This chapter describes language extensions and convenience features that are implemented in OCaml, but not described in the OCaml reference manual.
(Introduced in Objective Caml 3.07)
|
An integer literal can be followed by one of the letters l, L or n to indicate that this integer has type int32, int64 or nativeint respectively, instead of the default type int for integer literals. The library modules Int32[Int32], Int64[Int64] and Nativeint[Nativeint] provide operations on these integer types.
(Removed in Objective Caml 3.03)
The syntax for streams and stream parsers is no longer part of the
OCaml language, but available through a Camlp4 syntax
extension. See the Camlp4 reference manual for more information.
Support for basic operations on streams is still available through the
Stream[Stream] module of the standard library.
OCaml programs
that use the stream parser syntax should be compiled with the
-pp camlp4o option to ocamlc and ocamlopt. For interactive use,
run ocaml and issue the #load "dynlink.cma";; command,
followed by the #load "camlp4o.cma";; command.
(Introduced in Objective Caml 1.00)
As mentioned in section 6.7.1, the let rec binding construct, in addition to the definition of recursive functions, also supports a certain class of recursive definitions of non-functional values, such as
which binds name1 to the cyclic list 1::2::1::2::…, and name2 to the cyclic list 2::1::2::1::…Informally, the class of accepted definitions consists of those definitions where the defined names occur only inside function bodies or as argument to a data constructor.
More precisely, consider the expression:
It will be accepted if each one of expr1 … exprn is statically constructive with respect to name1 … namen, is not immediately linked to any of name1 … namen, and is not an array constructor whose arguments have abstract type.
An expression e is said to be statically constructive with respect to the variables name1 … namen if at least one of the following conditions is true:
An expression e is said to be immediately linked to the variable name in the following cases:
(Introduced in Objective Caml 1.00)
In patterns, OCaml recognizes the form ' c ' .. ' d ' (two character literals separated by ..) as shorthand for the pattern
where c1, c2, …, cn are the characters that occur between c and d in the ASCII character set. For instance, the pattern '0'..'9' matches all characters that are digits.
(Introduced in Objective Caml 1.06)
OCaml supports the assert construct to check debugging assertions. The expression assert expr evaluates the expression expr and returns () if expr evaluates to true. Otherwise, the exception Assert_failure is raised with the source file name and the location of expr as arguments. Assertion checking can be turned off with the -noassert compiler option.
As a special case, assert false is reduced to raise (Assert_failure ...), which is polymorphic (and is not turned off by the -noassert option).
(Introduced in Objective Caml 1.06 for expressions; in Objective Caml 3.11 for patterns)
The expression lazy expr returns a value v of type Lazy.t that encapsulates the computation of expr. The argument expr is not evaluated at this point in the program. Instead, its evaluation will be performed the first time Lazy.force is applied to the value v, returning the actual value of expr. Subsequent applications of Lazy.force to v do not evaluate expr again. Applications of Lazy.force may be implicit through pattern matching.
The pattern lazy pattern matches values v of type Lazy.t, provided pattern matches the result of forcing v with Lazy.force. A successful match of a pattern containing lazy sub-patterns forces the corresponding parts of the value being matched, even those that imply no test such as lazy value-name or lazy _. Matching a value with a pattern-matching where some patterns contain lazy sub-patterns may imply forcing parts of the value, even when the pattern selected in the end has no lazy sub-pattern.
For more information, see the description of module Lazy in the standard library (see Module Lazy).
(Introduced in Objective Caml 2.00)
The expression let module module-name = module-expr in expr locally binds the module expression module-expr to the identifier module-name during the evaluation of the expression expr. It then returns the value of expr. For example:
let remove_duplicates comparison_fun string_list =
let module StringSet =
Set.Make(struct type t = string
let compare = comparison_fun end) in
StringSet.elements
(List.fold_right StringSet.add string_list StringSet.empty)
(Introduced in Objective Caml 3.07)
|
Recursive module definitions, introduced by the module rec …and … construction, generalize regular module definitions module module-name = module-expr and module specifications module module-name : module-type by allowing the defining module-expr and the module-type to refer recursively to the module identifiers being defined. A typical example of a recursive module definition is:
module rec A : sig
type t = Leaf of string | Node of ASet.t
val compare: t -> t -> int
end
= struct
type t = Leaf of string | Node of ASet.t
let compare t1 t2 =
match (t1, t2) with
(Leaf s1, Leaf s2) -> Pervasives.compare s1 s2
| (Leaf _, Node _) -> 1
| (Node _, Leaf _) -> -1
| (Node n1, Node n2) -> ASet.compare n1 n2
end
and ASet : Set.S with type elt = A.t
= Set.Make(A)
It can be given the following specification:
module rec A : sig
type t = Leaf of string | Node of ASet.t
val compare: t -> t -> int
end
and ASet : Set.S with type elt = A.t
This is an experimental extension of OCaml: the class of recursive definitions accepted, as well as its dynamic semantics are not final and subject to change in future releases.
Currently, the compiler requires that all dependency cycles between the recursively-defined module identifiers go through at least one “safe” module. A module is “safe” if all value definitions that it contains have function types typexpr1 -> typexpr2. Evaluation of a recursive module definition proceeds by building initial values for the safe modules involved, binding all (functional) values to fun _ -> raise Undefined_recursive_module. The defining module expressions are then evaluated, and the initial values for the safe modules are replaced by the values thus computed. If a function component of a safe module is applied during this computation (which corresponds to an ill-founded recursive definition), the Undefined_recursive_module exception is raised.
Private type declarations in module signatures, of the form type t = private ..., enable libraries to reveal some, but not all aspects of the implementation of a type to clients of the library. In this respect, they strike a middle ground between abstract type declarations, where no information is revealed on the type implementation, and data type definitions and type abbreviations, where all aspects of the type implementation are publicized. Private type declarations come in three flavors: for variant and record types (section 7.9.1), for type abbreviations (section 7.9.2), and for row types (section 7.9.3).
(Introduced in Objective Caml 3.07)
|
Values of a variant or record type declared private can be de-structured normally in pattern-matching or via the expr . field notation for record accesses. However, values of these types cannot be constructed directly by constructor application or record construction. Moreover, assignment on a mutable field of a private record type is not allowed.
The typical use of private types is in the export signature of a module, to ensure that construction of values of the private type always go through the functions provided by the module, while still allowing pattern-matching outside the defining module. For example:
module M : sig
type t = private A | B of int
val a : t
val b : int -> t
end
= struct
type t = A | B of int
let a = A
let b n = assert (n > 0); B n
end
Here, the private declaration ensures that in any value of type M.t, the argument to the B constructor is always a positive integer.
With respect to the variance of their parameters, private types are handled like abstract types. That is, if a private type has parameters, their variance is the one explicitly given by prefixing the parameter by a ‘+’ or a ‘-’, it is invariant otherwise.
(Introduced in Objective Caml 3.11)
|
Unlike a regular type abbreviation, a private type abbreviation declares a type that is distinct from its implementation type typexpr. However, coercions from the type to typexpr are permitted. Moreover, the compiler “knows” the implementation type and can take advantage of this knowledge to perform type-directed optimizations. For ambiguity reasons, typexpr cannot be an object or polymorphic variant type, but a similar behaviour can be obtained through private row types.
The following example uses a private type abbreviation to define a module of nonnegative integers:
module N : sig
type t = private int
val of_int: int -> t
val to_int: t -> int
end
= struct
type t = int
let of_int n = assert (n >= 0); n
let to_int n = n
end
The type N.t is incompatible with int, ensuring that nonnegative integers and regular integers are not confused. However, if x has type N.t, the coercion (x :> int) is legal and returns the underlying integer, just like N.to_int x. Deep coercions are also supported: if l has type N.t list, the coercion (l :> int list) returns the list of underlying integers, like List.map N.to_int l but without copying the list l.
Note that the coercion (expr :> typexpr) is actually an abbreviated form, and will only work in presence of private abbreviations if both the type of expr and typexpr contain no type variables. If this is not the case, you must use the full form (expr : typ_e :> typexpr) where typ_e is the expected type of expr. Concretely, this would be (x : N.t :> int) and (l : N.t list :> int list) for the above examples.
(Introduced in Objective Caml 3.09)
|
Private row types are type abbreviations where part of the structure of the type is left abstract. Concretely typexpr in the above should denote either an object type or a polymorphic variant type, with some possibility of refinement left. If the private declaration is used in an interface, the corresponding implementation may either provide a ground instance, or a refined private type.
module M : sig type c = private < x : int; .. > val o : c end =
struct
class c = object method x = 3 method y = 2 end
let o = new c
end
This declaration does more than hiding the y method, it also makes the type c incompatible with any other closed object type, meaning that only o will be of type c. In that respect it behaves similarly to private record types. But private row types are more flexible with respect to incremental refinement. This feature can be used in combination with functors.
module F(X : sig type c = private < x : int; .. > end) =
struct
let get_x (o : X.c) = o#x
end
module G(X : sig type c = private < x : int; y : int; .. > end) =
struct
include F(X)
let get_y (o : X.c) = o#y
end
Polymorphic variant types can be refined in two ways, either to allow the addition of new constructors, or to allow the disparition of declared constructors. The second case corresponds to private variant types (one cannot create a value of the private type), while the first case requires default cases in pattern-matching to handle addition.
type t = [ `A of int | `B of bool ] type u = private [< t > `A ] type v = private [> t ]
With type u, it is possible to create values of the form (`A n), but not (`B b). With type v, construction is not restricted but pattern-matching must have a default case.
Like for abstract and private types, the variance of type parameters is not inferred, and must be given explicitly.
(Introduced in OCaml 3.12)
|
The expressions let open module-path in expr and module-path. (expr) are strictly equivalent. They locally open the module referred to by the module path module-path in the scope of the expression expr.
Restricting opening to the scope of a single expression instead of a whole structure allows one to benefit from shorter syntax to refer to components of the opened module, without polluting the global scope. Also, this can make the code easier to read (the open statement is closer to where it is used) and to refactor (because the code fragment is more self-contained).
(Introduced in OCaml 3.12)
|
In a record pattern or a record construction expression, a single identifier id stands for id = id, and a qualified identifier module-path . id stands for module-path . id = id. For example, assuming the record type
type point = { x: float; y: float }
has been declared, the following expressions are equivalent:
let x = 1 and y = 2 in { x = x; y = y }
let x = 1 and y = 2 in { x; y }
let x = 1 and y = 2 in { x = x; y }
Likewise, the following functions are equivalent:
fun {x = x; y = y} -> x + y
fun {x; y} -> x + y
Optionally, a record pattern can be terminated by ; _ to convey the fact that not all fields of the record type are listed in the record pattern and that it is intentional. By default, the compiler ignores the ; _ annotation. If the R warning is turned on, however, the compiler will warn if a record pattern fails to list all fields of the corresponding record type and is not terminated by ; _. Continuing the point example above,
fun {x} -> x + 1
will warn if the R warning is on, while
fun {x; _} -> x + 1
will not warn. This warning can help spot program points where record patterns may need to be modified after new fields were added to a record type.
(Introduced in OCaml 3.12)
|
Polymorphic type annotations in let-definitions behave in a way similar to polymorphic methods: they explicitly require the defined value to be polymorphic, and allow one to use this polymorphism in recursive occurences (when using let rec). Note however that this is just an usual polymorphic type, unifiable with any instance of itself.
There two possible applications of this feature. One is polymorphic recursion:
type 'a t = Leaf of 'a | Node of ('a * 'a) t
let rec depth : 'a. 'a t -> 'b = function
Leaf _ -> 1
| Node x -> 1 + depth x
Note that 'b is not explicitly polymorphic here, and it will actually be unified with int.
The other application is to ensure that some definition is sufficiently polymorphic.
# let id : 'a. 'a -> 'a = fun x -> x+1 ;;
Error: This definition has type int -> int which is less general than
'a. 'a -> 'a
(Introduced in OCaml 3.12)
|
The expression fun ( type typeconstr-name ) -> expr introduces a type constructor named typeconstr-name which is considered abstract in the scope of the sub-expression, but then replaced by a fresh type variable. Note that contrary to what the syntax could suggest, the expression fun ( type typeconstr-name ) -> expr itself does not suspend the evaluation of expr as a regular abstraction would. The syntax has been chosen to fit nicely in the context of function declarations, where it is generally used. It is possible to freely mix regular function parameters with pseudo type parameters, as in:
let f = fun (type t) (foo : t list) -> ...
and even use the alternative syntax for declaring functions:
let f (type t) (foo : t list) = ...
This construction is useful because the type constructor it introduces can be used in places where a type variable is not allowed. For instance, one can use it to define an exception in a local module within a polymorphic function.
let f (type t) () =
let module M = struct exception E of t end in
(fun x -> M.E x), (function M.E x -> Some x | _ -> None)
Here is another example:
let sort_uniq (type s) (cmp : s -> s -> int) =
let module S = Set.Make(struct type t = s let compare = cmp end) in
fun l ->
S.elements (List.fold_right S.add l S.empty)
It is also extremely useful for first-class modules and GADTs.
(Introduced in OCaml 4.00)
|
The (type t) syntax construction by itself does not make polymorphic the type variable it introduces, but it can be combined with explicit polymorphic annotations where needed. Some syntactic sugar is provided to make this easier. Namely,
let rec f : type t1 t2. t1 * t2 list -> t1 = ...
is automatically expanded into
let rec f : 't1 't2. 't1 * 't2 list -> 't1 =
fun (type t1) (type t2) -> (... : t1 * t2 list -> t1)
(Introduced in OCaml 3.12, pattern syntax and package type inference since 4.00)
|
Modules are typically thought of as static components. This extension makes it possible to pack a module as a first-class value, which can later be dynamically unpacked into a module.
The expression (module module-expr : package-type) converts the module (structure or functor) denoted by module expression module-expr to a value of the core language that encapsulates this module. The type of this core language value is (module package-type). The package-type annotation can be omitted if it can be inferred from the context.
Conversely, the module expression (val expr : package-type) evaluates the core language expression expr to a value, which must have type module package-type, and extracts the module that was encapsulated in this value. Again package-type can be omitted if the type of expr is known.
The pattern (module module-name : package-type) matches a package with type package-type and binds it to module-name. It is not allowed in toplevel let bindings. Again package-type can be omitted if it can be inferred from the enclosing pattern.
The package-type syntactic class appearing in the (module package-type) type expression and in the annotated forms represents a subset of module types. This subset consists of named module types with optional constraints of a limited form: only non-parametrized types can be specified. For type-checking purposes, package types are compared by path equality on the module type name component, and normal type equality for constraints.
The module expression (val expr : package-type) cannot be used in the body of a functor, because this can cause unsoundness in conjunction with applicative functors. It can be used anywhere in the context of a local module binding let module module-name = (val expr1 : package-type) in expr2, however.
A typical use of first-class modules is to select at run-time among several implementations of a signatures. Each implementation is a structure that we can encapsulate as a first-class module, then store in a data structure such as a hash table:
module type DEVICE = sig ... end
let devices : (string, module DEVICE) Hashtbl.t = Hashtbl.create 17
module SVG = struct ... end
let _ = Hashtbl.add devices "SVG" (module SVG : DEVICE)
module PDF = struct ... end
let _ = Hashtbl.add devices "PDF" (module PDF: DEVICE)
We can then select one implementation based on command-line arguments, for instance:
module Device =
(val (try Hashtbl.find devices (parse_cmdline())
with Not_found -> eprintf "Unknown device %s\n"; exit 2)
: DEVICE)
Alternatively, the selection can be performed within a function:
let draw_using_device device_name picture =
let module Device =
(val (Hashtbl.find_devices device_name) : DEVICE)
in
Device.draw picture
With first-class modules, it is possible to parametrize some code over the implementation of a module without using a functor.
let sort (type s) (module Set : Set.S with type elt = s) l =
Set.elements (List.fold_right Set.add l Set.empty)
val sort : (module Set.S with type elt = 'a) -> 'a list -> 'a list
To use this function, one can wrap the Set.Make functor:
let make_set (type s) cmp =
let module S = Set.Make(struct
type t = s
let compare = cmp
end) in
(module S : Set.S with type elt = s)
val make_set : ('a -> 'a -> int) -> (module Set.S with type elt = 'a)
(Introduced in OCaml 3.12)
|
The construction module type of module-expr expands to the module type (signature or functor type) inferred for the module expression module-expr.
A typical use, in conjunction with the signature-level include construct, is to extend the signature of an existing structure, as in the following example.
module type MYHASH = sig
include module type of Hashtbl
val replace: ('a, 'b) t -> 'a -> 'b -> unit
end
The signature MYHASH, then, contains all the fields of the signature of module Hashtbl, plus the new field replace. An implementation of this signature can be obtained easily, using the include construct at the structure level this time:
module MyHash : MYHASH = struct
include Hashtbl
let replace t k v = remove t k; add t k v
end
(Introduced in OCaml 3.12)
|
“Destructive” substitution (with ... :=) behaves essentially like normal signature constraints (with ... =), but it additionally removes the redefined type or module from the signature. There are a number of restrictions: one can only remove types and modules at the outermost level (not inside submodules), and the definition must be either another type constructor (with identical type parameters), or a module path.
A natural application of destructive substitution is merging two signatures sharing a type name.
module type Printable = sig
type t
val print : Format.formatter -> t -> unit
end
module type Comparable = sig
type t
val compare : t -> t -> int
end
module type PrintableComparable = sig
include Printable
include Comparable with type t := t
end
One can also use this to completely remove a field:
# module type S = Comparable with type t := int;; module type S = sig val compare : int -> int -> int end
or to rename one:
# module type S = sig
type u
include Comparable with type t := u
end;;
module type S = sig type u val compare : u -> u -> int end
Note that you can also remove manifest types, by substituting with the same type.
# module type ComparableInt = Comparable with type t = int ;; module type ComparableInt = sig type t = int val compare : t -> t -> int end # module type CompareInt = ComparableInt with type t := int ;; module type CompareInt = sig val compare : int -> int -> int end
(Introduced in OCaml 3.12)
|
The keywords inherit!, val! and method! have the same semantics as inherit, val and method, but they additionally require the definition they introduce to be an overriding. Namely, method! requires method-name to be already defined in this class, val! requires inst-var-name to be already defined in this class, and inherit! requires class-expr to override some definitions. If no such overriding occurs, an error is signaled.
As a side-effect, these 3 keywords avoid the warnings “method override” and “ instance variable override”. As of OCaml 3.12, the warning “method override” has to be enabled manually for backwards compatibility reasons.
(Introduced in OCaml 4.00)
|
Generalized algebraic datatypes, or GADTs, extend usual sum types in two ways: constraints on type parameters may change depending on the value constructor, and some type variables may be existentially quantified. Adding constraints is done by giving an explicit return type (the rightmost typexpr in the above syntax), where type parameters are instantiated. This return type must use the same type constructor as the type being defined, and have the same number of parameters. Variables are made existential when they appear inside a constructor’s argument, but not in its return type.
Since the use of a return type often eludes the need to name type parameters in the left-hand side of a type definition, one can replace them with anonymous types “_” there.
The constraints associated to each constructor can be recovered through pattern-matching. Namely, if the type of the scrutinee of a pattern-matching contains a locally abstract type, this type can be refined according to the constructor used. These extra constraints are only valid inside the corresponding branch of the pattern-matching. If a constructor has some existential variables, fresh locally abstract types are generated, and they must not escape the scope of this branch.
Here is a concrete example:
type _ term =
| Int : int -> int term
| Add : (int -> int -> int) term
| App : ('b -> 'a) term * 'b term -> 'a term
let rec eval : type a. a term -> a = function
| Int n -> n (* a = int *)
| Add -> (fun x y -> x+y) (* a = int -> int -> int *)
| App(f,x) -> (eval f) (eval x)
(* eval called at types (b->a) and b for fresh b *)
let two = eval (App (App (Add, Int 1), Int 1))
val two : int = 2
Type inference for GADTs is notoriously hard. This is due to the fact some types may become ambiguous when escaping from a branch. For instance, in the Int case above, n could have either type int or a, and they are not equivalent outside of that branch. As a first approximation, type inference will always work if a pattern-matching is annotated with types containing no free type variables (both on the scrutinee and the return type). This is the case in the above example, thanks to the type annotation containing only locally abstract types.
In practice, type inference is a bit more clever than that: type annotations do not need to be immediately on the pattern-matching, and the types do not have to be always closed. As a result, it is usually enough to only annotate functions, as in the example above. Type annotations are propagated in two ways: for the scrutinee, they follow the flow of type inference, in a way similar to polymorphic methods; for the return type, they follow the structure of the program, they are split on functions, propagated to all branches of a pattern matching, and go through tuples, records, and sum types. Moreover, the notion of ambiguity used is stronger: a type is only seen as ambiguous if it was mixed with incompatible types (equated by constraints), without type annotations between them. For instance, the following program types correctly.
let rec sum : type a. a term -> _ = fun x ->
let y =
match x with
| Int n -> n
| Add -> 0
| App(f,x) -> sum f + sum x
in y + 1
val sum : 'a term -> int = <fun>
Here the return type int is never mixed with a, so it is seen as non-ambiguous, and can be inferred. When using such partial type annotations we strongly suggest specifying the -principal mode, to check that inference is principal.
The exhaustiveness check is aware of GADT constraints, and can automatically infer that some cases cannot happen. For instance, the following pattern matching is correctly seen as exhaustive (the Add case cannot happen).
let get_int : int term -> int = function
| Int n -> n
| App(_,_) -> 0
The term type we have defined above is an indexed type, where a type parameter reflects a property of the value contents. Another use of GADTs is singleton types, where a GADT value represents exactly one type. This value can be used as runtime representation for this type, and a function receiving it can have a polytypic behavior.
Here is an example of a polymorphic function that takes the runtime representation of some type t and a value of the same type, then pretty-prints the value as a string:
type _ typ =
| Int : int typ
| String : string typ
| Pair : 'a typ * 'b typ -> ('a * 'b) typ
let rec to_string: type t. t typ -> t -> string =
fun t x ->
match t with
| Int -> string_of_int x
| String -> Printf.sprintf "%S" x
| Pair(t1,t2) ->
let (x1, x2) = x in
Printf.sprintf "(%s,%s)" (to_string t1 x1) (to_string t2 x2)
Another frequent application of GADTs is equality witnesses.
type (_,_) eq = Eq : ('a,'a) eq
let cast : type a b. (a,b) eq -> a -> b = fun Eq x -> x
Here type eq has only one constructor, and by matching on it one adds a local constraint allowing the conversion between a and b. By building such equality witnesses, one can make equal types which are syntactically different.
Here is an example using both singleton types and equality witnesses to implement dynamic types.
let rec eq_type : type a b. a typ -> b typ -> (a,b) eq option =
fun a b ->
match a, b with
| Int, Int -> Some Eq
| String, String -> Some Eq
| Pair(a1,a2), Pair(b1,b2) ->
begin match eq_type a1 b1, eq_type a2 b2 with
| Some Eq, Some Eq -> Some Eq
| _ -> None
end
| _ -> None
type dyn = Dyn : 'a typ * 'a -> dyn
let get_dyn : type a. a typ -> dyn -> a option =
fun a (Dyn(b,x)) ->
match eq_type a b with
| None -> None
| Some Eq -> Some x