type inference - Understanding F# Value Restriction Errors -


I do not understand how price restrictions work in the work of F #. I have read this explanation as well. I do not understand:

  1. For example, this gives me a price restriction error (taken from the question):

      Let's go toleq (e: float & lt; _ & gt;) AB = (abdomen (A - B)) & lt; E   

    but it is not:

      Iqbal e (a: float; _ & gt;) b = (abs (a - b) )) And lieutenant; E    
  2. It's all right ...

      let's_bigger a b = a & lt; B   

    but it is not (it is specified as int):

      ab = a + b    
  3. Why works with built-in parameters to generate value restrictions:

    It:

      Let item_count = list.fold Let it be item_count l = list.fold (funny amp _ - & gt; 1 + acc) 0   

    this vs:

      -> 1 + ACC) 0 l   

    (Note, if I use this function in the code segment, then the VR error occurs. Aagi, but the function I will be assigned to the type used to it, and I want it to be normalized)

    How does it work?

    (I am using the latest F #, v1.9.6.16)

    < p> Edit

    Better / recent information is here:

    (original below)

    I think try to understand a practical point here It has not been done by V.R. Try to follow some simple strategies to go behind and move on from your work. This is a bit of a 'police out' answer, but I'm not sure that this time makes sense to understand the difference of the F # type system (which is going to be changed in modest ways from the release to release). .

    I will advocate two main strategies, first of all, if you are defining a value with function type (type with an arrow '- & gt;'), make sure Please note that this is a syntax function:

      // function that looks like a value, the problem is tupleList = list.map (fun x -> x, x) // it Giving logic to two sides gives a syntax, tupleList l = list.map (fun x -> x, x)    

    Second, if you still want If you face R / normalization problems, then specify the full type of signature to say what you want (and then allows F # as 'F off'):

      // Below is a problem ... let's toleq (e: float & lt; _ & gt;) ab = (abs (a - b))  'u & gt;) B = (stomach (A - B))  
    1. I do not know.

    2. '& gt; There is a perfectly generic function ('a ->' a -> bool) which works for all types, and thus is_bigger generalizes On the other hand, '+' is an 'inline' function which is something Works on starting types and a certain type of some other type; It can only be normalized inside other 'inline' functions, otherwise it should be pinned in a specific way (or default on 'int'). (The 'inline' method of ad-hoc polymophism is that mathematical operators remove the lack of "type classes" in F #).

    3. This 'syntax work' issue I have discussed above; Let's compile in fields / properties, which can not be normal, unlike the function. So if you want it to be normal, then make it a function (see also for another exception in this rule.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Verilog Error: output or inout port "Q" must be connected to a structural net expression -

jasper reports - How to center align barcode using jasperreports and barcode4j -

c# - ASP.NET MVC - Attaching an entity of type 'MODELNAME' failed because another entity of the same type already has the same primary key value -