returns a new map. You must use a ref to store your map - see this ocaml toplevel protocol:
# module StringMap = Map.Make(String);;
# let mymap = ref StringMap.empty ;;
val mymap : '_a StringMap.t ref = {contents = <abstr>}
# mymap := StringMap.add "high" 1 !mymap;;
- : unit = ()
# StringMap.mem "high" !mymap;;
- : bool = true
# StringMap.mem "nono" !mymap;;
- : bool = false
# StringMap.find "high" !mymap;;
- : int = 1
# StringMap.find "nono" !mymap;;
Exception: Not_found.
When using OCaml, I almost always use underscore wildcard in let _ = exp, especially when the result of exp is not important, but the computation inside it is. For example:
let _ = print_endline "abc" in
...
let _ = a := !a + 1 in
...
let _ = do_some_thing ... in
So, I just wonder if there is any side effect of extensively using let _ = ... ?
The side effect is annoying bugs to track in your software in the future. The problem with let _ = is that it will silently ignore partial applications you intended to be total. Suppose you write the following:
let f a b = ...
let _ = f 3 4
And that in the future you add an argument to f:
let f a b c = ...
The expression let _ = f 3 4 will still silently compile and your program will not invoke the function, leaving you wondering what is happening. It is much better to always let to () and use ignore when if you need to ignore a non unit result:
let () = ignore (f 3 4)
let () = print_endline "abc"
Using let _ = ... should be considered bad style.
No, there is absolutely no consequence to using let _ = extensively. The compiler does not add a name to the global environment since you didn't give one.
The purpose of let is to bind values to identifiers. If you doing side-effects only it's its better to wrap it in a begin .. end block. In your case:
begin
print_endline "abc";
a := !a + 1;
do_some_thing ();
end