Go function declaration syntax - function

I have just started to learn Go language and still trying to digest few things.
I wrote a function add as:
func add(a int, b int) int {
return a + b
}
// works fine
func add(a, b) int {
return a + b
}
// ./hello.go:7: undefined: a
// ./hello.go:7: undefined: b
// Digested: May be I need to give type
func add(a, b int) int {
return a + b
}
// works fine interestingly
func add(a int, b) int {
return a + b
}
// ./hello.go:7: final function parameter must have type
I am really confused or due to lack of knowledge unable to understand the use case of
final function parameter must have type.

I mentioned the IdentifierList in "Can you declare multiple variables at once in Go?": that explains a, b int.
But you need to have a type associated to each parameters of a function, which is not the case in the last int a, b parameter list.
The order is always var type, not type var, following the variable declaration spec:
VarSpec = IdentifierList ( Type [ "=" ExpressionList ] | "=" ExpressionList ) .
You would always find a type after an IdentifierList: a int or a, b int

None of the above are quite correct. The answer is that Go allows you to explicitly give the type for each parameter, as a int, b int, or to use a shorter notation where you list two or more variables separated by commas, ending with the type. So in the case of a,b int - both a and b are defined to be of type integer. You could specify a,b,c,d,e,f int and in this case all of these variables would be assigned a type of int. There is no "undefined" type here. The problem with the (a,b) form of the declaration shown above produces an error because you have specified no type at all for the variables.

Related

Returning a function in Ada

Is it possible, that a function can return a function in Ada? I am trying to get currying to work.
type Integer_Func_Type is access function (Y : Integer) return Integer;
function Add (X : Integer) return Integer_Func_Type is
function Inner (Y : Integer) return Integer is
begin
return X + Y;
end Inner;
begin
return Inner'Access;
end;
At the end, I do not want to provide all arguments of a function one at a time. For example: if x is a ternary function and y is curry(x), then I can use following function calls: y(a,b,c), y(a,b)(c), y(a)(b,c), y(a)(b)(c).
EDIT
I implemented 'Jacob Sparre Andersen' suggestions. But it does not look like currying will be easy to implement. I must implement every possible variant of any type I want to use in advance. Is this correct?
with Ada.Text_IO;
with R;
procedure Hello is
Add_Two : R.Test2 := (X => 2);
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line(Add_Two.Add(3)'Img);
end Hello;
r.adb
package body R is
function Add(A : Test2; Y : Integer) return Integer is
begin
return A.X + Y;
end Add;
end R;
r.ads
package R is
type Test is abstract tagged null record;
function Add(A : Test; Y : Integer) return Integer is abstract;
type Test2 is new Test with
record
X : Integer;
end record;
overriding
function Add(A : Test2; Y : Integer) return Integer;
end R;
This is how to do it with generics:
with Ada.Text_IO;
procedure Test is
-- shorthand Ada 2012 syntax; can also use full body
function Add (X, Y : Integer) return Integer is (X + Y);
generic
type A_Type (<>) is limited private;
type B_Type (<>) is limited private;
type Return_Type (<>) is limited private;
with function Orig (A : A_Type; B : B_Type) return Return_Type;
A : A_Type;
function Curry_2_to_1 (B : B_Type) return Return_Type;
function Curry_2_to_1 (B : B_Type) return Return_Type is
(Orig (A, B));
function Curried_Add is new Curry_2_to_1
(Integer, Integer, Integer, Add, 3);
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line (Integer'Image (Curried_Add (39)));
end Test;
As you see, it is quite verbose. Also, you need to provide a currying implementation for every count X of parameters of the original function and every number Y of parameters of the generated function, so you'd have a lot of Curry_X_to_Y functions. This is necessary because Ada does not have variadic generics.
A lot of the verbosity also comes from Ada not doing type inference: You need to explicitly specifiy A_Type, B_Type and Return_Type even though theoretically, they could be inferred from the given original function (this is what some functional programming languages do).
Finally, you need a named instance from the currying function because Ada does not support anonymous instances of generic functions.
So, in principle, currying does work, but it is not anything as elegant as in a language like Haskell. If you only want currying for a specific type, the code gets significantly shorter, but you also lose flexibility.
You can't do quite what you're trying to do, since Inner stops to exist as soon as Add returns.
You could do something with the effect you describe using tagged types.
One abstract tagged type with a primitive operation matching your function type.
And then a derived tagged type with X as an attribute and an implementation of the function matching Inner.
Many of the answers seem to deal with ways to have subprograms that deal with variable numbers of parameters. One way to deal with this is with a sequence of values. For example,
type Integer_List is array (Positive range <>) of Integer;
function Add (List : Integer_List) return Integer;
can be considered a function that takes an arbitrary number of parameters of type Integer. This is simple if all your parameters have the same type. It's more complicated, but still possible, if you deal with a finite set of possible parameter types:
type Number_ID is (Int, Flt, Dur);
type Number (ID : Number_ID) is record
case ID is
when Int =>
Int_Value : Integer;
when Flt =>
Flt_Value : Float;
when Dur =>
Dur_Value : Duration;
end case;
end record;
type Number_List is array (Positive range <>) of Number;
function Add (List : Number_List) return Number;
If you have to be able to handle types not known in advance, this technique is not suitable.

passing 2 arguments to a function in Haskell

In Haskell, I know that if I define a function like this add x y = x + y
then I call like this add e1 e2. that call is equivalent to (add e1) e2
which means that applying add to one argument e1 yields a new function which is then applied to the second argument e2.
That's what I don't understand in Haskell. in other languages (like Dart), to do the task above, I would do this
add(x) {
return (y) => x + y;
}
I have to explicitly return a function. So does the part "yields a new function which is then applied to the second argument" automatically do underlying in Haskell? If so, what does that "hiding" function look like? Or I just missunderstand Haskell?
In Haskell, everything is a value,
add x y = x + y
is just a syntactic sugar of:
add = \x -> \y -> x + y
For more information: https://wiki.haskell.org/Currying :
In Haskell, all functions are considered curried: That is, all functions > in Haskell take just single arguments.
This is mostly hidden in notation, and so may not be apparent to a new
Haskeller. Let's take the function
div :: Int -> Int -> Int
which performs integer division. The expression div 11 2
unsurprisingly evaluates to 5. But there's more that's going on than
immediately meets the untrained eye. It's a two-part process. First,
div 11
is evaluated and returns a function of type
Int -> Int
Then that resulting function is applied to the value 2, and yields 5.
You'll notice that the notation for types reflects this: you can read
Int -> Int -> Int
incorrectly as "takes two Ints and returns an Int", but what it's
really saying is "takes an Int and returns something of the type Int
-> Int" -- that is, it returns a function that takes an Int and returns an Int. (One can write the type as Int x Int -> Int if you
really mean the former -- but since all functions in Haskell are
curried, that's not legal Haskell. Alternatively, using tuples, you
can write (Int, Int) -> Int, but keep in mind that the tuple
constructor (,) itself can be curried.)

Different brackets style on Scala function definition parameter list

What is the difference of the following two function definitions in Scala:
1) def sum(f: Int => Int)(a: Int, b: Int): Int = { <code removed> }
2) def sum(f: Int => Int, a: Int, b: Int): Int = { <code removed> }
?
SBT's console REPL gives different value for them so looks if they are somehow different:
sum: (f: Int => Int, a: Int, b: Int)Int
sum: (f: Int => Int)(a: Int, b: Int)Int
The first definition is curried, so that you can provide a and b at another time.
For instance, if you know the function you want to use in the current method, but don't yet know the arguments, you can use it so:
def mySum(v: Int): Int = v + 1
val newsum = sum(mySum) _
At this point, newsum is a function that takes two Ints and returns an Int.
In the context of summing it doesn't seem to make much sense; however, there have been plenty of times I've wanted to return different algorithms for parts of a program based upon something I know now, but don't know (or have access to) the parameters yet.
Currying buys you that feature.
Scala functions support multiple parameter lists to aid in currying. From your first example, you can view the first sum function as one that takes two integers and returns another function (i.e. curries) which can then take an Int => Int function as an argument.
This syntax is also used to create functions that look and behave as new syntax. For example, def withResource(r: Resource)(block: => Unit) can be called:
withResource(res) {
..
..
}

Why is my Scala function returning type Unit and not whatever is the last line?

I am trying to figure out the issue, and tried different styles that I have read on Scala, but none of them work. My code is:
....
val str = "(and x y)";
def stringParse ( exp: String, pos: Int, expreshHolder: ArrayBuffer[String], follow: Int )
var b = pos; //position of where in the expression String I am currently in
val temp = expreshHolder; //holder of expressions without parens
var arrayCounter = follow; //just counts to make sure an empty spot in the array is there to put in the strings
if(exp(b) == '(') {
b = b + 1;
while(exp(b) == ' '){b = b + 1} //point of this is to just skip any spaces between paren and start of expression type
if(exp(b) == 'a') {
temp(arrayCounter) = exp(b).toString;
b = b+1;
temp(arrayCounter)+exp(b).toString; b = b+1;
temp(arrayCounter) + exp(b).toString; arrayCounter+=1}
temp;
}
}
val hold: ArrayBuffer[String] = stringParse(str, 0, new ArrayBuffer[String], 0);
for(test <- hold) println(test);
My error is:
Driver.scala:35: error: type mismatch;
found : Unit
required: scala.collection.mutable.ArrayBuffer[String]
ho = stringParse(str, 0, ho, 0);
^one error found
When I add an equals sign after the arguments in the method declaration, like so:
def stringParse ( exp: String, pos: Int, expreshHolder: ArrayBuffer[String], follow: Int ) ={....}
It changes it to "Any". I am confused on how this works. Any ideas? Much appreciated.
Here's a more general answer on how one may approach such problems:
It happens sometimes that you write a function and in your head assume it returns type X, but somewhere down the road the compiler disagrees. This almost always happens when the function has just been written, so while the compiler doesn't give you the actual source (it points to the line where your function is called instead) you normally know that your function's return type is the problem.
If you do not see the type problem straight away, there is the simple trick to explicitly type your function. For example, if you thought your function should have returned Int, but somehow the compiler says it found a Unit, it helps to add : Int to your function. This way, you help the compiler to help you, as it will spot the exact place, where a path in your function returns a non-Int value, which is the actual problem you were looking for in the first place.
You have to add the equals sign if you want to return a value. Now, the reason that your function's return value is Any is that you have 2 control paths, each returning a value of a different type - 1 is when the if's condition is met (and the return value will be temp) and the other is when if's condition isn't (and the return value will be b=b+1, or b after it's incremented).
class Test(condition: Boolean) {
def mixed = condition match {
case true => "Hi"
case false => 100
}
def same = condition match {
case true => List(1,2,3)
case false => List(4,5,6)
}
case class Foo(x: Int)
case class Bar(x: Int)
def parent = condition match {
case true => Foo(1)
case false => Bar(1)
}
}
val test = new Test(true)
test.mixed // type: Any
test.same // type List[Int]
test.parent // type is Product, the case class super type
The compiler will do its best to apply the most specific type it can based on the possible set of result types returned from the conditional (match, if/else, fold, etc.).

standard ml datatype function

I made a datatype of type number that can be either an int or real, and I need to make a function that adds the 2 numbers of type "number", and what I'm having problem with is with the syntax of defining such a syntax, I tried the following but none seems to work.
The code I wrote are the following, the following codes are written like this to check that the function recognizes n to be of type number:
fun plus n:number = "type number";
fun plus n:I = "type int of number";
fun plus n:number.I = "type int of number";
But none seem to work, is the syntax I'm writing in is correct or is it wrong?
Thanks
the datatype number i write is:
datatype number =
I of int
| F of real;
You need to pattern match against your value constructors I and F, and do whatever is appropriate
fun plus (I a) (I b) = I (a+b)
| plus (I a) (F b) = ...
| etc...
This gives you 4 cases. You can of course also do it with only 2 cases, if you make a small helper function that unpacks a number to a real, to encompass all but the int-int case.