Note This is based on material from https://realworldocaml.org/, by Anil Madhavapeddy and Yaron Minsky.
This chapter gives an overview of OCaml by walking through a series of small examples that cover most of the major features of the language. This should provide a sense of what OCaml can do, without getting too deep into any one topic.
Throughout the book we're going to use Base
, a more full-featured and capable replacement for OCaml's standard library. We'll also use utop
, a shell that lets you type in expressions and evaluate them interactively. utop
is an easier-to-use version of OCaml's standard toplevel (which you can start by typing ocaml at the command line). These instructions will assume you're using utop
, but the ordinary toplevel should mostly work fine.
Before going any further, make sure you've followed the steps in the installation page.
::: {data-type=note}
Base
and Core
Base
comes along with another, yet more extensive standard library replacement, called Core
. We're going to mostly stick to Base
, but it's worth understanding the differences between these libraries. [Base standard library]{.idx} [Core standard library]{.idx}
Base
is designed to be lightweight, portable, and stable, while providing all of the fundamentals you need from a standard library. It comes with a minimum of external dependencies, so Base
just takes seconds to build and install.Core
extends Base
in a number of ways: it adds new data structures, like heaps, hash-sets, and functional queues; it provides types to represent times and time-zones; well-integrated support for efficient binary serializers; and much more. At the same time, it has many more dependencies, and so takes longer to build, and will add more to the size of your executables.As of the version of Base
and Core
used in this book (version v0.14
), Core
is less portable than Base
, running only on UNIX-like systems. For that reason, there is another package, Core_kernel
, which is the portable subset of Core
. That said, in the latest stable release, v0.15
(which was released too late to be adopted for this edition of the book) Core
is portable, and Core_kernel
has been deprecated. Given that, we don't use Core_kernel
in this text.
:::
Before getting started, make sure you have a working OCaml installation so you can try out the examples as you read through the chapter.
Our first step is to open Base
:
# open Base;;
By opening Base
, we make the definitions it contains available without having to reference Base
explicitly. This is required for many of the examples in the tour and in the remainder of the book.
Now let's try a few simple numerical calculations:
# 3 + 4;;
- : int = 7
# 8 / 3;;
- : int = 2
# 3.5 +. 6.;;
- : float = 9.5
# 30_000_000 / 300_000;;
- : int = 100
# 3 * 5 > 14;;
- : bool = true
By and large, this is pretty similar to what you'd find in any programming language, but a few things jump right out at you:
;;
in order to tell the toplevel that it should evaluate an expression. This is a peculiarity of the toplevel that is not required in standalone programs (though it is sometimes helpful to include ;;
to improve OCaml's error reporting, by making it more explicit where a given top-level declaration was intended to end).float
, the type for floating-point numbers, and int
, the type for integers. The types have different literals (6.
instead of 6
) and different infix operators (+.
instead of +
), and OCaml doesn't automatically cast between these types. This can be a bit of a nuisance, but it has its benefits, since it prevents some kinds of bugs that arise in other languages due to unexpected differences between the behavior of int
and float
. For example, in many languages, 1 / 3
is zero, but 1.0 /. 3.0
is a third. OCaml requires you to be explicit about which operation you're using.We can also create a variable to name the value of a given expression, using the let
keyword. This is known as a let binding: [let bindings]{.idx}
# let x = 3 + 4;;
val x : int = 7
# let y = x + x;;
val y : int = 14
After a new variable is created, the toplevel tells us the name of the variable (x
or y
), in addition to its type (int
) and value (7
or 14
).
Note that there are some constraints on what identifiers can be used for variable names. Punctuation is excluded, except for _
and '
, and variables must start with a lowercase letter or an underscore. Thus, these are legal:
# let x7 = 3 + 4;;
val x7 : int = 7
# let x_plus_y = x + y;;
val x_plus_y : int = 21
# let x' = x + 1;;
val x' : int = 8
The following examples, however, are not legal:
# let Seven = 3 + 4;;
Line 1, characters 5-10:
Error: Unbound constructor Seven
# let 7x = 7;;
Line 1, characters 5-7:
Error: Unknown modifier 'x' for literal 7x
# let x-plus-y = x + y;;
Line 1, characters 7-11:
Error: Syntax error
This highlights that variables can't be capitalized, can't begin with numbers, and can't contain dashes.
The let
syntax can also be used to define a function:[let syntax/function definition with]{.idx}[functions/defining]{.idx}
# let square x = x * x;;
val square : int -> int = <fun>
# square 2;;
- : int = 4
# square (square 2);;
- : int = 16
Functions in OCaml are values like any other, which is why we use the let
keyword to bind a function to a variable name, just as we use let
to bind a simple value like an integer to a variable name. When using let
to define a function, the first identifier after the let
is the function name, and each subsequent identifier is a different argument to the function. Thus, square
is a function with a single argument.
Now that we're creating more interesting values like functions, the types have gotten more interesting too. int -> int
is a function type, in this case indicating a function that takes an int
and returns an int
. We can also write functions that take multiple arguments. (Reminder: Don't forget open Base
, or these examples won't work!) [multi-argument functions]{.idx}[functions/with multiple arguments]{.idx}
# let ratio x y =
Float.of_int x /. Float.of_int y;;
val ratio : int -> int -> float = <fun>
# ratio 4 7;;
- : float = 0.571428571428571397
Note that in OCaml, function arguments are separated by spaces instead of by parentheses and commas, which is more like the UNIX shell than it is like traditional programming languages such as Python or Java.
The preceding example also happens to be our first use of modules. Here, Float.of_int
refers to the of_int
function contained in the Float
module. This is different from what you might expect from an object-oriented language, where dot-notation is typically used for accessing a method of an object. Note that module names always start with a capital letter.
Modules can also be opened to make their contents available without explicitly qualifying by the module name. We did that once already, when we opened Base
earlier. We can use that to make this code a little easier to read, both avoiding the repetition of Float
above, and avoiding use of the slightly awkward /.
operator. In the following example, we open the Float.O
module, which has a bunch of useful operators and functions that are designed to be used in this kind of context. Note that this causes the standard int-only arithmetic operators to be shadowed locally. [local open]{.idx}
# let ratio x y =
let open Float.O in
of_int x / of_int y;;
val ratio : int -> int -> float = <fun>
We used a slightly different syntax for opening the module, since we were only opening it in the local scope inside the definition of ratio
. There's also a more concise syntax for local opens, as you can see here.
# let ratio x y =
Float.O.(of_int x / of_int y);;
val ratio : int -> int -> float = <fun>
The notation for the type-signature of a multiargument function may be a little surprising at first, but we'll explain where it comes from when we get to function currying in Multi Argument Functions{data-type=xref}. For the moment, think of the arrows as separating different arguments of the function, with the type after the final arrow being the return value. Thus, int -> int -> float
describes a function that takes two int
arguments and returns a float
.
We can also write functions that take other functions as arguments. Here's an example of a function that takes three arguments: a test function and two integer arguments. The function returns the sum of the integers that pass the test:
# let sum_if_true test first second =
(if test first then first else 0)
+ (if test second then second else 0);;
val sum_if_true : (int -> bool) -> int -> int -> int = <fun>
If we look at the inferred type signature in detail, we see that the first argument is a function that takes an integer and returns a boolean, and that the remaining two arguments are integers. Here's an example of this function in action:
# let even x =
x % 2 = 0;;
val even : int -> bool = <fun>
# sum_if_true even 3 4;;
- : int = 4
# sum_if_true even 2 4;;
- : int = 6
Note that in the definition of even
, we used =
in two different ways: once as part of the let
binding that separates the thing being defined from its definition; and once as an equality test, when comparing x % 2
to 0
. These are very different operations despite the fact that they share some syntax.
As the types we encounter get more complicated, you might ask yourself how OCaml is able to figure them out, given that we didn't write down any explicit type information.[type inference/process of]{.idx}
OCaml determines the type of an expression using a technique called type inference, by which the type of an expression is inferred from the available type information about the components of that expression.
As an example, let's walk through the process of inferring the type of sum_if_true
:
OCaml requires that both branches of an if
expression have the same type, so the expression
if test first then first else 0
requires that first
must be the same type as 0
, and so first
must be of type int
. Similarly, from
if test second then second else 0
we can infer that second
has type int
.
test
is passed first
as an argument. Since first
has type int
, the input type of test
must be int
.test first
is used as the condition in an if
expression, so the return type of test
must be bool
.+
returns int
implies that the return value of sum_if_true
must be int.Together, that nails down the types of all the variables, which determines the overall type of sum_if_true
.
Over time, you'll build a rough intuition for how the OCaml inference engine works, which makes it easier to reason through your programs. You can also make it easier to understand the types of a given expression by adding explicit type annotations. These annotations don't change the behavior of an OCaml program, but they can serve as useful documentation, as well as catch unintended type changes. They can also be helpful in figuring out why a given piece of code fails to compile.
Here's an annotated version of sum_if_true
:
# let sum_if_true (test : int -> bool) (x : int) (y : int) : int =
(if test x then x else 0)
+ (if test y then y else 0);;
val sum_if_true : (int -> bool) -> int -> int -> int = <fun>
In the above, we've marked every argument to the function with its type, with the final annotation indicating the type of the return value. Such type annotations can be placed on any expression in an OCaml program.
Sometimes, there isn't enough information to fully determine the concrete type of a given value. Consider this function..[type inference/generic types]{.idx}
# let first_if_true test x y =
if test x then x else y;;
val first_if_true : ('a -> bool) -> 'a -> 'a -> 'a = <fun>
first_if_true
takes as its arguments a function test
, and two values, x
and y
, where x
is to be returned if test x
evaluates to true
, and y
otherwise. So what's the type of the x
argument to first_if_true
? There are no obvious clues such as arithmetic operators or literals to narrow it down. That makes it seem like first_if_true
would work on values of any type.
Indeed, if we look at the type returned by the toplevel, we see that rather than choose a single concrete type, OCaml has introduced a type variable 'a
to express that the type is generic. (You can tell it's a type variable by the leading single quote mark.) In particular, the type of the test
argument is ('a -> bool)
, which means that test
is a one-argument function whose return value is bool
and whose argument could be of any type 'a
. But, whatever type 'a
is, it has to be the same as the type of the other two arguments, x
and y
, and of the return value of first_if_true
. This kind of genericity is called parametric polymorphism because it works by parameterizing the type in question with a type variable. It is very similar to generics in C# and Java. [parametric polymorphism]{.idx}[type variables]{.idx}
Because the type of first_if_true
is generic, we can write this:
# let long_string s = String.length s > 6;;
val long_string : string -> bool = <fun>
# first_if_true long_string "short" "loooooong";;
- : string = "loooooong"
As well as this:
# let big_number x = x > 3;;
val big_number : int -> bool = <fun>
# first_if_true big_number 4 3;;
- : int = 4
Both long_string
and big_number
are functions, and each is passed to first_if_true
with two other arguments of the appropriate type (strings in the first example, and integers in the second). But we can't mix and match two different concrete types for 'a
in the same use of first_if_true
:
# first_if_true big_number "short" "loooooong";;
Line 1, characters 26-33:
Error: This expression has type string but an expression was expected of type
int
In this example, big_number
requires that 'a
be instantiated as int
, whereas "short"
and "loooooong"
require that 'a
be instantiated as string
, and they can't both be right at the same time.
::: {data-type=note}
There's a big difference in OCaml between errors that are caught at compile time and those that are caught at runtime. It's better to catch errors as early as possible in the development process, and compilation time is best of all.[runtime exceptions vs. type errors]{.idx}[errors/runtime vs. compile time]{.idx}[exceptions/vs. type errors]{.idx}[type errors vs. exceptions]{.idx}
Working in the toplevel somewhat obscures the difference between runtime and compile-time errors, but that difference is still there. Generally, type errors like this one:
# let add_potato x =
x + "potato";;
Line 2, characters 9-17:
Error: This expression has type string but an expression was expected of type
int
\noindent are compile-time errors (because +
requires that both its arguments be of type int
), whereas errors that can't be caught by the type system, like division by zero, lead to runtime exceptions:
# let is_a_multiple x y =
x % y = 0;;
val is_a_multiple : int -> int -> bool = <fun>
# is_a_multiple 8 2;;
- : bool = true
# is_a_multiple 8 0;;
Exception:
Invalid_argument "8 % 0 in core_int.ml: modulus should be positive".
The distinction here is that type errors will stop you whether or not the offending code is ever actually executed. Merely defining add_potato
is an error, whereas is_a_multiple
only fails when it's called, and then, only when it's called with an input that triggers the exception. :::
So far we've encountered a handful of basic types like int
, float
, and string
, as well as function types like string -> int
. But we haven't yet talked about any data structures. We'll start by looking at a particularly simple data structure, the tuple. A tuple is an ordered collection of values that can each be of a different type. You can create a tuple by joining values together with a comma. [tuples]{.idx}[data structures/tuples]{.idx}
# let a_tuple = (3,"three");;
val a_tuple : int * string = (3, "three")
# let another_tuple = (3,"four",5.);;
val another_tuple : int * string * float = (3, "four", 5.)
For the mathematically inclined, *
is used in the type t * s
because that type corresponds to the set of all pairs containing one value of type t
and one of type s
. In other words, it's the Cartesian product of the two types, which is why we use *
, the symbol for product.
You can extract the components of a tuple using OCaml's pattern-matching syntax, as shown below:
# let (x,y) = a_tuple;;
val x : int = 3
val y : string = "three"
\noindent Here, the (x,y)
on the left-hand side of the let
binding is the pattern. This pattern lets us mint the new variables x
and y
, each bound to different components of the value being matched. These can now be used in subsequent expressions:
# x + String.length y;;
- : int = 8
\noindent Note that the same syntax is used both for constructing and for pattern matching on tuples.
Pattern matching can also show up in function arguments. Here's a function for computing the distance between two points on the plane, where each point is represented as a pair of float
s. The pattern-matching syntax lets us get at the values we need with a minimum of fuss:
# let distance (x1,y1) (x2,y2) =
Float.sqrt ((x1 -. x2) **. 2. +. (y1 -. y2) **. 2.);;
val distance : float * float -> float * float -> float = <fun>
\noindent The **.
operator used above is for raising a floating-point number to a power.
This is just a first taste of pattern matching. Pattern matching is a pervasive tool in OCaml, and as you'll see, it has surprising power.
::: {data-type=note}
Base
and the StdlibOCaml's standard library and Base
mostly use the same operators for the same things, but there are some differences. For example, in Base
, **.
is float exponentiation, and **
is integer exponentiation, whereas in the standard library, **
is float exponentiation, and integer exponentiation isn't exposed as an operator.
Base
does what it does to be consistent with other numerical operators like *.
and *
, where the period at the end is used to mark the floating-point versions.
In general, Base
is not shy about presenting different APIs than OCaml's standard library when it's done in the service of consistency and clarity.
:::
Where tuples let you combine a fixed number of items, potentially of different types, lists let you hold any number of items of the same type. Consider the following example:[data structures/lists]{.idx}
# let languages = ["OCaml";"Perl";"C"];;
val languages : string list = ["OCaml"; "Perl"; "C"]
Note that you can't mix elements of different types in the same list, unlike tuples:
# let numbers = [3;"four";5];;
Line 1, characters 18-24:
Error: This expression has type string but an expression was expected of type
int
Base
comes with a List
module that has a rich collection of functions for working with lists. We can access values from within a module by using dot notation. For example, this is how we compute the length of a list:
# List.length languages;;
- : int = 3
Here's something a little more complicated. We can compute the list of the lengths of each language as follows:
# List.map languages ~f:String.length;;
- : int list = [5; 4; 1]
List.map
takes two arguments: a list and a function for transforming the elements of that list. It returns a new list with the transformed elements and does not modify the original list.
Notably, the function passed to List.map
is passed under a labeled argument ~f
. Labeled arguments are specified by name rather than by position, and thus allow you to change the order in which arguments are presented to a function without changing its behavior, as you can see here:[arguments/labeled arguments]{.idx}[labeled arguments]{.idx}
# List.map ~f:String.length languages;;
- : int list = [5; 4; 1]
We'll learn more about labeled arguments and why they're important in Variables And Functions{data-type=xref}.
In addition to constructing lists using brackets, we can use the list constructor ::
for adding elements to the front of a list:[operators/: : operator]{.idx}[lists/operator : :]{.idx}
# "French" :: "Spanish" :: languages;;
- : string list = ["French"; "Spanish"; "OCaml"; "Perl"; "C"]
Here, we're creating a new and extended list, not changing the list we started with, as you can see below:
# languages;;
- : string list = ["OCaml"; "Perl"; "C"]
::: {data-type=note}
Unlike many other languages, OCaml uses semicolons to separate list elements in lists rather than commas. Commas, instead, are used for separating elements in a tuple. If you try to use commas in a list, you'll see that your code compiles but doesn't do quite what you might expect:[commas vs. semicolons]{.idx}[semicolons vs. commas]{.idx}
# ["OCaml", "Perl", "C"];;
- : (string * string * string) list = [("OCaml", "Perl", "C")]
In particular, rather than a list of three strings, what we have is a singleton list containing a three-tuple of strings.
This example uncovers the fact that commas create a tuple, even if there are no surrounding parens. So, we can write:
# 1,2,3;;
- : int * int * int = (1, 2, 3)
to allocate a tuple of integers. This is generally considered poor style and should be avoided. :::
The bracket notation for lists is really just syntactic sugar for ::
. Thus, the following declarations are all equivalent. Note that []
is used to represent the empty list and that ::
is right-associative:
# [1; 2; 3];;
- : int list = [1; 2; 3]
# 1 :: (2 :: (3 :: []));;
- : int list = [1; 2; 3]
# 1 :: 2 :: 3 :: [];;
- : int list = [1; 2; 3]
The ::
constructor can only be used for adding one element to the front of the list, with the list terminating at []
, the empty list. There's also a list concatenation operator, @
, which can concatenate two lists:
# [1;2;3] @ [4;5;6];;
- : int list = [1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6]
It's important to remember that, unlike ::
, this is not a constant-time operation. Concatenating two lists takes time proportional to the length of the first list.
The elements of a list can be accessed through pattern matching. List patterns are based on the two list constructors, []
and ::
. Here's a simple example:[pattern matching/in lists]{.idx}[lists/pattern matching]{.idx}
# let my_favorite_language (my_favorite :: the_rest) =
my_favorite;;
Lines 1-2, characters 26-16:
Warning 8 [partial-match]: this pattern-matching is not exhaustive.
Here is an example of a case that is not matched:
[]
val my_favorite_language : 'a list -> 'a = <fun>
By pattern matching using ::
, we've isolated and named the first element of the list (my_favorite
) and the remainder of the list (the_rest
). If you know Lisp or Scheme, what we've done is the equivalent of using the functions car
and cdr
to isolate the first element of a list and the remainder of that list.
As you can see, however, the toplevel did not like this definition and spit out a warning indicating that the pattern is not exhaustive. This means that there are values of the type in question that won't be captured by the pattern. The warning even gives an example of a value that doesn't match the provided pattern, in particular, []
, the empty list. If we try to run my_favorite_language
, we'll see that it works on nonempty lists and fails on empty ones:
# my_favorite_language ["English";"Spanish";"French"];;
- : string = "English"
# my_favorite_language [];;
Exception: Match_failure ("//toplevel//", 1, 26).
You can avoid these warnings, and more importantly make sure that your code actually handles all of the possible cases, by using a match
expression instead.
A match
expression is a kind of juiced-up version of the switch
statement found in C and Java. It essentially lets you list a sequence of patterns, separated by pipe characters. (The one before the first case is optional.) The compiler then dispatches to the code following the first matching pattern. As we've already seen, the pattern can mint new variables that correspond to parts of the value being matched.
Here's a new version of my_favorite_language
that uses match
and doesn't trigger a compiler warning:
# let my_favorite_language languages =
match languages with
| first :: the_rest -> first
| [] -> "OCaml" (* A good default! *);;
val my_favorite_language : string list -> string = <fun>
# my_favorite_language ["English";"Spanish";"French"];;
- : string = "English"
# my_favorite_language [];;
- : string = "OCaml"
The preceding code also includes our first comment. OCaml comments are bounded by (*
and *)
and can be nested arbitrarily and cover multiple lines. There's no equivalent of C++-style single-line comments that are prefixed by //
.
The first pattern, first :: the_rest
, covers the case where languages
has at least one element, since every list except for the empty list can be written down with one or more ::
's. The second pattern, []
, matches only the empty list. These cases are exhaustive, since every list is either empty or has at least one element, a fact that is verified by the compiler.
Recursive functions, or functions that call themselves, are an important part of working in OCaml or really any functional language. The typical approach to designing a recursive function is to separate the logic into a set of base cases that can be solved directly and a set of inductive cases, where the function breaks the problem down into smaller pieces and then calls itself to solve those smaller problems.[recursive functions/list functions]{.idx}[lists/recursive list functions]{.idx}
When writing recursive list functions, this separation between the base cases and the inductive cases is often done using pattern matching. Here's a simple example of a function that sums the elements of a list:
# let rec sum l =
match l with
| [] -> 0 (* base case *)
| hd :: tl -> hd + sum tl (* inductive case *);;
val sum : int list -> int = <fun>
# sum [1;2;3];;
- : int = 6
Following the common OCaml idiom, we use hd
to refer to the head of the list and tl
to refer to the tail. Note that we had to use the rec
keyword to allow sum
to refer to itself. As you might imagine, the base case and inductive case are different arms of the match.
Logically, you can think of the evaluation of a simple recursive function like sum
almost as if it were a mathematical equation whose meaning you were unfolding step by step:
sum [1;2;3]
= 1 + sum [2;3]
= 1 + (2 + sum [3])
= 1 + (2 + (3 + sum []))
= 1 + (2 + (3 + 0))
= 1 + (2 + 3)
= 1 + 5
= 6
\noindent This suggests a reasonable if not entirely accurate mental model for what OCaml is actually doing to evaluate a recursive function.
We can introduce more complicated list patterns as well. Here's a function for removing sequential duplicates:
# let rec remove_sequential_duplicates list =
match list with
| [] -> []
| first :: second :: tl ->
if first = second then
remove_sequential_duplicates (second :: tl)
else
first :: remove_sequential_duplicates (second :: tl);;
Lines 2-8, characters 5-61:
Warning 8 [partial-match]: this pattern-matching is not exhaustive.
Here is an example of a case that is not matched:
_::[]
val remove_sequential_duplicates : int list -> int list = <fun>
Again, the first arm of the match is the base case, and the second is the inductive case. Unfortunately, this code has a problem, as indicated by the warning message. In particular, it doesn't handle one-element lists. We can fix this warning by adding another case to the match:
# let rec remove_sequential_duplicates list =
match list with
| [] -> []
| [x] -> [x]
| first :: second :: tl ->
if first = second then
remove_sequential_duplicates (second :: tl)
else
first :: remove_sequential_duplicates (second :: tl);;
val remove_sequential_duplicates : int list -> int list = <fun>
# remove_sequential_duplicates [1;1;2;3;3;4;4;1;1;1];;
- : int list = [1; 2; 3; 4; 1]
Note that this code used another variant of the list pattern, [hd]
, to match a list with a single element. We can do this to match a list with any fixed number of elements; for example, [x;y;z]
will match any list with exactly three elements and will bind those elements to the variables x
, y
, and z
.
In the last few examples, our list processing code involved a lot of recursive functions. In practice, this isn't usually necessary. Most of the time, you'll find yourself happy to use the iteration functions found in the List
module. But it's good to know how to use recursion for when you need to iterate in a new way.[lists/recursion]{.idx}
Another common data structure in OCaml is the option. An option is used to express that a value might or might not be present. For example:[options]{.idx}[data structures/options]{.idx}
# let divide x y =
if y = 0 then None else Some (x / y);;
val divide : int -> int -> int option = <fun>
The function divide
either returns None
if the divisor is zero, or Some
of the result of the division otherwise. Some
and None
are constructors that let you build optional values, just as ::
and []
let you build lists. You can think of an option as a specialized list that can only have zero or one elements.
To examine the contents of an option, we use pattern matching, as we did with tuples and lists. Let's see how this plays out in a small example. We'll write a function that takes a filename, and returns a version of that filename with the file extension (the part after the dot) downcased. We'll base this on the function String.rsplit2
to split the string based on the rightmost period found in the string. Note that String.rsplit2
has return type (string * string) option
, returning None
when no character was found to split on.
# let downcase_extension filename =
match String.rsplit2 filename ~on:'.' with
| None -> filename
| Some (base,ext) ->
base ^ "." ^ String.lowercase ext;;
val downcase_extension : string -> string = <fun>
# List.map ~f:downcase_extension
[ "Hello_World.TXT"; "Hello_World.txt"; "Hello_World" ];;
- : string list = ["Hello_World.txt"; "Hello_World.txt"; "Hello_World"]
Note that we used the ^
operator for concatenating strings. The concatenation operator is provided as part of the Stdlib
module, which is automatically opened in every OCaml program.
Options are important because they are the standard way in OCaml to encode a value that might not be there; there's no such thing as a NullPointerException
in OCaml. This is different from most other languages, including Java and C#, where most if not all data types are nullable, meaning that, whatever their type is, any given value also contains the possibility of being a null value. In such languages, null is lurking everywhere.[datatypes/nullable]{.idx}
In OCaml, however, missing values are explicit. A value of type string * string
always contains two well-defined values of type string
. If you want to allow, say, the first of those to be absent, then you need to change the type to string option * string
. As we'll see in Error Handling{data-type=xref}, this explicitness allows the compiler to provide a great deal of help in making sure you're correctly handling the possibility of missing data.
So far, we've only looked at data structures that were predefined in the language, like lists and tuples. But OCaml also allows us to define new data types. Here's a toy example of a data type representing a point in two-dimensional space:[datatypes/defining new]{.idx}
type point2d = { x : float; y : float }
point2d
is a record type, which you can think of as a tuple where the individual fields are named, rather than being defined positionally. Record types are easy enough to construct:[records/record types]{.idx}[datatypes/record types]{.idx}
# let p = { x = 3.; y = -4. };;
val p : point2d = {x = 3.; y = -4.}
And we can get access to the contents of these types using pattern matching:
# let magnitude { x = x_pos; y = y_pos } =
Float.sqrt (x_pos **. 2. +. y_pos **. 2.);;
val magnitude : point2d -> float = <fun>
The pattern match here binds the variable x_pos
to the value contained in the x
field, and the variable y_pos
to the value in the y
field.
We can write this more tersely using what's called field punning. In particular, when the name of the field and the name of the variable it is bound to coincide, we don't have to write them both down. Using this, our magnitude function can be rewritten as follows:[fields/field punning]{.idx}
# let magnitude { x; y } = Float.sqrt (x **. 2. +. y **. 2.);;
val magnitude : point2d -> float = <fun>
Alternatively, we can use dot notation for accessing record fields:
# let distance v1 v2 =
magnitude { x = v1.x -. v2.x; y = v1.y -. v2.y };;
val distance : point2d -> point2d -> float = <fun>
And we can of course include our newly defined types as components in larger types. Here, for example, are some types for modeling different geometric objects that contain values of type point2d
:
type circle_desc = { center: point2d; radius: float }
type rect_desc = { lower_left: point2d; width: float; height: float }
type segment_desc = { endpoint1: point2d; endpoint2: point2d }
Now, imagine that you want to combine multiple objects of these types together as a description of a multi-object scene. You need some unified way of representing these objects together in a single type. Variant types let you do just that: [datatypes/variant types]{.idx} [variant types/combining multiple object types with]{.idx}
type scene_element =
| Circle of circle_desc
| Rect of rect_desc
| Segment of segment_desc
The |
character separates the different cases of the variant (the first |
is optional), and each case has a capitalized tag, like Circle
, Rect
or Segment
, to distinguish that case from the others.
Here's how we might write a function for testing whether a point is in the interior of some element of a list of scene_element
s. Note that there are two let
bindings in a row without a double semicolon between them. That's because the double semicolon is required only to tell utop to process the input, not to separate two declarations
# let is_inside_scene_element point scene_element =
let open Float.O in
match scene_element with
| Circle { center; radius } ->
distance center point < radius
| Rect { lower_left; width; height } ->
point.x > lower_left.x && point.x < lower_left.x + width
&& point.y > lower_left.y && point.y < lower_left.y + height
| Segment _ -> false
let is_inside_scene point scene =
List.exists scene
~f:(fun el -> is_inside_scene_element point el);;
val is_inside_scene_element : point2d -> scene_element -> bool = <fun>
val is_inside_scene : point2d -> scene_element list -> bool = <fun>
# is_inside_scene {x=3.;y=7.}
[ Circle {center = {x=4.;y= 4.}; radius = 0.5 } ];;
- : bool = false
# is_inside_scene {x=3.;y=7.}
[ Circle {center = {x=4.;y= 4.}; radius = 5.0 } ];;
- : bool = true
You might at this point notice that the use of match
here is reminiscent of how we used match
with option
and list
. This is no accident: option
and list
are just examples of variant types that are important enough to be defined in the standard library (and in the case of lists, to have some special syntax).
We also made our first use of an anonymous function in the call to List.exists
. Anonymous functions are declared using the fun
keyword, and don't need to be explicitly named. Such functions are common in OCaml, particularly when using iteration functions like List.exists
.[anonymous functions]{.idx}[functions/anonymous functions]{.idx}
The purpose of List.exists
is to check if there are any elements of the list in question for which the provided function evaluates to true
. In this case, we're using List.exists
to check if there is a scene element within which our point resides.
::: {data-type=note}
Base
and Polymorphic ComparisonOne other thing to notice was the fact that we opened Float.O
in the definition of is_inside_scene_element
. That allowed us to use the simple, un-dotted infix operators, but more importantly it brought the float comparison operators into scope. When using Base
, the default comparison operators work only on integers, and you need to explicitly choose other comparison operators when you want them. OCaml also offers a special set of polymorphic comparison operators that can work on almost any type, but those are considered to be problematic, and so are hidden by default by Base
. We'll learn more about polymorphic compare in Terser and Faster Patterns{data-type=xref}. :::
The code we've written so far has been almost entirely pure or functional, which roughly speaking means that the code in question doesn't modify variables or values as part of its execution. Indeed, almost all of the data structures we've encountered are immutable, meaning there's no way in the language to modify them at all. This is a quite different style from imperative programming, where computations are structured as sequences of instructions that operate by making modifications to the state of the program.[functional code]{.idx}[pure code]{.idx}[data structures/immutable]{.idx}[programming/immutable vs. imperative]{.idx}
Functional code is the default in OCaml, with variable bindings and most data structures being immutable. But OCaml also has excellent support for imperative programming, including mutable data structures like arrays and hash tables, and control-flow constructs like for
and while
loops.
Perhaps the simplest mutable data structure in OCaml is the array. Arrays in OCaml are very similar to arrays in other languages like C: indexing starts at 0, and accessing or modifying an array element is a constant-time operation. Arrays are more compact in terms of memory utilization than most other data structures in OCaml, including lists. Here's an example:[data structures/arrays]{.idx}[arrays/imperative programming and]{.idx}[imperative programming/arrays]{.idx}
# let numbers = [| 1; 2; 3; 4 |];;
val numbers : int array = [|1; 2; 3; 4|]
# numbers.(2) <- 4;;
- : unit = ()
# numbers;;
- : int array = [|1; 2; 4; 4|]
The .(i)
syntax is used to refer to an element of an array, and the <-
syntax is for modification. Because the elements of the array are counted starting at zero, element numbers.(2)
is the third element.
The unit
type that we see in the preceding code is interesting in that it has only one possible value, written ()
. This means that a value of type unit
doesn't convey any information, and so is generally used as a placeholder. Thus, we use unit
for the return value of an operation like setting a mutable field that communicates by side effect rather than by returning a value. It's also used as the argument to functions that don't require an input value. This is similar to the role that void
plays in languages like C and Java.
The array is an important mutable data structure, but it's not the only one. Records, which are immutable by default, can have some of their fields explicitly declared as mutable. Here's an example of a mutable data structure for storing a running statistical summary of a collection of numbers.[imperative programming/mutable record fields]{.idx}[mutable record fields]{.idx}[data structures/mutable record fields]{.idx}
type running_sum =
{ mutable sum: float;
mutable sum_sq: float; (* sum of squares *)
mutable samples: int;
}
The fields in running_sum
are designed to be easy to extend incrementally, and sufficient to compute means and standard deviations, as shown in the following example.
# let mean rsum = rsum.sum /. Float.of_int rsum.samples;;
val mean : running_sum -> float = <fun>
# let stdev rsum =
Float.sqrt
(rsum.sum_sq /. Float.of_int rsum.samples -. mean rsum **. 2.);;
val stdev : running_sum -> float = <fun>
We also need functions to create and update running_sum
s:
# let create () = { sum = 0.; sum_sq = 0.; samples = 0 };;
val create : unit -> running_sum = <fun>
# let update rsum x =
rsum.samples <- rsum.samples + 1;
rsum.sum <- rsum.sum +. x;
rsum.sum_sq <- rsum.sum_sq +. x *. x;;
val update : running_sum -> float -> unit = <fun>
create
returns a running_sum
corresponding to the empty set, and update rsum x
changes rsum
to reflect the addition of x
to its set of samples by updating the number of samples, the sum, and the sum of squares.
Note the use of single semicolons to sequence operations. When we were working purely functionally, this wasn't necessary, but you start needing it when you're writing imperative code.
Here's an example of create
and update
in action. Note that this code uses List.iter
, which calls the function ~f
on each element of the provided list:
# let rsum = create ();;
val rsum : running_sum = {sum = 0.; sum_sq = 0.; samples = 0}
# List.iter [1.;3.;2.;-7.;4.;5.] ~f:(fun x -> update rsum x);;
- : unit = ()
# mean rsum;;
- : float = 1.33333333333333326
# stdev rsum;;
- : float = 3.94405318873307698
Warning: the preceding algorithm is numerically naive and has poor precision in the presence of many values that cancel each other out. This Wikipedia article on algorithms for calculating variance provides more details.
We can create a single mutable value by using a ref
. The ref
type comes predefined in the standard library, but there's nothing really special about it. It's just a record type with a single mutable field called contents
:[records/record types]{.idx}[imperative programming/ref type]{.idx}
# let x = { contents = 0 };;
val x : int ref = {contents = 0}
# x.contents <- x.contents + 1;;
- : unit = ()
# x;;
- : int ref = {contents = 1}
There are a handful of useful functions and operators defined for ref
s to make them more convenient to work with:
# let x = ref 0 (* create a ref, i.e., { contents = 0 } *);;
val x : int ref = {Base.Ref.contents = 0}
# !x (* get the contents of a ref, i.e., x.contents *);;
- : int = 0
# x := !x + 1 (* assignment, i.e., x.contents <- ... *);;
- : unit = ()
# !x;;
- : int = 1
There's nothing magical with these operators either. You can completely reimplement the ref
type and all of these operators in just a few lines of code:
# type 'a ref = { mutable contents : 'a };;
type 'a ref = { mutable contents : 'a; }
# let ref x = { contents = x };;
val ref : 'a -> 'a ref = <fun>
# let (!) r = r.contents;;
val ( ! ) : 'a ref -> 'a = <fun>
# let (:=) r x = r.contents <- x;;
val ( := ) : 'a ref -> 'a -> unit = <fun>
The 'a
before the ref
indicates that the ref
type is polymorphic, in the same way that lists are polymorphic, meaning it can contain values of any type. The parentheses around !
and :=
are needed because these are operators, rather than ordinary functions.[parametric polymorphism]{.idx}
Even though a ref
is just another record type, it's important because it is the standard way of simulating the traditional mutable variables you'll find in most languages. For example, we can sum over the elements of a list imperatively by calling List.iter
to call a simple function on every element of a list, using a ref
to accumulate the results:
# let sum list =
let sum = ref 0 in
List.iter list ~f:(fun x -> sum := !sum + x);
!sum;;
val sum : int list -> int = <fun>
This isn't the most idiomatic way to sum up a list, but it shows how you can use a ref
in place of a mutable variable.
::: {data-type=note}
let
and in
The definition of sum
in the above examples was our first use of let
to define a new variable within the body of a function. A let
paired with an in
can be used to introduce a new binding within any local scope, including a function body. The in
marks the beginning of the scope within which the new variable can be used. Thus, we could write:[let binding/local]{.idx}
# let z = 7 in
z + z;;
- : int = 14
Note that the scope of the let
binding is terminated by the double-semicolon, so the value of z
is no longer available:
# z;;
Line 1, characters 1-2:
Error: Unbound value z
We can also have multiple let
bindings in a row, each one adding a new variable binding to what came before:
# let x = 7 in
let y = x * x in
x + y;;
- : int = 56
This kind of nested let
binding is a common way of building up a complex expression, with each let
naming some component, before combining them in one final expression. :::
OCaml also supports traditional imperative control-flow constructs like for
and while
loops. Here, for example, is some code for permuting an array that uses a for
loop: [while loops]{.idx} [for loops]{.idx} [imperative programming/for and while loops]{.idx}
# let permute array =
let length = Array.length array in
for i = 0 to length - 2 do
(* pick a j to swap with *)
let j = i + Random.int (length - i) in
(* Swap i and j *)
let tmp = array.(i) in
array.(i) <- array.(j);
array.(j) <- tmp
done;;
val permute : 'a array -> unit = <fun>
\noindent This is our first use of the Random
module. Note that Random
starts with a fixed seed, but you can call Random.self_init
to choose a new seed at random. [Random module]{.idx}
From a syntactic perspective, you should note the keywords that distinguish a for
loop: for
, to
, do
, and done
.
Here's an example run of this code:
# let ar = Array.init 20 ~f:(fun i -> i);;
val ar : int array =
[|0; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19|]
# permute ar;;
- : unit = ()
# ar;;
- : int array =
[|12; 16; 5; 13; 1; 6; 0; 7; 15; 19; 14; 4; 2; 11; 3; 8; 17; 9; 10; 18|]
OCaml also supports while
loops, as shown in the following function for finding the position of the first negative entry in an array. Note that while
(like for
) is also a keyword:
# let find_first_negative_entry array =
let pos = ref 0 in
while !pos < Array.length array && array.(!pos) >= 0 do
pos := !pos + 1
done;
if !pos = Array.length array then None else Some !pos;;
val find_first_negative_entry : int array -> int option = <fun>
# find_first_negative_entry [|1;2;0;3|];;
- : int option = None
# find_first_negative_entry [|1;-2;0;3|];;
- : int option = Some 1
As a side note, the preceding code takes advantage of the fact that &&
, OCaml's "and" operator, short-circuits. In particular, in an expression of the form expr1
&&
expr2
, expr2
will only be evaluated if expr1
evaluated to true. Were it not for that, then the preceding function would result in an out-of-bounds error. Indeed, we can trigger that out-of-bounds error by rewriting the function to avoid the short-circuiting:
# let find_first_negative_entry array =
let pos = ref 0 in
while
let pos_is_good = !pos < Array.length array in
let element_is_non_negative = array.(!pos) >= 0 in
pos_is_good && element_is_non_negative
do
pos := !pos + 1
done;
if !pos = Array.length array then None else Some !pos;;
val find_first_negative_entry : int array -> int option = <fun>
# find_first_negative_entry [|1;2;0;3|];;
Exception: Invalid_argument "index out of bounds".
The or operator, ||
, short-circuits in a similar way to &&
.
So far, we've played with the basic features of the language via utop
. Now we'll show how to create a simple standalone program. In particular, we'll create a program that sums up a list of numbers read in from the standard input.[programming/simple standalone example]{.idx}
Here's the code, which you can save in a file called sum.ml. Note that we don't terminate expressions with ;;
here, since it's not required outside the toplevel.
open Base
open Stdio
let rec read_and_accumulate accum =
let line = In_channel.input_line In_channel.stdin in
match line with
| None -> accum
| Some x -> read_and_accumulate (accum +. Float.of_string x)
let () =
printf "Total: %F\n" (read_and_accumulate 0.)
This is our first use of OCaml's input and output routines, and we needed to open another library, Stdio
, to get access to them. The function read_and_accumulate
is a recursive function that uses In_channel.input_line
to read in lines one by one from the standard input, invoking itself at each iteration with its updated accumulated sum. Note that input_line
returns an optional value, with None
indicating the end of the input stream.
After read_and_accumulate
returns, the total needs to be printed. This is done using the printf
command, which provides support for type-safe format strings. The format string is parsed by the compiler and used to determine the number and type of the remaining arguments that are required. In this case, there is a single formatting directive, %F
, so printf
expects one additional argument of type float
.
We'll compile our program using dune
, a build system that's designed for use with OCaml projects. First, we need to write a dune-project
file to specify the project's root directory.
(lang dune 2.9)
(name rwo-example)
Then, we need to write a dune
file to specify the specific thing being built. Note that a single project will have just one dune-project
file, but potentially many sub-directories with different dune
files.
In this case, however, we just have one:
(executable
(name sum)
(libraries base stdio))
All we need to specify is the fact that we're building an executable (rather than a library), the name of the executable, and the name of the libraries we depend on.
We can now invoke dune to build the executable.
$ dune build sum.exe
The .exe
suffix indicates that we're building a native-code executable, which we'll discuss more in Files Modules And Programs{data-type=xref}. Once the build completes, we can use the resulting program like any command-line utility. We can feed input to sum.exe
by typing in a sequence of numbers, one per line, hitting Ctrl-D
when we're done:
$ ./_build/default/sum.exe
1
2
3
94.5
Total: 100.5
More work is needed to make a really usable command-line program, including a proper command-line parsing interface and better error handling, all of which is covered in Command Line Parsing{data-type=xref}.
That's it for the guided tour! There are plenty of features left and lots of details to explain, but we hope that you now have a sense of what to expect from OCaml, and that you'll be more comfortable reading the rest of the book as a result.