RE: A common use of try ... with

RE: A common use of try ... with

[Andrew Kennedy]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7081 bytes --]

Interestingly enough, Nick Benton and I came up with precisely the same
construct for different reasons. We observed that using the traditional
"handle" construct (Caml's try...with) in our MLj compiler's typed
intermediate language was preventing certain rewrites - or at least, the
rewrite would have to introduce hacks of the kind that you describe (case on
a sum type). For example (excuse the syntax), in

  let g = (f y handle E => \w.5+w)  
  in g 6

we'd like to "float" the handler out. This is especially important if a
beta-reduction occurs as a result (as is the case here). But there's no way
of doing the rewrite without introducing some superfluous construct such as
a case (the same thing can be done using another exception, or a
continuation). But now considering expressing handle in terms of a more
general try construct (as has been suggested on this thread):

  M handle E => N          ==          try z = M catch E => N in z

where the construct

  try z = M catch E => N in P

is interpreted as "Evaluate M. If successful, bind the result to z and
evaluate P. Otherwise, if exception E is raised, evaluate the exception
handler N, or if some other exception is raised, pass it on." (The most
general form has a set of exception handlers). 

Now we can rewrite the above expression:

  let g = (try z = f y catch E => \w.5+w in z)
  in g 6

(float the try)
-->

  try z = f y catch E => (let g = \w.5+w in g 6)
  in 
    let g = z in g 6

(beta)
-->
  
  try z = f y catch E => 11
  in z 6

Also observe that the "tail-ness" of function application is immediately
clear: clearly f y is not a tail call (as this expression is not a
"continuation") whereas z 6 is.

We do in fact use this new construct in our intermediate language, MIL
(monadic intermediate language). See our ICFP'98 paper, or for more detail,
our recent HOOTS paper
(http://research.microsoft.com/users/akenn/papers/index.html). In the latter
we present another, theoretical argument in favour of the try construct:
that it permits a structurally-inductive definition of termination to be
expressed directly in the syntax of terms.

Finally, as a programmer I have also fallen across examples similar to those
cited in this thread. Here's a function (in SML, sorry!) that reads the
first file that opens successfully:

fun lookup (n::ns) = 
    case ((SOME (TextIO.openIn n)) handle IO.Io _ => NONE) of
      NONE => lookup ns
    | SOME f => readIt f

Now in terms of a (putative) try construct:

fun lookup (n::ns) =
    try f = TextIO.openIn n catch IO.Io _ => lookup ns
    in
      readIt f
    end

Much nicer.

Nick and I are currently writing a short paper that discusses this new
construct from three perspectives: the programmer's (as has been discussed
on this thread), the compiler writer's (our original motivation), and the
theorist's. Watch this space!

- Andrew.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judicael Courant [mailto:Judicael.Courant@lri.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 7:45 AM
> To: Daniel de Rauglaudre
> Cc: Norman Ramsey; caml-list@inria.fr
> Subject: A common use of try ... with
> 
> 
> 
> [french version below]
> In his message of Wed December 15, 1999, Daniel de Rauglaudre writes: 
> > To resolve this problem, instead of:
> > 
> >      try
> >        let x = exp in
> >        f x
> >      with Exception -> y
> 
> I noticed that this programming pattern is quite common in Caml,
> i.e. you frequently want to compute an exp that may raise an
> exception, then do something with the value of this expression or
> handle the exception (typically read a file, then either compute
> something from what you have read or handle IO errors).
> 
> Of course, you can rewrite it as you mentionned. But should not there
> be a construct to handle this kind of pattern in caml ?
> 
> This new construct (let us call it tryeval) would permit us to write
> things like this :
> 
> tryeval exp
> val x -> f x (* this case is evaluated only when exp 
> evaluates to a value *)
> with
> (* possible exceptions *)
> | Exception1 -> ...
> | Exception2 y -> ...
> ...
> 
> which is IMHO more readable and general than the workaround you
> mentionned.
> 
> In fact, this new construct could even be only a generalization of the
> current try with :
> 
> try e with E1 -> e1 | ...
> 
> is indeed equivalent to
> 
> tryeval e val x -> x
> with
>   E1 -> e1
> | ...
> 
> So that there is no need for a new keyword tryeval : one could just
> reuse the existing "try" keyword, generalizing this construct.
> 
> 
> For the moment, the easiest way for implementing this new behavior is
> probably syntactic sugar : the previous example would expand to :
> 
> match (try Left exp with e -> Right e) with
> | Left x -> f x
> | Right Exception1 -> ...
> | Right (Excepion2 y) -> ...
> 
> with definition :
> 
> type ('a,'b) sum =
> | Left of 'a
> | Right of 'b
> 
> Is not there anything like this in the righteous syntax yet ?
> 
> [english version above]
> 
> Dans son message du mercredi 15 décembre 1999 Daniel de Rauglaudre
> écrit : 
> > To resolve this problem, instead of:
> > 
> >      try
> >        let x = exp in
> >        f x
> >      with Exception -> y
> 
> J'ai remarqué que ce "motif" est assez courant en Caml : il arrive
> fréquemment qu'on veuille calculer une expression et gérer l'exception
> levée s'il y en a une ou utiliser la valeur calculée s'il n'y a pas eu
> d'exception (cas typique : lecture d'un fichier, puis calcul d'une
> valeur ou gestion des erreurs d'entrées-sorties).
> 
> On peut bien sûr toujours écrire l'expression de la façon que tu
> mentionnes mais ne devrait-il pas y avoir une construction 
> primitive de
> Caml pour effectuer ce genre d'opération ?
> 
> Cette nouvelle construction (qu'on peut appeler tryeval) s'utiliserait
> ainsi :
> 
> tryeval exp
> val x -> f x (* évalué seulement si exp ne lève pas d'exception, dans
> ce cas x est la valeur de exp *)
> with
> (* exceptions possibles *)
> | Exception1 -> ...
> | Exception2 y -> ...
> ...
> 
> C'est à mon humble avis plus lisible et général que le truc que tu
> donnes.
> 
> Cette nouvelle construction pourrait même être en fait une simple
> généralisation de l'actuelle construction try ... with :
> 
> try e with E1 -> e1 | ...
> 
> serait en fait juste du sucre syntaxique pour 
> 
> tryeval e val x -> x
> with
>   E1 -> e1
> | ...
> 
> Donc pas besoin d'un nouveau mot-clé : au lieu d'appeler cette
> nouvelle construction tryeval, il suffit de l'appeler try.
> 
> Une façon simple d'implanter ce nouveau comportement serait de mettre
> un tout petit peu de sucre syntaxique. L'exemple donné précédemment
> donnerait :
> 
> match (try Left exp with e -> Right e) with
> | Left x -> f x
> | Right Exception1 -> ...
> | Right (Excepion2 y) -> ...
> 
> à condition d'avoir au préalable défini :
> 
> type ('a,'b) sum =
> | Left of 'a
> | Right of 'b
> 
> Ca n'existe pas encore dans la syntaxe righteous ?
> 
> Judicaël.
> -- 
> Judicael.Courant@lri.fr, http://www.lri.fr/~jcourant/
> [Computing timetable constraints..................done: 0 solution(s)]
> 

Re: A common use of try ... with

[Christophe Raffalli]

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Judicael Courant wrote:

> tryeval exp
> val x -> f x (* this case is evaluated only when exp evaluates to a value *)
> with
> (* possible exceptions *)
> | Exception1 -> ...
> | Exception2 y -> ...
> ...
> 
> which is IMHO more readable and general than the workaround you
> mentionned.
> 

You can do this:

try raise (Val exp) with
  Val x -> f x
| Exception1 -> ...
| Exception2 y -> ...   

this is quite readable and does exactly what you want.

Is this optimized by the compiler (there is no need to construct the (Val
x) exception? If it is the case, this is a reasonable syntax. 

The main pb is that the Val exception needs to be definied for each type
as polymorphic exceptions are not allowed. 

One could make Val a reserved word (and not an exception) and propose the
following syntax:

try exp with
  Val y -> f x
| ....

The Val y case being use when no exceptions are raised.

Christophe Raffalli

Re: A common use of try ... with

[Daniel de Rauglaudre]

> tryeval exp
> val x -> f x (* this case is evaluated only when exp evaluates to a value *)
> with
> (* possible exceptions *)
> | Exception1 -> ...
> | Exception2 y -> ...

No problem: experiment that with Camlp4, which is exactly its application
domain and tell us your conclusions!

> tryeval exp
> val x -> f x (* évalué seulement si exp ne lève pas d'exception, dans
> ce cas x est la valeur de exp *)
> with
> (* exceptions possibles *)
> | Exception1 -> ...
> | Exception2 y -> ...

Pas de problème: expérimente ça avec Camlp4, ce qui est exactement son
domaine d'application et fais-nous part de tes conclusions!

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/

A common use of try ... with

[Judicael Courant]

[french version below]
In his message of Wed December 15, 1999, Daniel de Rauglaudre writes: 
> To resolve this problem, instead of:
> 
>      try
>        let x = exp in
>        f x
>      with Exception -> y

I noticed that this programming pattern is quite common in Caml,
i.e. you frequently want to compute an exp that may raise an
exception, then do something with the value of this expression or
handle the exception (typically read a file, then either compute
something from what you have read or handle IO errors).

Of course, you can rewrite it as you mentionned. But should not there
be a construct to handle this kind of pattern in caml ?

This new construct (let us call it tryeval) would permit us to write
things like this :

tryeval exp
val x -> f x (* this case is evaluated only when exp evaluates to a value *)
with
(* possible exceptions *)
| Exception1 -> ...
| Exception2 y -> ...
...

which is IMHO more readable and general than the workaround you
mentionned.

In fact, this new construct could even be only a generalization of the
current try with :

try e with E1 -> e1 | ...

is indeed equivalent to

tryeval e val x -> x
with
  E1 -> e1
| ...

So that there is no need for a new keyword tryeval : one could just
reuse the existing "try" keyword, generalizing this construct.


For the moment, the easiest way for implementing this new behavior is
probably syntactic sugar : the previous example would expand to :

match (try Left exp with e -> Right e) with
| Left x -> f x
| Right Exception1 -> ...
| Right (Excepion2 y) -> ...

with definition :

type ('a,'b) sum =
| Left of 'a
| Right of 'b

Is not there anything like this in the righteous syntax yet ?

[english version above]

Dans son message du mercredi 15 décembre 1999 Daniel de Rauglaudre
écrit : 
> To resolve this problem, instead of:
> 
>      try
>        let x = exp in
>        f x
>      with Exception -> y

J'ai remarqué que ce "motif" est assez courant en Caml : il arrive
fréquemment qu'on veuille calculer une expression et gérer l'exception
levée s'il y en a une ou utiliser la valeur calculée s'il n'y a pas eu
d'exception (cas typique : lecture d'un fichier, puis calcul d'une
valeur ou gestion des erreurs d'entrées-sorties).

On peut bien sûr toujours écrire l'expression de la façon que tu
mentionnes mais ne devrait-il pas y avoir une construction primitive de
Caml pour effectuer ce genre d'opération ?

Cette nouvelle construction (qu'on peut appeler tryeval) s'utiliserait
ainsi :

tryeval exp
val x -> f x (* évalué seulement si exp ne lève pas d'exception, dans
ce cas x est la valeur de exp *)
with
(* exceptions possibles *)
| Exception1 -> ...
| Exception2 y -> ...
...

C'est à mon humble avis plus lisible et général que le truc que tu
donnes.

Cette nouvelle construction pourrait même être en fait une simple
généralisation de l'actuelle construction try ... with :

try e with E1 -> e1 | ...

serait en fait juste du sucre syntaxique pour 

tryeval e val x -> x
with
  E1 -> e1
| ...

Donc pas besoin d'un nouveau mot-clé : au lieu d'appeler cette
nouvelle construction tryeval, il suffit de l'appeler try.

Une façon simple d'implanter ce nouveau comportement serait de mettre
un tout petit peu de sucre syntaxique. L'exemple donné précédemment
donnerait :

match (try Left exp with e -> Right e) with
| Left x -> f x
| Right Exception1 -> ...
| Right (Excepion2 y) -> ...

à condition d'avoir au préalable défini :

type ('a,'b) sum =
| Left of 'a
| Right of 'b

Ca n'existe pas encore dans la syntaxe righteous ?

Judicaël.
-- 
Judicael.Courant@lri.fr, http://www.lri.fr/~jcourant/
[Computing timetable constraints..................done: 0 solution(s)]