I'm trying to match against a hash table in typed racket, but I keep getting the following error. The code works fine in untyped racket and I've tried changing it up some to no effect. The error looks like it's happening somewhere after the match macro gets expanded but I'm not familiar enough with racket to understand where or how to debug the issue.
Is is possible to use the hash-table pattern in typed racket?
(match (make-hash '((a . 2) (b . 3) (c . 2)))
[(hash-table _ ...) #t])
Type Checker: Polymorphic function `hash-map' could not be applied to arguments:
Domains: HashTableTop (-> Any Any c) Any
HashTableTop (-> Any Any c)
(HashTable a b) (-> a b c) Any
(HashTable a b) (-> a b c)
Arguments: (Mutable-HashTable Symbol Integer) (All (a) (-> a * (Listof a)))
it's impossible.
in the match macro, the hash-table form expands to syntax that includes the hash-map function, viz (lambda (e) (hash-map e list)). this is correct but its type is too abstract for typed racket to infer it. for the type checker to be satisfied, we'd need:
(lambda #:forall (k v) ([e : (HashTable k v)])
(hash-map e
(λ ([k : k] [v : v])
(list k v))))
there's no practical way to specify this, so the hash-table matcher is unusable in typed racket.
if a for loop is usually best, e.g.
(for ([(k v) (make-hash '((a . 2) (b . 3) (c . 2)))] #:when (even? v))
(printf "~a and ~a~n" k v))
or else something like (hash-keys m)
otherwise, positional matching requires advanced knoweldge of typed racket. for example, the following function, hash-set/cond, takes a hash table and arguments of the form (flag k v) ... and updates (if key already in table) or inserts (if key not already in table) each k/v pair if its associated flag is truthy:
(: hash-set/cond (∀ (k v) (->* ((HashTable k v))
#:rest-star (Any k v)
(HashTable k v))))
(define (hash-set/cond ht . args)
(let loop ([ht : (HashTable k v) ht]
[args : (Rec r (U (List* Any k v r) Null)) args])
(if (null? args)
ht
(loop (if (car args)
(hash-set ht (cadr args) (caddr args))
ht)
(cdddr args)))))
e.g.
(hash-set/cond (hash 'a 20 'b "yes")
(even? 3) 'a 10 ; 3's not even, so 'a isn't modified
#t 'b "canary" ; necessarily set 'b to "canary"
'im-a-truthy-value! 'c 'new-value) ; ditto
returns #hash((a . 20) (b . "canary") (c . new-value)).
so if you end-up using typed racket a lot and want to use this kind of functionality, then it can be very useful in certain places! still, typed racket's type system can represent—but not handle—certain recursive hash table types. this is because, when checking the type of the value, hash? cannot refine the type of the hash table beyond it being a hash table with some type of key and value, i.e. hash? : (-> Any Boolean : HashTableTop) instead of (-> Any Boolean : (HashTable k v)). this makes recursing over particular recursively defined JSON schemata impossible. in these cases you must use untyped racket, though the saving grace here is that racket contracts can handle such complex definitions.
if your project is heavily based on complex hash tables, then clojure or janet are likely better language choices.
Related
I need to be able to compare two cars of a list to sort them im LISP.
Lists '(e d) (a b)
I want to compare the cars (e and a). This works using eql. If they don't match, I want to order the lists alphabetically, so (a b) (e d).
I'm missing the part where I can see which character is 'bigger', so the check if e or a should come first. I've tried converting them to ascii codes, but that doesn't work for (car a). Using arithmetic operators such as '<' and '>' also doesn't work. Does anyone have an idea on how to do this?
Use string> without symbol-name:
CL-USER 6 > (string> 'a 'b)
NIL
CL-USER 7 > (string< 'a 'b)
0
For the sake of completeness, here is how you should use it inside sort to achieve desired result (sort is destructive- modifies used sequence, so I also used copy-tree to avoid that effect):
(let ((data '((e d) (a b))))
(sort (copy-tree data)
(lambda (x y) (string< (car x) (car y)))))
((A B) (E D))
A symbol is distinct from a string.
CL-USER> (symbol-name 'foo)
"FOO"
A string (a sequence of characters) can be compared in the manner you seem to be interested in.
CL-USER> (string> "FOO" "BOO")
0
CL-USER> (string< "FOO" "BOO")
NIL
I'm trying to create a custom reverse of list in Lisp. I'm pretty new to Lisp programming, and still struggling with syntax. This is my code so far
(defun new-union(l1 l2)
(setq l (union l1 l2))
(let (res)
(loop for x in l
do(setq res (cons (car l) res))
do(setq l (cdr l)))))
Here I'm taking two lists, and forming union list l. Then for reversing the list l I'm accessing element wise to append it to a new list res. Then consequently using the cons, car and cdr to update the list.
However, I'm getting a weird output. Can someone please suggest where I'm going wrong?
I'm aware of an inbuilt function for the same called nreverse , but I wanted to experiment to see how the Lisp interprets the data in list.
On printing res at the end, for example
(new-union '(a b c) '(d e f))
the output for above call gives me
(L A A A A A A A X X)
I think I'm doing the looping wrong.
Problems
(summary of previous comments)
Bad indentation, spaces, and names; prefer this:
(defun new-union (l1 l2)
(setq list (union l1 l2))
(let (reversed)
(loop for x in list
do (setq res (cons (car list) reversed))
do (setq list (cdr list)))))
Usage of SETQ on undeclared, global variables, instead of a LET
Mutation of the structure being iterated (LIST)
Not using X inside the LOOP (why define it?)
The return value is always NIL
Refactoring
(defun new-union (l1 l2)
(let ((reverse))
(dolist (elt (union l1 l2) reverse)
(push elt reverse))))
Define a local reverse variable, bound to NIL by default (you could set it to '(), this is sometimes preferred).
Use DOLIST to iterate over a list and perform side-effects; the third argument is the return value; here you can put the reverse variable where we accumulate the reversed list.
For each element elt, push it in front of reverse; if you want to avoid push for learning purposes, use (setf reverse (cons elt reverse)).
Common Lisp is multi-paradigm and favors pragmatic solutions: sometimes a loop is more natural or more efficient, and there is no reason to force yourself to adopt a functional style.
Functional implementation
However, lists provide a natural inductive structure: recursive approaches may be more appropriate in some cases.
If you wanted to use a functional style to compute reverse, be aware that tail-call optimization, though commonly available, is not required by the language specification (it depends on your implementation capabilities and compiler options).
With default settings, SBCL eliminates calls in tail positions and would eliminate the risk of stack overflows with large inputs. But there are other possible ways to obtain bad algorithmic complexities (and wasteful code) if you are not careful.
The following is what I'd use to define the combination of union and reverse; in particular, I prefer to define a local function with labels to avoid calling new-union with a dummy nil parameter. Also, I iterate the list resulting from the union only once.
(defun new-union (l1 l2)
(labels ((rev (list acc)
(etypecase list
(null acc)
(cons (rev (rest list)
(cons (first list) acc))))))
(rev (union l1 l2) nil)))
Trace
0: (NEW-UNION (A B C) (D E F))
1: (UNION (A B C) (D E F))
1: UNION returned (C B A D E F)
1: (REV (C B A D E F) NIL)
2: (REV (B A D E F) (C))
3: (REV (A D E F) (B C))
4: (REV (D E F) (A B C))
5: (REV (E F) (D A B C))
6: (REV (F) (E D A B C))
7: (REV NIL (F E D A B C))
7: REV returned (F E D A B C)
6: REV returned (F E D A B C)
5: REV returned (F E D A B C)
4: REV returned (F E D A B C)
3: REV returned (F E D A B C)
2: REV returned (F E D A B C)
1: REV returned (F E D A B C)
0: NEW-UNION returned (F E D A B C)
Remark
It is quite surprising to reverse the result of union, when the union is supposed to operate on unordered sets: the order of elements in the result do not have to reflect the ordering of list-1 or list-2 in any way. Sets are unordered collections having no duplicates; if your input lists already represent sets, as hinted by the name of the function (new-union), then it makes no sense to remove duplicates or expect the order to be meaningful.
If, instead, the input lists represents sequences of values, then the order matters; feel free to use append or concatenate in combination with remove-duplicates, but note that the latter will remove elements in front of the list by default:
(remove-duplicates (concatenate 'list '(4 5 6) '(2 3 4)))
=> (5 6 2 3 4)
You may want to use :from-end t instead.
Ok...I think you want to take two lists, combine them together, remove duplicates, and then reverse them.
Your biggest problem is that you're using loops instead of recursion. LISP was born to do list processing using recursion. It's far more natural.
Below is a very simple example of how to do that:
(defvar l1 '(a b c)) ;first list
(defvar l2 '(d e f)) ;second list
(defun my-reverse (a b) ;a and b are lists
"combines a and b into lst, removes duplicates, and reverses using recursion"
(let ((lst (remove-duplicates (append a b))))
(if (> (length lst) 0)
(append (last lst) (my-reverse nil (butlast lst)))
nil)))
Sample Run compiled in SLIME using SBCL
; compilation finished in 0:00:00.010
CL-USER> l1 ;; verify l1 variable
(A B C)
CL-USER> l2 ;; verify l2 variable
(D E F)
CL-USER> (append l1 l2) ;; append l1 and l2
(A B C D E F)
CL-USER> (my-reverse l1 l2) ;; reverse l1 and l2
(F E D C B A)
Suppose I want to convert the following untyped code into typed racket. These functions are inspired by SICP where they show how a data structure can be constructed purely from functions.
(define (make-pair x y)
(lambda (c)
(cond
((= c 1) x)
((= c 2) y)
(error "error in input, should be 1 or 2"))))
(define (first p) (p 1))
(define (second p) (p 2))
To convert it straight to typed racket, the return value of the make-pair function seems to be (: make-pair (All (A B) (-> A B (-> Number (U A B))))). And following this, the type of first should be (: first (All (A B) (-> (-> Number (U A B)) A))). However, while implementing the function we can't call (p 1) directly now because we need some sort of occurrence typing to make sure first returns only of type A. Changing the return type of first to (U A B) works but then the burden of occurrence typing goes on the user and not in the API. So in this scenario how can we use occurrence typing inside first (that is, how to use a predicate for type variable A) so that we can safely return only the first component of the pair?
UPDATE
I tried an approach which differs a bit from above and requires the predicates for A and B to be supplied as arguments to make-pair function. Below is the code:
#lang typed/racket
(define-type FuncPair (All (A B) (List (-> Number (U A B)) (-> A Boolean) (-> B Boolean))))
(: make-pair (All (A B) (-> A B (-> A Boolean) (-> B Boolean) (FuncPair A B))))
(define (make-pair x y x-pred y-pred)
(list
(lambda ([c : Number])
(cond
((= c 1) x)
((= c 2) y)
(else (error "Wrong input!"))))
x-pred
y-pred))
(: first (All (A B) (-> (FuncPair A B) Any)))
(define (first p)
(let ([pair-fn (car p)]
[fn-pred (cadr p)])
(let ([f-value (pair-fn 1)])
(if (fn-pred f-value)
f-value
(error "Cannot get first value in pair")))))
However, this fails in the check (fn-pred f-value) condition with error expected: A
given: (U A B) in: f-value
From the untyped code at the start of your question, it seems like a pair of A and B is a function that given 1, gives back A, and given 2, gives back B. The way to express this type of function is with a case-> type:
#lang typed/racket
(define-type (Pairof A B)
(case-> [1 -> A] [2 -> B]))
The accessors can be defined the same way as your original untyped code, just by adding type annotations:
(: first : (All (A B) [(Pairof A B) -> A]))
(define (first p) (p 1))
(: second : (All (A B) [(Pairof A B) -> B]))
(define (second p) (p (ann 2 : 2)))
The type of the constructor should be:
(: make-pair : (All (A B) [A B -> (Pairof A B)]))
But the constructor doesn't quite work as-is. One thing wrong with it is that your else clause is missing the else part of it. Fixing that gives you:
(: make-pair : (All (A B) [A B -> (Pairof A B)]))
(define (make-pair x y)
(lambda (c)
(cond
[(= c 1) x]
[(= c 2) y]
[else (error "error in input, should be 1 or 2")])))
This is almost right, and if typed racket were awesome enough, it would be. Typed racket treats equal? specially for occurrence typing, but it doesn't do the same thing for =. Changing = to equal? fixes it.
(: make-pair : (All (A B) [A B -> (Pairof A B)]))
(define (make-pair x y)
(lambda (c)
(cond
[(equal? c 1) x]
[(equal? c 2) y]
[else (error "error in input, should be 1 or 2")])))
Ideally occurrence typing should work with =, but perhaps the fact that things like (= 2 2.0) return true makes that both harder to implement and less useful.
In typed/racket I have a case like [(? procedure? p ) (apply p xv*)]
It will cause error:
Type Checker: Function has no cases in: (apply p xv*)
So I write a test case to detect the reason:
#lang typed/racket
(: test-match-apply-0 (-> (-> Any * Any) (Listof Any) Any))
(define test-match-apply-0
(lambda (x args)
(match x
[(? procedure? p) (apply p args)])))
;; Type Checker: Function has no cases in: (apply p args)
(test-match-apply-0 + (list 1 2 3)) ;; not ok
(apply + (list 2 4)) ;; ok
(: test-match-apply-1 (-> (-> (Listof Any) Any) (Listof Any) Any))
(define test-match-apply-1
(lambda (x args)
(match x
[(? procedure? p) (apply p args)])))
(test-match-apply-1 + (list 1 2 3)) ;; not ok
;; For int is it right
(: test-match-apply-2 (-> (-> (Listof Any) Any) (Listof Number) Number))
(define test-match-apply-2
(lambda (x args)
(match x
[(? procedure? p) (apply p args)])))
(test-match-apply-2 + (list 1 2 3)) ;; not ok
(: test-match-apply-3 (-> (-> Number * Number) (Listof Number) Number))
(define test-match-apply-3
(lambda (x args)
(match x
[(? procedure? p) (apply p args)])))
(test-match-apply-3 + (list 1 2 3)) ;; it is ok
I print the + itself:
> (:print-type +)
(case->
(-> Zero)
(-> Number Number)
(-> Zero Zero Zero)
(-> Number Zero Number)
(-> Zero Number Number)
(-> Positive-Byte Positive-Byte Positive-Index)
(-> Byte Byte Index)
(-> Positive-Byte Positive-Byte Positive-Byte Positive-Index)
(-> Byte Byte Byte Index)
(-> Positive-Index Index Positive-Fixnum)
(-> Index Positive-Index Positive-Fixnum)
(-> Positive-Index Index Index Positive-Fixnum)
(-> Index Positive-Index Index Positive-Fixnum)
(-> Index Index Positive-Index Positive-Fixnum)
(->* (Index Index) (Index) Nonnegative-Fixnum)
.....
Come back to my origin needs, How can I make it [(? procedure? p ) (apply p xv*)] possible in typed/racket? Because in the case I can't detect p 's type. Something like type-apply?
The reason Typed Racket can’t apply that procedure is because it knows nothing about it aside from the fact that it is a procedure. It might not take any arguments, for example, in which case that apply would cause a runtime error. It might take a different kind of argument, or it might even have required keyword arguments. TR doesn’t know any of this just from the procedure? predicate succeeding, so it doesn’t allow you to invoke such a value.
This is tricky, because there is no predicate that will allow you to inspect enough details about the function that will make it safe to apply. You basically have two options:
Constrain the type of the input so that procedure? will restrict it to a specific function type. You can do this by making the input a union of specific types. For example, this typechecks:
(: constrained ((U String Number (String * -> String)) -> String))
(define (constrained x)
(match x
[(? string?) x]
[(? number?) (number->string x)]
[(? procedure?) (apply x '("a" "b" "c"))]))
Even though the type is a union type here, since there is only one possible case for which the procedure? predicate is true, TR can restrict the type to a properly applicable value.
The type of the function itself can get pretty fancy, and TR can still figure it out. For example, it still works with a polymorphic type:
(: poly-constrained (All [a] (U String Number (a * -> String)) (Listof a) -> String))
(define (poly-constrained x lst)
(match x
[(? string?) x]
[(? number?) (number->string x)]
[(? procedure?) (apply x lst)]))
Alternatively, you can use cast. This will allow you to tell TR to perform a dynamic check that a value matches a particular type.
(: unconstrained (Any -> String))
(define (unconstrained x)
(match x
[(? string?) x]
[(? number?) (number->string x)]
[(? procedure?) (apply (cast x (String * -> String)) '("a" "b" "c"))]))
However, note that this is a little big dangerous! There are a couple pitfalls to using cast:
The check generates a typed/untyped boundary for a single value, effectively the same sort of boundary between typed and untyped modules. This means that cast generates a contract, which is checked at runtime, which, unlike static types, takes time and can reduce performance significantly if used in a tight loop.
Since cast performs the check dynamically, you lose one of the main benefits of Typed Racket: static type safety. If, for example, someone provides a procedure that does not match the given type, a runtime error will occur, which is precisely the sort of thing Typed Racket is designed to prevent.
If possible, you probably want to use the first approach so that you don’t compromise type safety, but in cases where predicates are not good enough, you can use cast. Just be aware of the downsides before you choose it.
I'm trying to get a bit into Typed Racket, but I'm having some trouble getting an (admittedly rather constructed) experiment to work.
This is what I originally had:
#lang typed/racket
(: generate-list
(All (A)
((A -> A) (Integer -> A) Integer -> (Listof A))))
(define (generate-list function location-function num-items)
(let: loop : (Listof A)
((count : Integer 0)
(result : (Listof A) (list)))
(if (>= count num-items)
(reverse result)
(loop (+ count 1)
(cons (function (location-function count)) result)))))
; ---------------------------------
(: f (Number -> Number))
(define (f x) (* x x))
(: locf (Integer -> Number))
(define (locf x) x)
; ---------------------------------
(displayln (generate-list f locf 10))
Which has the output:
(0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81)
Which is nice. Then I figured I could make this a bit better documented by giving the function and location-function a defined type:
#lang typed/racket
(define-type (ListGenFunction A) (A -> A))
(define-type (ListGenLocFunction A) (Integer -> A))
(: generate-list
(All (A)
(ListGenFunction ListGenLocFunction Integer -> (Listof A))))
(define (generate-list function location-function num-items)
(let: loop : (Listof A)
((count : Integer 0)
(result : (Listof A) (list)))
(if (>= count num-items)
(reverse result)
(loop (+ count 1)
(cons (function (location-function count)) result)))))
; ----------- Numbers! ------------
(: f ListGenFunction)
(define (f x) (* x x))
(: locf ListGenLocFunction)
(define (locf x) x)
; ---------------------------------
(displayln (generate-list f locf 10))
Now here's where the problems start (and I really hope some experienced Typed Racketeers aren't facepalming too hard right now). For one, the type checker gives me an error on the line where I define f. The message is rather lengthy, but it's basically: "Type Checker: No function domains matched in function application: Types: ... in: (* x x)". I thought I defined a type that has one parameter of a generic type A that returns a generic type A? Wouldn't (* x x) work? Or is there some need to "tag" the type? (Like in C++-like languages where it's list<int> for example)
On top of that: Now my type-definition for the function generate-list has a return type of "(Listof A)". But that A is not at all declared to be the same A that the parameters with the types ListGenFunction and ListGenLocFunction expect. I kind of want to make that connection, however, so that anyone who uses that function can be sure that the types of his provided functions match the type of the returning list items.
How do I do this correctly?
PS:
I'm not sure if I described my intention in the last paragraph so that anyone can understand it. But if you take some generic pseudo-C++-like code, I want to get the following:
list<T> generate-list(LGF<T> f, LGLF<T> locf, int count) { ... }
So that all T's are exactly the same.
There are two problems here, both of which stem from the same confusion. You're using a generic type, ListGenFunction, without telling Typed Racket (or the reader of your program) what particular type you're using it with.
For example, f isn't an arbitrary ListGenFunction, it's a ListGenFunction that works specifically on numbers. So you should write:
(: f (ListGenFunction Integer))
and
(: locf (ListGenLocFunction Integer))
Similarly, you should give generate-list a type like this:
(: generate-list
(All (A)
((ListGenFunction A) (ListGenLocFunction A) Integer -> (Listof A))))
This is just like how you explicitly say that you're producing a (Listof A), not just a Listof.