Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@jplew

jplew/comparison_to_ocaml.md

Created June 3, 2020 01:05
Show Gist options

  • Select an option

    Learn more about clone URLs
  • Save jplew/bbe5ce7f4f6f13bd8fb366e64341ac97 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Learn more about clone URLs
Save jplew/bbe5ce7f4f6f13bd8fb366e64341ac97 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
Reason to OCaml syntax comparison
Raw
comparison_to_ocaml.md
title Comparison to OCaml

If you come from OCaml or are a newcomer reading a tutorial written on OCaml, this guide's for you! But don't forget that reason-tools can convert between OCaml and Reason syntax on the fly.

Comments

OCaml Reason
(* OCaml (*nest*) *) /* Reason /*nest*/ */

Operator Renaming

Reason has all of OCaml's infix operators, but a couple of operators are expressed differently. In Reason, structural equality is written as ==, and reference (physical) equality is written as ===. In Reason, to achieve the corresponding inequality, simply swap the first character with a ! character. (!= for structural inequality, and !== for reference inequality).

Equality OCaml Reason
Structural x = y x == y
Reference x == y x === y
Inequality OCaml Reason
Structural x <> y x != y
Reference x != y x !== y

Local Scope

Reason's lexical scoping is exactly the same as OCaml's, but let bindings syntactically resemble "block scope" which is more familiar to many developers. In Reason, they are created with {} braces, which may contain both let bindings and imperative commands, separated by ;. All blocks evaluate to the last line and the semicolon on the last line is optional. {} braces are only needed if you have more than one item to chain together via ;.

OCaml Reason 
let _ =
  let msg = "Hello" in
  print_string msg;
  let msg2 = "Goodbye" in
  print_string msg2
 
{
  let msg = "Hello";
  print_string(msg);
  let msg2 = "Goodbye";
  print_string(msg2)
};

Reason's {} syntax removes many commonly reported pain points in OCaml's syntax:

  • Double semicolons are removed entirely.
  • begin/end is removed entirely.
  • Infamous imperative parsing issues are gone.
  • Module bodies and local scope are unified.

Local Scope Vs. Module Body

In Reason, everything that can go between the {} in Local Scopes and in module bodies. You can usually even cut/paste code between the two contexts. In OCaml, the syntaxes for the two contexts are very different. Local scope requires trailing in, but module bodies do not and some imperative statements must be assigned to _ or (), or else use double ;;.

OCaml Module Body Reason Module Body 
let ten = 10
let () = imperativeFunc ten ten
let () = imperativeFunc 0 0
 
let ten = 10;
imperativeFunc(ten, ten);
imperativeFunc(0, 0);
 
let ten = 10;;
imperativeFunc ten ten;;
imperativeFunc 0 0;;
 Same as above
OCaml Local Scope Reason Local Scope 
let ten = 10 in
let _ = imperativeFunc ten ten in
imperativeFunc 0 0
 Same as above 
let ten = 10 in begin
  imperativeFunc ten ten;
  imperativeFunc 0 0
end
 Same as above 
let ten = 10 in (
  imperativeFunc ten ten;
  imperativeFunc 0 0
)
 Same as above

Tuple and Record

In Reason, tuples always require parentheses.

OCaml Reason
let tup = 4, 5 let tup = (4, 5);
let tup = ((1: int), (2:int)) let tup = (1: int, 2:int);
fun ((a: int), (b: int)) -> a ((a: int, b: int)) => a;

In Reason, record values resemble JavaScript, using : instead of =.

OCaml Reason 
let myRec = {x = 0; y = 10}
 
let myRec = {x: 0, y: 10};
 
let myFuncs = {
  myFun = (fun x -> x + 1);
  your = (fun a b -> a + b);
}
 
let myFuncs = {
  myFun: (x) => x + 1,
  your: (a, b) => a + b
};

Lists

OCaml Reason
let list = [1; 2; 3] let list = [1, 2, 3]
let list = hd :: tl let list = [hd, ...tl];

Type Definitions

OCaml Tuple Reason Tuple
type tuple = int * int type tuple = (int, int);
let tup: tuple = (10, 30) let tup: tuple = (10, 30);
OCaml Record Reason Record
type r = {x: int; y: int} type r = {x: int, y: int};
let myRec: r = {x = 0; y = 10} let myRec: r = {x: 0, y: 10};
OCaml Function Reason Function
type func = int -> int type func = int => int;
let x: func = fun a -> a + 1 let x: func = (a) => a + 1;

Functions

OCaml Reason
let x a b = e let x = (a, b) => e
let x = fun a b -> e let x = (a, b) => e
let x = fun a -> fun b -> e let x = (a, b) => e

Single argument match functions

OCaml has a function definition (function |) which is considered to be equivalent of function a -> match a with .... Reason has the same, but the syntax makes it clear how it is actually an extension of a single argument function. The single case match is a natural extension of the simple lambda, and the multicase lambda is a natural extension of the single case lambda.

Form OCaml Reason
Lambda 
fun pat -> e
 
fun pat => e
One match case 
function | pat -> e
 
fun | pat => e
Many cases 
function | pat -> e
         | pat2 -> e
 
fun | pat => e
    | pat2 => e

Annotating Arguments

In both Reason and OCaml, arguments are annotated with types by (as with everything else), wrapping them in parenthesis after appending :typeAnnotation.

(arg: argType) => returnValue;
(arg: argType) => (arg2: arg2Type) => returnValue;
(arg: argType, arg2: arg2Type) => returnValue;

Both Reason and OCaml allow annotating the return type, when using the "super sugared let binding" form.

(* OCaml *)
let myFunc (a:int) (b:int) :int * int = (a, b)
let myFunc (a:int) (b:int) :int list = [1]
let myFunc (a:int) (b:int) :int -> int = fun x -> x + a + b
/* Reason */
let myFunc = (a: int, b: int) :(int, int) => (a, b);
let myFunc = (a: int, b: int) :list(int) => [1];
let myFunc = (a: int, b: int): (int => int) => (x) => x + a + b;

Because we're using => for all functions everywhere in Reason, there's one case where we need to add extra parens around a return type that is itself a function type.

Type Parameters

OCaml

OCaml's type applications (think "generics"), are applied in reverse order.

With OCaml, there are some unintuitive consequences of this.

let x: int list = [2]

type listOfListOfInts = int list list

(* Parsed as: *)
type listOfListOfInts = (int list) list

Things get even more strange when type constructors accept multiple parameters. Multiple arguments require parenthesis and commas to separate type parameters, but those parentheses don't represent tuples. The parentheses/comma form must also be given when constructing type instances such as (int, string) tuple.

type ('a, 'b) tuple = 'a * 'b

type listOfTuplesOfStringAndInt = (string, int) tuple list

(* Which is parsed as: *)
type listOfTuplesOfStringAndInt = ((string, int) tuple) list

(* Which allows a list of (tuples of (string and int)) *)
let tuples: listOfTuplesOfStringAndInt = [("asdf", 3)]

Reason

In summary, Reason unifies almost all of the syntax into simple "function application" style meaning that type parameters follow the same comma-separated pattern seen everywhere else in the syntax. This results in fewer syntactic patterns to learn.

For example, you can imagine list being a "function" for types that accepts a type and returns a new type.

OCaml Reason 
let x: int list = [2]
type listOfListOfInts = int list list
type ('a, 'b) tup = ('a * 'b)
type pairs = (int, int) tup list
let tuples: pairs = [(2, 3)]
 
let x: list(int) = [2];
type listOfListOfInts = list(list(int));
type tup('a, 'b) = ('a, 'b);
type pairs = list(tup(int, int));
let tuples: pairs = [(2, 3)];

Tuples as Type Parameters

Because OCaml uses parens and commas to represent multiple arguments to type constructors, it's confusing when one of the arguments to a type constructor is itself a tuple. In OCaml, it's difficult to remember the difference between a type constructor accepting multiple arguments and a type constructor accepting a single argument which happens to be a tuple.

The following examples shows the difference between passing two type parameters to pair, and a single type parameter that happens to be a tuple.

OCaml Reason
type intPair = (int, int) pair type intPair = pair(int, int)
type pairList = (int * int) list type pairList = list((int, int))
  • In Reason, syntax that represent tuple or tuple types, always looks like tuples.
  • In Reason, syntax that represent records or record types, always look like records.
  • Just about everything else uses the syntactic pattern of function application (comma separated arguments).

Variants

OCaml
  • OCaml already expects constructor argument types to be specified in tuple form, so it's confusing when a single constructor expects a single argument that happens to be a tuple type.
  • What's even more confusing is that the constructors don't actually accept tuples, yet the syntax appear to resemble tuples.
  • Sometimes the syntax for instantiating a constructor with multiple arguments overlaps the syntax for constructing a variant with a single argument that happens to be a tuple - so it looks exactly like you are supplying a tuple when you are not actually supplying a tuple.
Reason
  • Variant constructor types are expected to be listed as comma separated lists, using parenthesis to group precedence (as with everything else).
  • Constructing instances of the variant (as you would have guessed) follows function application style (comma separated lists).
  • Tuples always look like tuples, and anything that looks like a tuple is a tuple.
OCaml Reason 
type myVariant =
  | HasNothing
  | HasSingleInt of int
  | HasSingleTuple of (int * int)
  | HasMultipleInts of int * int
  | HasMultipleTuples of (int * int) * (int * int)
 
type myVariant =
  | HasNothing
  | HasSingleInt(int)
  | HasSingleTuple((int, int))
  | HasMultipleInts(int, int)
  | HasMultipleTuples((int, int), (int, int));
 
let a = HasSingleInt 10
let a = HasSingleTuple (10, 10)
let a = HasMultipleInts (10, 10)
let a = HasMultipleTuples ((10, 10), (10, 10))
 
let a = HasSingleInt(10);
let a = HasSingleTuple((10, 10));
let a = HasMultipleInts(10, 10);
let a = HasMultipleTuples((10, 10), (10, 10));
 
let res x = match x with
  | HasNothing -> 0
  | HasSingleInt x -> 0
  | HasSingleTuple (x, y) -> 0
  | HasMultipleInts (x, y) -> 0
  | HasMultipleTuples ((x, y), (q, r)) -> 0
 
let res = (x) =>
  switch (x) {
  | HasNothing => 0
  | HasSingleInt(x) => 0
  | HasSingleTuple((x, y)) => 0
  | HasMultipleInts(x, y) => 0
  | HasMultipleTuples((x, y), (q, r)) => 0
  };

Pattern Matching

OCaml Reason 
let res = match x with
  | A (x, y) -> match y with
    | None -> 0
    | Some i -> 10
  | B (x, y) -> 0
 
let res = switch (x) {
  | A((x, y)) => switch (y) {
      | None => 0
      | Some(i) => 10
    }
  | B((x, y)) => 0
};

Can you spot the error in the OCaml example? This is one of the most common mistakes among OCaml programmers. The nested match must be wrapped in parentheses, otherwise the Some case is parsed as belonging to the outer match. Visually, it's actually:

let res = match x with
  | A (x, y) -> match y with
    | None -> 0
    | Some i -> 10
    | B (x, y) -> 0

Reason's mandatory {} around switch cases prevents this issue.

Modules and Signatures

Definition

OCaml Reason 
module type MySig = sig
  type t = int
  val x: int
end
module MyModule: MySig = struct
  type t = int
  let x = 10
end
module MyModule = struct
  module NestedModule = struct
     let msg = "hello";
  end
end
 
module type MySig = {
  type t = int;
  let x: int;
};
module MyModule: MySig = {
  type t = int;
  let x = 10;
};
module MyModule = {
  module NestedModule = {
    let msg = "hello";
  };
};

Functors Types

OCaml Reason 
module type FType =
  functor (A: ASig) ->
  functor (B: BSig) -> Result
 
module type FType =
  (A: ASig) =>
  (B: BSig) => Result;

Functors

OCaml Reason 
module F =
  functor (A: ASig) ->
  functor (B: BSig) -> struct end
 
module F =
  (A: ASig) =>
  (B: BSig) => {};
 
module F = functor (A: ASig) (B: BSig) -> struct end
 
module F = (A: ASig, B: BSig) => {};
 
module F (A: ASig) (B: BSig) = struct end
 
module F = (A: ASig, B: BSig) => {};
 
module Res = F(A)(B)
 
module Res = F(A, B);

Various Improvements

OCaml doesn't require parens around sequences (a;b;c;d) or tuples (x,y), so that ends up ruling out a bunch of other very convenient syntax rules. Since Reason always uses {} to enclose sequences or let bindings, and Reason always requires () around tuples, many other syntax constructs are expressed more intuitively, without requiring extra wrapping in parenthesis.

Lambdas as record fields no longer need extra parens

This is a welcomed improvement because the OCaml type errors the user would see were very confusing when it would believe the function's return value was a tuple with infix , comma.

OCaml Reason 
let myFuncs = {
  myFun = (fun x -> x + 1);
  your = (fun a b -> a + b);
}
 
let myFuncs = {
  myFun: (x) => x + 1,
  your: (a, b) => a + b
};

Lambdas as match results no longer need extra parens

OCaml Reason 
let x = match prnt with
  | None -> fun a -> blah
  (* Extra () required ! *)
  | Some "_" -> (fun a -> ())
  | Some "ml" -> blah
 
let x =
  switch (prnt) {
  | None => (a) => blah
  | Some("_") => (a) => ()
  | Some("ml") => blah
  };

Lambdas and type annotations in tuples no longer require extra parens

OCaml Reason
let tuple = ((fun x -> x), 20) let tuple = ((x) => x, 20);
let tuple = (("hi": string), (20: int)) let tuple = ("hi": string, 20: int);

Various Differences

as precedence

With Reason, as has a higher precedence than | bar. This allows creating as aliases for entire rows in pattern matching.

OCaml Reason 
let ppp = match MyThing 20 with
  | (MyThing x as ppp)
  | (YourThing x as ppp) -> ppp;
 
let ppp =
  switch (MyThing(20)) {
  | MyThing(x) as ppp
  | YourThing(x) as ppp => ppp
  };

Mutable Record Field Updates

Because equalities and their negations have been made more consistent in Reason, the = operator is available for mutable field update.

OCaml Reason
myRec.field <- "next" myRec.field = "next"

Prefix operators

Reason's ! is used for boolean not. Deferencing uses the postfix ^.

OCaml Reason
let x = !(foo.bar) let x = foo.bar^;
let x = !(foo#bar) let x = foo#bar^;
let x = !(!foo.bar) let x = foo^.bar^;
let x = !(!foo#bar) let x = (foo^)#bar^;
let x = !(!(foo.bar)) let x = foo.bar^ ^;
let x = !(!(foo#bar)) let x = foo#bar^ ^;
let x = !!(foo.bar) let x = !!foo.bar;
let x = !!(foo#bar) let x = !!foo#bar;
let x = !~(foo.bar) let x = !~foo.bar;
let x = !~(foo#bar) let x = !~foo#bar;

Comment Escaping

Because Reason uses C-style comments, some obscure custom prefix/infix operators must be written differently. The rules for prefix/infix operators are the same as in OCaml syntax, but with the following exceptions:

Specifically, if any character except the first in an prefix/infix operator is a star or forward slash, that must be first escaped with a backslash. These will be parsed without the backslash when added to the AST. When reprinted, the escape backslashes are added back in automatically.

OCaml Reason
let (/*) a b = a + b let (/\*) = (a, b) => a + b;
let x = 12 /-* 23 /-* 12 let x = 12 /-* 23 /-* 12;
let y = (/*) a b let y = a /\* b;
let (!=*) q r = q + r let ( !=* ) = (q, r) => q + r;
let res = q (!=*) r let res = q(( !=* ), r);
let (!=/*) q r = q + r let ( !=/\* ) = (q, r) => q + r;
let res = q (!=/*) r let res = q(( !=/\* ), r);

Operator Renaming

If Reason uses == to represent OCaml's =, and uses === to represent OCaml's ==, then how would Reason represent OCaml's === symbol (if it were defined)? Reason provides a way! "Escape" the triple equals symbol!

Identifier Meaning OCaml Reason
"===" Custom value x === y x \=== y

REPL

In Reason's repl rtop (a customized utop), each input is submitted via a single ; semicolon. OCaml's repl requires two semicolons ;;.

OCaml Reason
;; ;
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment