Like the title says what is the intuition behind recursive algos with streams like:
val fibs: LazyList[Int] = (0 #:: fibs).scanLeft(1)(_ + _)
and
val fibs: LazyList[Int] = 0 #:: 1 #:: (fibs.zip(fibs.tail).map{ t => t._1 + t._2 })
How do they unfold? What is the base case for such algos (if it's Nil, why it's so?) and how do they progress towards fibs.take(5) e.g.?
EDIT.
I do understand there is no base case for a lazily defined Stream, as several people pointed out below. Rather, my question concerns what's the base case when infinite stream gets evaluated like in fibs.take(5)(the answer is Nil I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong) and what are the calculation steps in evaluating fibs.take(5)
It's say there are 2 things at play here:
recursive syntax making use of LazyList API
corecursive mathematics behind unfolding
So, let's start with a few words about API and syntax:
#:: takes lazy value and prepends it to LazyList definition, here it is fibs which makes its definition recursive on code level
LazyList lazily evaluates its arguments and then caches/memoizes them for future use letting us access already computed values immediately
However, the mechanism underneath is actually corecursive.
Let's see what is recursion when it comes to data using List as an example:
List(1,2,3,4)
This can be also written as
1 :: 2 :: 3 :: 4 :: Nil
Which is the same as
( ( ( Nil.::(4) ).::(3) ).::(2) ).::(1)
You can see that we:
take Nil
create ::(4, Nil) value which we use to
create ::(3, ::(4, Nil)) value
and so on
In other words, we have to start with some base case and build the whole things from-bottom-up. Such values by definition have to be finite and cannot be used to express series of (possibly) infinite computation.
But there exist an alternative which allows you to express such computations - corecursion and codata.
With corecursion you have a tuple:
the last computed value
a function which can take the value and return the next tuple (next value + next function!)
nothing prevent you from using the same function as second element of the tuple but it's good to have a choice
For instance you could define infinite series of LazyList(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...) like:
// I use case class since
// type Pair = (Int, Int => Pair)
// would be illegal in Scala
final case class Pair(value: Int, f: Int => Pair)
val f: Int => Pair = n => Pair(n + 1, f)
Pair(1, f)
Then you would take Pair, get value out of it (1 initially) and use it to generate new Pairs (Pair(2, f), Pair(3, f), ...).
Structure which would use corecursion to generate its values would be called codata (so LazyList can be considered codata).
Same story with Fibonacci sequence, you could define it corecursively with
(Int, Int) as value (initialized to (0, 1)
val f: (Int, Int) => Pair = { case (n, m) => Pair((m, n + m), f } as function
finally, you'd have to pick _1 out of every generated (Int, Int) pair
However, LazyList's API gives you some nice tools so that you don't have to do this manually:
it memoizes (caches) computed values so you can access list(0), list(1), etc, they aren't forgotten right after use
it gives you methods like .map, .flatMap .scanLeft and so on, so while internally it might have more complex types used for corecursion, you are only seeing the final result that you need
Obviously, all of that is done lazily, by codata's definition: at each step you can only know values defined so far, and how to generate next of out it.
That leads us to your example:
val fibs: LazyList[Int] = (0 #:: fibs).scanLeft(1)(_ + _)
You can think of it as something that:
starts with a pair (0, f)
where the f takes this 0 argument, and combines it with 1 to create (0, 1) tuple
and then constructs next fs which trace the previous value, and passes it along current value to the function passed into scanLeft
where all the shenanigans with intermediate values and functions and memoization are handled internally by API
So if you asked me, the "base case" of such algos is a pair of value and function returning pair, run over and over again.
How do they unfold?
They don't. The #:: function takes a by-name argument, which means that it's evaluated lazily.
What is the base case for such algos (if it's Nil, why it's so?).
There is no "base case", these recursive definitions yield infinite streams:
scala> val fibs: LazyList[Int] = (0 #:: fibs).scanLeft(1)(_ + _)
val fibs: LazyList[Int] = LazyList(<not computed>)
scala> fibs.size
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
(Note the "<not computed>" token, which hints at the laziness)
Related
Suppose that I use a sequence of various maps and/or flatMaps to generate a sequence of collections. Is it possible to access information about the "current" collection from within any of those methods? For example, without knowing anything specific about the functions used in the previous maps or flatMaps, and without using any intermediate declarations, how can I get the maximum value (or length, or first element, etc.) of the collection upon which the last map acts?
List(1, 2, 3)
.flatMap(x => f(x) /* some unknown function */)
.map(x => x + ??? /* what is the max element of the collection? */)
Edit for clarification:
In the example, I'm not looking for the max (or whatever) of the initial List. I'm looking for the max of the collection after the flatMap has been applied.
By "without using any intermediate declarations" I mean that I do not want to use any temporary collections en route to the final result. So, the example by Steve Waldman below, while giving the desired result, is not what I am seeking. (I include this condition is mostly for aesthetic reasons.)
Edit for clarification, part 2:
The ideal solution would be some magic keyword or syntactic sugar that lets me reference the current collection:
List(1, 2, 3)
.flatMap(x => f(x))
.map(x => x + theCurrentList.max)
I'm prepared to accept the fact, however, that this simply is not possible.
Maybe just define the list as a val, so you can name it? I don't know of any facility built into map(...) or flatMap(...) that would help.
val myList = List(1, 2, 3)
myList
.flatMap(x => f(x) /* some unknown function */)
.map(x => x + myList.max /* what is the max element of the List? */)
Update: By this approach at least, if you have multiple transformations and want to see the transformed version, you'd have to name that. You could get away with
val myList = List(1, 2, 3).flatMap(x => f(x) /* some unknown function */)
myList.map(x => x + myList.max /* what is the max element of the List? */)
Or, if there will be multiple transformations, get in the habit of naming the stages.
val rawList = List(1, 2, 3)
val smordified = rawList.flatMap(x => f(x) /* some unknown function */)
val maxified = smordified.map(x => x + smordified.max /* what is the max element of the List? */)
maxified
Update 2: Watch it work in the REPL even with heterogenous types:
scala> def f( x : Int ) : Vector[Double] = Vector(x * math.random, x * math.random )
f: (x: Int)Vector[Double]
scala> val rawList = List(1, 2, 3)
rawList: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3)
scala> val smordified = rawList.flatMap(x => f(x) /* some unknown function */)
smordified: List[Double] = List(0.40730853571901315, 0.15151641399798665, 1.5305929709857609, 0.35211231420067435, 0.644241939254793, 0.15530230501048903)
scala> val maxified = smordified.map(x => x + smordified.max /* what is the max element of the List? */)
maxified: List[Double] = List(1.937901506704774, 1.6821093849837476, 3.0611859419715217, 1.8827052851864352, 2.1748349102405538, 1.6858952759962498)
scala> maxified
res3: List[Double] = List(1.937901506704774, 1.6821093849837476, 3.0611859419715217, 1.8827052851864352, 2.1748349102405538, 1.6858952759962498)
It is possible, but not pretty, and not likely something you want if you are doing it for "aesthetic reasons."
import scala.math.max
def f(x: Int): Seq[Int] = ???
List(1, 2, 3).
flatMap(x => f(x) /* some unknown function */).
foldRight((List[Int](),List[Int]())) {
case (x, (xs, Nil)) => ((x :: xs), List.fill(xs.size + 1)(x))
case (x, (xs, xMax :: _)) => ((x :: xs), List.fill(xs.size + 1)(max(x, xMax)))
}.
zipped.
map {
case (x, xMax) => x + xMax
}
// Or alternately, a slightly more efficient version using Streams.
List(1, 2, 3).
flatMap(x => f(x) /* some unknown function */).
foldRight((List[Int](),Stream[Int]())) {
case (x, (xs, Stream())) =>
((x :: xs), Stream.continually(x))
case (x, (xs, curXMax #:: _)) =>
val newXMax = max(x, curXMax)
((x :: xs), Stream.continually(newXMax))
}.
zipped.
map {
case (x, xMax) => x + xMax
}
Seriously though, I just took this on to see if I could do it. While the code didn't turn out as bad as I expected, I still don't think it's particularly readable. I'd discourage using this over something similar to Steve Waldman's answer. Sometimes, it's simply better to just introduce a val, rather than being dogmatic about it.
You could define a mapWithSelf (resp. flatMapWithSelf) operation along these lines and add it as an implicit enrichment to the collection. For List it might look like:
// Scala 2.13 APIs
object Enrichments {
implicit class WithSelfOps[A](val lst: List[A]) extends AnyVal {
def mapWithSelf[B](f: (A, List[A]) => B): List[B] =
lst.map(f(_, lst))
def flatMapWithSelf[B](f: (A, List[A]) => IterableOnce[B]): List[B] =
lst.flatMap(f(_, lst))
}
}
The enrichment basically fixes the value of the collection before the operation and threads it through. It should be possible to generify this (at least for the strict collections), though it would look a little different in 2.12 vs. 2.13+.
Usage would look like
import Enrichments._
val someF: Int => IterableOnce[Int] = ???
List(1, 2, 3)
.flatMap(someF)
.mapWithSelf { (x, lst) =>
x + lst.max
}
So at the usage site, it's aesthetically pleasant. Note that if you're computing something which traverses the list, you'll be traversing the list every time (leading to a quadratic runtime). You can get around that with some mutability or by just saving the intermediate list after the flatMap.
One somewhat-simple way of referencing prior output within the current map/collect operation is to use a named reference outside the map, then reference it from within the map block:
var prevOutput = ... // starting value of whatever is referenced within the map
myValues.map {
prevOutput = ... // expression that references prior `prevOutput`
prevOutput // return above computed value for the map to collect
}
This draws attention to the fact that we're referencing prior elements while building the new sequence.
This would be more messy, though, if you wanted to reference arbitrarily previous values, not just the previous one.
I am comfortable with streams, but I admit I am puzzled by this behavior:
import collection.immutable.Stream
object StreamForceTest extends App {
println("Computing fibs")
val fibs: Stream[BigInt] = BigInt(0) #:: BigInt(1) #::
fibs.zip(fibs.tail).map((x: (BigInt, BigInt)) => {
println("Adding " + x._1 + " and " + x._2);
x._1 + x._2
})
println("Taking first 5 elements")
val fibs5 = fibs.take(5)
println("Computing length of that prefix")
println("fibs5.length = " + fibs5.length)
}
with output
Computing fibs
Taking first 5 elements
Computing length of that prefix
Adding 0 and 1
Adding 1 and 1
Adding 1 and 2
fibs5.length = 5
Why should take(5) not force the stream's values to be computed,
while length does do so? Offhand neither one needs to actually
look at the values, but I would have thought that take was more
likely to do it than length. Inspecting the source code on github,
we find these definitions for take (including an illuminating
comment):
override def take(n: Int): Stream[A] = (
// Note that the n == 1 condition appears redundant but is not.
// It prevents "tail" from being referenced (and its head being evaluated)
// when obtaining the last element of the result. Such are the challenges
// of working with a lazy-but-not-really sequence.
if (n <= 0 || isEmpty) Stream.empty
else if (n == 1) cons(head, Stream.empty)
else cons(head, tail take n-1)
)
and length:
override def length: Int = {
var len = 0
var left = this
while (!left.isEmpty) {
len += 1
left = left.tail
}
len
}
The definition of head and tail is obtained from the specific
subclass (Empty and Cons). (Of course Empty is an object, not a
class, and its definitions of head and tail just throw
exceptions.) There are subtleties, but they seem to concern making
sure that the tail of a Cons is evaluated lazily; the head
definition is straight out of lecture 0 on Scala constructors.
Note that length doesn't go near head, but it's the one that
does the forcing.
All this is part of a general puzzlement about how close Scala streams
are to Haskell lists. I thought Haskell treated head and tail
symmetrically (I'm not a serious Haskell hacker), and Scala forced
head evaluation in more circumstances. I'm trying to figure out
exactly what those circumstances are.
Stream's head is strict and its tail is lazy, as you can see in cons.apply and in the Cons constructor:
def apply[A](hd: A, tl: => Stream[A]) = new Cons(hd, tl)
class Cons[+A](hd: A, tl: => Stream[A]) extends Stream[A]
Notice the context in which the take method refers to tail:
cons(head, tail take n-1)
Because the expression tail take n-1 is used as the second argument to cons, which is passed by name, it doesn't force evaluation of tail take n-1, thus doesn't force evaluation of tail.
Whereas in length, the statement
left = left.tail
, by assigning left.tail to a var, does force its evaluation.
Scala is "strict by default". In most situations, everything you reference will be evaluated. We only have lazy evaluation in cases where a method/constructor parameter declares an call-by-name argument with =>, and in the culture we don't typically use this unless there's a special reason.
Let me offer another answer to this, one that just looks from a high level, i.e. without actually considering the code.
If you want to know how long a Stream is, you must evaluate it all the way to the end. Otherwise, you can only guess at its length. Admittedly, you may not actually care about the values (since you only want to count them) but that's immaterial.
On the other hand, when you "take" a certain number of elements from a stream (or indeed any collection) you are simply saying that you want at most that number of elements. The result is still a stream even though it may have been truncated.
An infinite stream:
val ones: Stream[Int] = Stream.cons(1, ones)
How is it possible for a value to be used in its own declaration? It seems this should produce a compiler error, yet it works.
It's not always a recursive definition. This actually works and produces 1:
val a : Int = a + 1
println(a)
variable a is created when you type val a: Int, so you can use it in the definition. Int is initialized to 0 by default. A class will be null.
As #Chris pointed out, Stream accepts => Stream[A] so a bit another rules are applied, but I wanted to explain general case. The idea is still the same, but the variable is passed by-name, so this makes the computation recursive. Given that it is passed by name, it is executed lazily. Stream computes each element one-by-one, so it calls ones each time it needs next element, resulting in the same element being produces once again. This works:
val ones: Stream[Int] = Stream.cons(1, ones)
println((ones take 10).toList) // List(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
Though you can make infinite stream easier: Stream.continually(1) Update As #SethTisue pointed out in the comments Stream.continually and Stream.cons are two completely different approaches, with very different results, because cons takes A when continually takes =>A, which means that continually recomputes each time the element and stores it in the memory, when cons can avoid storing it n times unless you convert it to the other structure like List. You should use continually only if you need to generate different values. See #SethTisue comment for details and examples.
But notice that you are required to specify the type, the same as with recursive functions.
And you can make the first example recursive:
lazy val b: Int = b + 1
println(b)
This will stackoverflow.
Look at the signature of Stream.cons.apply:
apply[A](hd: A, tl: ⇒ Stream[A]): Cons[A]
The ⇒ on the second parameter indicates that it has call-by-name semantics. Therefore your expression Stream.cons(1, ones) is not strictly evaluated; the argument ones does not need to be computed prior to being passed as an argument for tl.
The reason this does not produce a compiler error is because both Stream.cons and Cons are non-strict and lazily evaluate their second parameter.
ones can be used in it's own definition because the object cons has an apply method defined like this:
/** A stream consisting of a given first element and remaining elements
* #param hd The first element of the result stream
* #param tl The remaining elements of the result stream
*/
def apply[A](hd: A, tl: => Stream[A]) = new Cons(hd, tl)
And Cons is defined like this:
final class Cons[+A](hd: A, tl: => Stream[A]) extends Stream[A]
Notice that it's second parameter tl is passed by name (=> Stream[A]) rather than by value. In other words, the parameter tl is not evaluated until it is used in the function.
One advantage to using this technique is that you can compose complex expressions that may be only partially evaluated.
In a Stackoverflow post about the creation of Fibonacci numbers I found the method #:: (What is the fastest way to write Fibonacci function in Scala?). In ScalaDocs I found this entry (see here, 1) describing the hash colon colon method as An extractor that allows to pattern match streams with #::.
I realized that I can use the fibonacci function like this
def fibonacci: Stream[Long] = {
def tail(h: Long, n: Long): Stream[Long] = h #:: tail(n, h + n)
tail(0, 1)
}
fibonacci(10) //res4: Long = 55
How should I understand the ScalaDocs explanation? Can you give an additional example?
Why it was not necessary to define a parameter in the fibonacci function above?
The method #:: is defined for Streams. It is similar to the :: method for Lists. The main difference between a List and a Stream is that the elements of a Stream are lazy evaluated.
There's some scala magic happens on the last line. Actually, first you're evaluating the fibonacci expression, and it returns a Stream object. The first and the second elements of this stream are 0 and 1, as follows from the third line of your example, and the rest of the Stream is defined via recursive call. And then you're extracting tenth element from the stream, and it evaluates to 55.
In the code below, I show similar access to the fourth List's element
val list = List(1,2,3,4,5)
println(list(3)) // prints 4
In a nutshell, think about Streams as infinite Lists. You can find more about Streams here http://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/index.html#scala.collection.immutable.Stream
In your example h #:: tail(n, h + n) creates a new stream, where the h is the head of the stream and tail(n, h + n) a stream which will be evaluated lazily.
Another (and maybe easier) example would be to define natural numbers as a stream of BigInt.
def naturalNumbers = {
def next(n: BigInt) : Stream[BigInt] = n #:: next(n + 1)
next(0)
}
println(naturalNumbers) would result in printing Stream(0, ?), because the head is strict, meaning that it will be always evaluated. The tail would be next(1), which is only evaluated when needed.
In your example fibonacci(10) is syntactic sugar for fibonacci.apply(10) which is defined in the Stream class and yields the element with the index in the stream.
You can also do a lot of others things with streams. For example get the first fibonacci number that is greater than 100: fibonacci.dropWhile(_ <= 100).head or just print the first 100 fibonacci numbers println(fibonacci.take(100).toList)
The quick answer to #2 is that fibonacci(10) isn't a function call with parameters, it's a function call with no parameters followed by an invocation of whatever is returned with the parameter "10".
It would have been easier to understand if written like this:
scala> val s = fibonacci
s: Stream[Long] = Stream(0, ?)
scala> s(10)
res1: Long = 55
I have learned the basic difference between foldLeft and reduceLeft
foldLeft:
initial value has to be passed
reduceLeft:
takes first element of the collection as initial value
throws exception if collection is empty
Is there any other difference ?
Any specific reason to have two methods with similar functionality?
Few things to mention here, before giving the actual answer:
Your question doesn't have anything to do with left, it's rather about the difference between reducing and folding
The difference is not the implementation at all, just look at the signatures.
The question doesn't have anything to do with Scala in particular, it's rather about the two concepts of functional programming.
Back to your question:
Here is the signature of foldLeft (could also have been foldRight for the point I'm going to make):
def foldLeft [B] (z: B)(f: (B, A) => B): B
And here is the signature of reduceLeft (again the direction doesn't matter here)
def reduceLeft [B >: A] (f: (B, A) => B): B
These two look very similar and thus caused the confusion. reduceLeft is a special case of foldLeft (which by the way means that you sometimes can express the same thing by using either of them).
When you call reduceLeft say on a List[Int] it will literally reduce the whole list of integers into a single value, which is going to be of type Int (or a supertype of Int, hence [B >: A]).
When you call foldLeft say on a List[Int] it will fold the whole list (imagine rolling a piece of paper) into a single value, but this value doesn't have to be even related to Int (hence [B]).
Here is an example:
def listWithSum(numbers: List[Int]) = numbers.foldLeft((List.empty[Int], 0)) {
(resultingTuple, currentInteger) =>
(currentInteger :: resultingTuple._1, currentInteger + resultingTuple._2)
}
This method takes a List[Int] and returns a Tuple2[List[Int], Int] or (List[Int], Int). It calculates the sum and returns a tuple with a list of integers and it's sum. By the way the list is returned backwards, because we used foldLeft instead of foldRight.
Watch One Fold to rule them all for a more in depth explanation.
reduceLeft is just a convenience method. It is equivalent to
list.tail.foldLeft(list.head)(_)
foldLeft is more generic, you can use it to produce something completely different than what you originally put in. Whereas reduceLeft can only produce an end result of the same type or super type of the collection type. For example:
List(1,3,5).foldLeft(0) { _ + _ }
List(1,3,5).foldLeft(List[String]()) { (a, b) => b.toString :: a }
The foldLeft will apply the closure with the last folded result (first time using initial value) and the next value.
reduceLeft on the other hand will first combine two values from the list and apply those to the closure. Next it will combine the rest of the values with the cumulative result. See:
List(1,3,5).reduceLeft { (a, b) => println("a " + a + ", b " + b); a + b }
If the list is empty foldLeft can present the initial value as a legal result. reduceLeft on the other hand does not have a legal value if it can't find at least one value in the list.
For reference, reduceLeft will error if applied to an empty container with the following error.
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: empty.reduceLeft
Reworking the code to use
myList foldLeft(List[String]()) {(a,b) => a+b}
is one potential option. Another is to use the reduceLeftOption variant which returns an Option wrapped result.
myList reduceLeftOption {(a,b) => a+b} match {
case None => // handle no result as necessary
case Some(v) => println(v)
}
The basic reason they are both in Scala standard library is probably because they are both in Haskell standard library (called foldl and foldl1). If reduceLeft wasn't, it would quite often be defined as a convenience method in different projects.
From Functional Programming Principles in Scala (Martin Odersky):
The function reduceLeft is defined in terms of a more general function, foldLeft.
foldLeft is like reduceLeft but takes an accumulator z, as an additional parameter, which is returned when foldLeft is called on an empty list:
(List (x1, ..., xn) foldLeft z)(op) = (...(z op x1) op ...) op x
[as opposed to reduceLeft, which throws an exception when called on an empty list.]
The course (see lecture 5.5) provides abstract definitions of these functions, which illustrates their differences, although they are very similar in their use of pattern matching and recursion.
abstract class List[T] { ...
def reduceLeft(op: (T,T)=>T) : T = this match{
case Nil => throw new Error("Nil.reduceLeft")
case x :: xs => (xs foldLeft x)(op)
}
def foldLeft[U](z: U)(op: (U,T)=>U): U = this match{
case Nil => z
case x :: xs => (xs foldLeft op(z, x))(op)
}
}
Note that foldLeft returns a value of type U, which is not necessarily the same type as List[T], but reduceLeft returns a value of the same type as the list).
To really understand what are you doing with fold/reduce,
check this: http://wiki.tcl.tk/17983
very good explanation. once you get the concept of fold,
reduce will come together with the answer above:
list.tail.foldLeft(list.head)(_)
Scala 2.13.3, Demo:
val names = List("Foo", "Bar")
println("ReduceLeft: "+ names.reduceLeft(_+_))
println("ReduceRight: "+ names.reduceRight(_+_))
println("Fold: "+ names.fold("Other")(_+_))
println("FoldLeft: "+ names.foldLeft("Other")(_+_))
println("FoldRight: "+ names.foldRight("Other")(_+_))
outputs:
ReduceLeft: FooBar
ReduceRight: FooBar
Fold: OtherFooBar
FoldLeft: OtherFooBar
FoldRight: FooBarOther