I'm trying to run a .ml script, test.ml, using the command ocaml and use a module, template.ml, that I setup.
Currently, I know that I can run ocaml using the module by doing ocaml -init template.ml and that I can run a script using ocaml test.ml.
I'm trying to run the script, test.ml, and use the module, template.ml.
I have tried using ocaml test.ml with the first line being open Template ;;after compiling template with ocamlopt -c template.ml. Template is undefined in that case.
I have also tried using ocaml -init template.ml test.ml with and without open Template ;; as the first line of code. They don't work or error respectively.
First, the open command is only for controlling the namespace. I.e., it controls the set of visible names. It doesn't have the effect (as is often assumed) of locating and making a module accessible. (In general you should avoid over-using open. It's never necessary; you can always use the full Module.name syntax.)
The ocaml command line takes any number of compiled ocaml modules followed by one ocaml (.ml) file.
So you can do what you want by compiling the template.ml file before you start:
$ ocamlc -c template.ml
$ ocaml template.cmo test.ml
Here is a fully worked example with minimal contents of the files:
$ cat template.ml
let f x = x + 5
$ cat test.ml
let main () = Printf.printf "%d\n" (Template.f 14)
let () = main ()
$ ocamlc -c template.ml
$ ocaml template.cmo test.ml
19
For what it's worth I think of OCaml as a compiled language rather than a scripting language. So I usually compile all the files and then run them. Using the same files as above, it looks like this:
$ ocamlc -o test template.ml test.ml
$ ./test
19
I only use the ocaml command when I want a to interact with an interpreter (which OCaml folks have traditionally called the "toplevel").
$ ocaml
OCaml version 4.10.0
# let f x = x + 5;;
val f : int -> int = <fun>
# f 14;;
- : int = 19
#
Related
I'm fairly new to NixOS, and am trying to invoke emacs from a Haskell program using the following function:
ediff :: String -> String -> String -> IO ()
ediff testName a b = do
a' <- writeSystemTempFile (testName ++ ".expected") a
b' <- writeSystemTempFile (testName ++ ".received") b
let quote s = "\"" ++ s ++ "\""
callCommand $ "emacs --eval \'(ediff-files " ++ quote a' ++ quote b' ++ ")\'"
When I run the program that invokes this command using stack test, I get the following result (interspersed with unit test results):
/bin/sh: emacs: command not found
Exception: callCommand: emacs --eval '(ediff-files "/run/user/1000/ast1780695788709393584.expected" "/run/user/1000/ast4917054031918502651.received")'
When I run the command that failed to run above from my shell, it works flawlessly. How can I run processes from Haskell in NixOS, as though I had invoked them directly, so that they can access the same commands and configurations as my user?
Both your shell and callCommand use the PATH environment variable, so it seems like stack is changing that. It turns out that stack uses a pure nix shell by default, but you also want to access your user environment, which is 'impure'.
To quote the stack documenation
By default, stack will run the build in a pure Nix build environment (or shell), which means the build should fail if you haven't specified all the dependencies in the packages: section of the stack.yaml file, even if these dependencies are installed elsewhere on your system. This behaviour enforces a complete description of the build environment to facilitate reproducibility. To override this behaviour, add pure: false to your stack.yaml or pass the --no-nix-pure option to the command line.
Another solution is to add Emacs to nix.dependencies in stack.yaml (thanks #chepner). It has the benefit that some version of Emacs will always be available when a developer runs the tests, but that Emacs may not be the Emacs they want to use. You may be able to work around that using something like ~/.config/nixpkgs/config.nix, unless they have configured their Emacs elsewhere, like the system configuration or perhaps a home manager. I'd prefer the simple but impure $PATH solution.
I wish to write some Haskell that calls an executable as part of its work; and install this on a nixOS host. I don't want the executable to be in my PATH (and to rely on that would disrupt the beautiful dependency model of nix).
If this were, say, a Perl script, I would have a simple builder that looked for strings of a certain format, and replaced them with the executable names, based upon dependencies declared in the .nix file. But that seems somewhat harder with the cabal-based building common to haskell.
Is there a standard idiom for encoding the paths to executables at build time (including during development, as well as at install time) within Haskell code on nix?
For the sake of a concrete example, here is a trivial "script":
import System.Process ( readProcess )
main = do
stdout <- readProcess "hostname" [] ""
putStrLn $ "Hostname: " ++ stdout
I would like to be able to compile run this (in principle) without relying on hostname being in the PATH, but rather replacing hostname with the full /nix/store/-inetutils-/bin/hostname path, and thus also gaining the benefits of dependency management under nix.
This could possibly be managed by using a shell (or similar) script, built using a replacement scheme as defined above, that sets up an environment that the haskell executable expects; but still that would need some bootstrapping via the cabal.mkDerivation, and since I'm a lover of OptParse-Applicative's bash completion, I'm loathe to slow that down with another script to fire up every time I hit the tab key. But if that's what's needed, fair enough.
I did look through cabal.mkDerivation for some sort of pre-build step, but if it's there I'm not seeing it.
Thanks,
Assuming you're building the Haskell app in Nix, you can patch a configuration file via your Nix expression. For an example of how to do this, have a look at this small project.
The crux is that you can define a postConfigure hook like this:
pkgs.haskell.lib.overrideCabal yourProject (old: {
postConfigure = ''
substituteInPlace src/Configuration.hs --replace 'helloPrefix = Nothing' 'helloPrefix = Just "${pkgs.hello}"'
'';
})
What I do with my xmonad build in nix1 is refer to executable paths as things like ##compton##/bin/compton. Then I use a script like this to generate my default.nix file:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -eu
packages=($(grep '##[^#]*##' src/Main.hs | sed -e 's/.*##\(.*\)##.*/\1/' | sort -u))
extra_args=()
for p in "${packages[#]}"; do
extra_args+=(--extra-arguments "$p")
done
cabal2nix . "${extra_args[#]}" \
| head -n-1
echo " patchPhase = ''";
echo " substituteInPlace src/Main.hs \\"
for p in "${packages[#]}"; do
echo " --replace '##$p##' '\${$p}' \\"
done
echo " '';"
echo "}"
What it does is grep through src/Main.hs (could easily be changed to find all haskell files, or to some specific configuration module) and pick out all the tags surrounded by## like ##some-package-name##. It then does 2 things with them:
passes them to cabal2nix as extra arguments for the nix expression it generates
post-processes nix expression output from cabal2nix to add a patch phase, which replaces the ##some-package-name## tag in the Haskell source file with the actual path to the derivation.2
This generates a nix-expression like this:
{ mkDerivation, base, compton, networkmanagerapplet, notify-osd
, powerline, setxkbmap, stdenv, synapse, system-config-printer
, taffybar, udiskie, unix, X11, xmonad, xmonad-contrib
}:
mkDerivation {
pname = "xmonad-custom";
version = "0.0.0.0";
src = ./.;
isLibrary = false;
isExecutable = true;
executableHaskellDepends = [
base taffybar unix X11 xmonad xmonad-contrib
];
description = "My XMonad build";
license = stdenv.lib.licenses.bsd3;
patchPhase = ''
substituteInPlace src/Main.hs \
--replace '##compton##' '${compton}' \
--replace '##networkmanagerapplet##' '${networkmanagerapplet}' \
--replace '##notify-osd##' '${notify-osd}' \
--replace '##powerline##' '${powerline}' \
--replace '##setxkbmap##' '${setxkbmap}' \
--replace '##synapse##' '${synapse}' \
--replace '##system-config-printer##' '${system-config-printer}' \
--replace '##udiskie##' '${udiskie}' \
'';
}
The net result is I can just write Haskell code and a cabal package file; I don't have to worry much about maintaining the nix package file as well, only re-running my generate-nix script if my dependencies change.
In my Haskell code I just write paths to executables as if ##the-nix-package-name## was an absolute path to a folder where that package is installed, and everything magically works.
The installed xmonad binary ends up containing hardcoded references to the absolute paths to the executables I call, which is how nix likes to work (this means it automatically knows about the dependency during garbage collection, for example). And I don't have to worry about keeping the things I called in my interactive environment's PATH, or maintaining a wrapper that sets up PATH just for this executable.
1 I have it set up as a cabal project that gets built and installed into the nix store, rather than having it dynamically recompile itself from ~/.xmonad/xmonad.hs
2 Step 2 is a little meta, since I'm using a bash script to generate nix code with an embedded bash script in it
This is not indented to be the answer but if I post this in comment section it would turn out to be ugly formatted.
Also I am not sure if this hack is the right way to do the job.
I notice that if I use nix-shell I can get full path to nix store
Assume hash is always the same, AFAIK I believe it is, you can use it to hard-coded in build recipe.
$ which bash
/run/current-system/sw/bin/bash
[wizzup# ~]
$ nix-shell -p bash
[nix-shell:~]$ which bash
/nix/store/wb34dgkpmnssjkq7yj4qbjqxpnapq0lw-bash-4.4-p12/bin/bash
Lastly, I doubt if you have to to any of this if you use buildInput, it should be the same path.
Previously I used ghc version < 8 on Linux and when I had a script in a file, say file.hs, like
let x = "hello"
putStrLn x
double x=2*x
print $ double 2
double 3
then it was possible to run it and get the outputs in a terminal by doing
ghc -e ':script file.hs'
Now I'm using ghc 8.0.1 on Windows and this does not work anymore. Is there another way ?
I can get the outputs if I open GHCi and type :script file.hs. But I want these outputs in the terminal.
I don't know whether this is due to the upgrade of ghc or to the OS.
This works with double quotes:
ghc -e ":script file.hs"
How do I compile an fsharp application in linux, using fsharpc from console?
I have multiple modules and my entry point for the application is in a Program.fs file the classic console-application style:
open module A
open module B
open module C
[<EntryPoint>]
let main argv =
...
where A, B, C are in files called A.fs, B.fs and C.fs...
In Visual Studio, one can easily define the order to compile to the files in by rearranging them in the project view, however it is not clear to me how to do this in linux...?
I guess I have to define the order in the console somehow
$ fsharpc -o test.exe Program.fs --fileorder:[A.fs,B.fs,C.fs,Program.fs]
I am using F# 3.1
(and currently playing around with the new cross platform VSCode IDE)
Just pass the files to fsharpc in the correct order:
$ fsharpc --out:test.exe A.fs B.fs C.fs Program.fs
I usually store this list in a file and then use xargs:
$ cat dependency-order.txt
A.fs
B.fs
C.fs
Program.fs
$ cat dependency-order.txt | xargs -d '\n' fsharpc --out:test.exe
I'm trying to run the elm-reactor project, which is written in Haskell. It fails because it's trying to proc out to the elm command like this:
createProcess (proc "elm" $ args fileName)
My elm executable is sitting in ~/.cabal/bin, which is in my PATH.
The System.Process.proc command searches the $PATH for its command argument, but it doesn't do tilde (~) expansion, so it doesn't find elm.
System.Process.shell has the opposite problem. It does tilde expansion, but it doesn't search the $PATH, apparently.
From the source of the System.Process command, it looks like most everything rests on a foreign ccall to "runInteractiveProcess", which I assume is doing whatever $PATH searching is being done. I don't know where the source for runInteractiveProcess would be, and my C is about 15 years worth of rusty.
I can work around this issue by
a) adding the fully-expanded cabal/bin path to my PATH or
b) symlinking an elm from the working directory to its location in cabal/bin.
However, I'd like to offer a suggested fix to the elm project, to save future adopters the trouble I've gone through. Is there a System.Process call that they should be making here that I haven't tried? Or is there a different method they should be using? I suppose at worst they could getEnv for the PATH and HOME, and implement their own file search using that before calling proc - but that breaks cross-platform compatibility. Any other suggestions?
Try using shell instead of proc, i.e.:
createProcess (shell "elm")
This should invoke elm via a shell, which hopefully will interpret tildes in $PATH as desired.
Update: Here is the experiment I performed to test what shell does...
Compile the following program (I called it run-foofoo):
import System.Process
main = do
(,,_,h) <- createProcess $ shell "foofoo"
ec <- waitForProcess h
print ec
Create a new directory ~/new-bin and place the following perl script there as the file foofoo:
#!/usr/bin/perl
print "Got here and PATH is $ENV{PATH}\n";
Run: chmod a+rx ~/new-bin/foofoo
Test with:
PATH="/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin" ./run-foofoo # should fail
PATH="$HOME/new-bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin" ./run-foofoo # should succeed
PATH="~/new-bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin" ./run-foofoo # ???
On my OSX system, the third test reports:
Got here and PATH is ~/new-bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/sbin
ExitSuccess