Given an object myObject which has a method getSomething which takes in a String parameter and returns a String
Are #1 and #2 equivalent?
val foo = myOjbect.getSomething("foo")
val foo = myOjbect getSomething "foo"
And are either acceptable / preferred over the other? When would you use 1 vs 2 and vica versa?
They are strictly equivalent.
Regarding your second question, Stack Overflow is not really meant to decide what is acceptable or preferred. Yet you can refer to the scala documentation on method invocation that states this:
Scala has a special punctuation-free syntax for invoking methods that take one argument. Many Scala programmers use this notation for symbolic-named methods:
// recommended
a + b
// legal, but less readable
a+b
// legal, but definitely strange
a.+(b)
but avoid it for almost all alphabetic-named methods:
// recommended
names.mkString(",")
// also sometimes seen; controversial
names mkString ","
Yes they are identical.
There is no consensus (I don't think it is possible to achieve one) which form are preferable (such questions are offtopic here).
Yes, they are identical.
I mostly use the 2nd version when developing tests like:
result mustEqual "Hello"
Related
I am not sure the keywords for this pattern, sorry if the question is not clear.
If you have:
case class MyFancyWrapper(
somethingElse: Any,
heavyComplexObject: CrazyThing
)
val w = MyFancyWrapper(???, complexThing)
I want to be able to call w.method with the method coming from complexThing. I tried to extends CrazyThing but it is a trait and I don't want to implement all the method that would be very tedious. I also don't want to have to do:
def method1 = heavyComplexObject.method1
...
for all of them.
Any solution ?
Thanks.
You can do this with macros but I agree with Luis that this is an overkill. Macros are intended to repetitive boring things, not one time boring things. Also this is not as trivial as it sounds, because you probably don't want to pass through all the methods (you probably still want your own hashCode and equals). Finally macros have bad IDE support so most probably no auto-completion for all those methods. On the other hand if you do use a good IDE (like IDEA) there is most probably an action like "Delegate methods" that will generate most of the code for you. You still will have to change the return type from Unit to MyFancyWrapper and add returning this at the end of each method but this can easily be done with mass replace operations (hint: replace "}" with "this }" and the automatically re-formatting code should do the trick)
Here are some screenshots of the process from JetBrains IDEA:
You can use an implicit conversion to make all the methods of heavyComplexThing directly available on MyFancyWrapper:
implicit def toHeavy(fancy: MyFancyWrapper): CrazyThing = fancy.heavyComplexObject
This needs to be in scope when the method is called.
In the comments you indicate that you want to return this so that you can chain multiple calls on the same object:
w.method1.method2.method3
Don't do this
While this is a common pattern in non-functional languages, it is bad practice is Scala for two reasons:
This pattern inherently relies on side-effects, which is the antithesis of functional programming.
It is confusing, because in Scala chaining calls in this way is used to implement a data pipeline, where the output of one function is passed as the input to the next.
It is much clearer to write separate statements so that it is obvious that the methods are being called on the same object:
w.method1()
w.method2()
w.method3()
(It is also conventional to use () when calling methods with side effects)
I'm currently working on my functional programming - I am fairly new to it. Am i using Options correctly here? I feel pretty insecure on my skills currently. I want my code to be as safe as possible - Can any one point out what am I doing wrong here or is it not that bad? My code is pretty straight forward here:
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit =
{
val file = "myFile.txt"
val myGame = Game(file) //I have my game that returns an Option here
if(myGame.isDefined) //Check if I indeed past a .txt file
{
val solutions = myGame.get.getAllSolutions() //This returns options as well
if(solutions.isDefined) //Is it possible to solve the puzzle(crossword)
{
for(i <- solutions.get){ //print all solutions to the crossword
i.solvedCrossword foreach println
}
}
}
}
-Thanks!! ^^
When using Option, it is recommended to use match case instead of calling 'isDefined' and 'get'
Instead of the java style for loop, use higher-order function:
myGame match {
case Some(allSolutions) =>
val solutions = allSolutions.getAllSolutions
solutions.foreach(_.solvedCrossword.foreach(println))
case None =>
}
As a rule of thumb, you can think of Option as a replacement for Java's null pointer. That is, in cases where you might want to use null in Java, it often makes sense to use Option in Scala.
Your Game() function uses None to represent errors. So you're not really using it as a replacement for null (at least I'd consider it poor practice for an equivalent Java method to return null there instead of throwing an exception), but as a replacement for exceptions. That's not a good use of Option because it loses error information: you can no longer differentiate between the file not existing, the file being in the wrong format or other types of errors.
Instead you should use Either. Either consists of the cases Left and Right where Right is like Option's Some, but Left differs from None in that it also takes an argument. Here that argument can be used to store information about the error. So you can create a case class containing the possible types of errors and use that as an argument to Left. Or, if you never need to handle the errors differently, but just present them to the user, you can use a string with the error message as the argument to Left instead of case classes.
In getAllSolutions you're just using None as a replacement for the empty list. That's unnecessary because the empty list needs no replacement. It's perfectly fine to just return an empty list when there are no solutions.
When it comes to interacting with the Options, you're using isDefined + get, which is a bit of an anti pattern. get can be used as a shortcut if you know that the option you have is never None, but should generally be avoided. isDefined should generally only be used in situations where you need to know whether an option contains a value, but don't need to know the value.
In cases where you need to know both whether there is a value and what that value is, you should either use pattern matching or one of Option's higher-order functions, such as map, flatMap, getOrElse (which is kind of a higher-order function if you squint a bit and consider by-name arguments as kind-of like functions). For cases where you want to do something with the value if there is one and do nothing otherwise, you can use foreach (or equivalently a for loop), but note that you really shouldn't do nothing in the error case here. You should tell the user about the error instead.
If all you need here is to print it in case all is good, you can use for-comprehension which is considered quite idiomatic Scala way
for {
myGame <- Game("mFile.txt")
solutions <- myGame.getAllSolutions()
solution <- solutions
crossword <- solution.solvedCrossword
} println(crossword)
In Java, it's a common best practice to do string concatenation with StringBuilder due to the poor performance of appending strings using the + operator. Is the same practice recommended for Scala or has the language improved on how java performs its string concatenation?
Scala uses Java strings (java.lang.String), so its string concatenation is the same as Java's: the same thing is taking place in both. (The runtime is the same, after all.) There is a special StringBuilder class in Scala, that "provides an API compatible with java.lang.StringBuilder"; see http://www.scala-lang.org/api/2.7.5/scala/StringBuilder.html.
But in terms of "best practices", I think most people would generally consider it better to write simple, clear code than maximally efficient code, except when there's an actual performance problem or a good reason to expect one. The + operator doesn't really have "poor performance", it's just that s += "foo" is equivalent to s = s + "foo" (i.e. it creates a new String object), which means that, if you're doing a lot of concatenations to (what looks like) "a single string", you can avoid creating unnecessary objects — and repeatedly recopying earlier portions from one string to another — by using a StringBuilder instead of a String. Usually the difference is not important. (Of course, "simple, clear code" is slightly contradictory: using += is simpler, using StringBuilder is clearer. But still, the decision should usually be based on code-writing considerations rather than minor performance considerations.)
Scalas String concatenation works the same way as Javas does.
val x = 5
"a"+"b"+x+"c"
is translated to
new StringBuilder()).append("ab").append(BoxesRunTime.boxToInteger(x)).append("c").toString()
StringBuilder is scala.collection.mutable.StringBuilder. That's the reason why the value appended to the StringBuilder is boxed by the compiler.
You can check the behavior by decompile the bytecode with javap.
I want to add: if you have a sequence of strings, then there is already a method to create a new string out of them (all items, concatenated). It's called mkString.
Example: (http://ideone.com/QJhkAG)
val example = Seq("11111", "2222", "333", "444444")
val result = example.mkString
println(result) // prints "111112222333444444"
Scala uses java.lang.String as the type for strings, so it is subject to the same characteristics.
I'd like this thread to be some kind of summary of pros/cons for overriding and calling toString with or without empty parentheses, because this thing still confuses me sometimes, even though I've been into Scala for quite a while.
So which one is preferable over another? Comments from Scala geeks, officials and OCD paranoids are highly appreciated.
Pros to toString:
seems to be an obvious and natural choice at the first glance;
most cases are trivial and just construct Strings on the fly without ever modifying internal state;
another common case is to delegate method call to the wrapped abstraction:
override def toString = underlying.toString
Pros to toString():
definitely not "accessor-like" name (that's how IntelliJ IDEA inspector complains every once in a while);
might imply some CPU or I/O work (in cases where counting every System.arrayCopy call is crucial to performance);
even might imply some mutable state changing (consider an example when first toString call is expensive, so it is cached internally to yield quicker calls in future).
So what's the best practice? Am I still missing something?
Update: this question is related specifically to toString which is defined on every JVM object, so I was hoping to find the best practice, if it ever exists.
Here's what Programming In Scala (section 10.3) has to say:
The recommended convention is to use a parameterless method whenever
there are no parameters and the method accesses mutable state only by
reading fields of the containing object (in particular, it does not
change mutable state). This convention supports the uniform access
principle,1 which says that client code should not be affected by a
decision to implement an attribute as a field or method.
Here's what the (unofficial) Scala Style Guide (page 18) has to say:
Scala allows the omission of parentheses on methods of arity-0 (no
arguments):
reply()
// is the same as
reply
However, this syntax
should only be used when the method in question has no side-effects
(purely-functional). In other words, it would be acceptable to omit
parentheses when calling queue.size, but not when calling println().
This convention mirrors the method declaration convention given above.
The latter does not mention the Uniform Access Principle.
If your toString method can be implemented as a val, it implies the field is immutable. If, however, your class is mutable, toString might not always yield the same result (e.g. for StringBuffer). So Programming In Scala implies that we should use toString() in two different situations:
1) When its value is mutable
2) When there are side-effects
Personally I think it's more common and more consistent to ignore the first of these. In practice toString will almost never have side-effects. So (unless it does), always use toString and ignore the Uniform Access Principle (following the Style Guide): keep parentheses to denote side-effects, rather than mutability.
Yes, you are missing something: Semantics.
If you have a method that simply gives back a value, you shouldn't use parens. The reason is that this blurs the line between vals and defs, satisfying the Uniform Access Principle. E.g. consider the size method for collections. For fixed-sized vectors or arrays this can be just a val, other collections may need to calculate it.
The usage of empty parens should be limited to methods which perform some kind of side effect, e.g. println(), or a method that increases an internal counter, or a method that resets a connection etc.
I would recommend always using toString. Regarding your third "pro" to toString():
Might imply some mutable state changing (consider an example when first toString call is expensive, so it is cached internally to yield quicker calls in future).
First of all, toString generally shouldn't be an expensive operation. But suppose it is expensive, and suppose you do choose to cache the result internally. Even in that case, I'd say use toString, as long as the result of toString is always the same for a given state of the object (disregarding the state of the toString cache).
The only reason I would not recommend using toString without parens is if you have a code profiler/analyzer that makes assumptions based on the presence or absence of parens. In that case, follow the conventions set forth by said profiler. Also, if your toString is that complicated, consider renaming it to something else, like expensiveToString. It is unofficially expected that toString be a straightforward, simple function in most cases.
Not much argumentation in this answer but GenTraversableOnce alone declares the following defs without parentheses:
toArray
toBuffer
toIndexedSeq
toIterable
toIterator
toList
toMap
toSeq
toSet
toStream
toTraversable
This may seem really obvious to the FP cognoscenti here, but what is point free style in Scala good for? What would really sell me on the topic is an illustration that shows how point free style is significantly better in some dimension (e.g. performance, elegance, extensibility, maintainability) than code solving the same problem in non-point free style.
Quite simply, it's about being able to avoid specifying a name where none is needed, consider a trivial example:
List("a","b","c") foreach println
In this case, foreach is looking to accept String => Unit, a function that accepts a String and returns Unit (essentially, that there's no usable return and it works purely through side effect)
There's no need to bind a name here to each String instance that's passed to println. Arguably, it just makes the code more verbose to do so:
List("a","b","c") foreach {println(_)}
Or even
List("a","b","c") foreach {s => println(s)}
Personally, when I see code that isn't written in point-free style, I take it as an indicator that the bound name may be used twice, or that it has some significance in documenting the code. Likewise, I see point-free style as a sign that I can reason about the code more simply.
One appeal of point-free style in general is that without a bunch of "points" (values as opposed to functions) floating around, which must be repeated in several places to thread them through the computation, there are fewer opportunities to make a mistake, e.g. when typing a variable's name.
However, the advantages of point-free are quickly counterbalanced in Scala by its meagre ability to infer types, a fact which is exacerbated by point-free code because "points" serve as clues to the type inferencer. In Haskell, with its almost-complete type inferencing, this is usually not an issue.
I see no other advantage than "elegance": It's a little bit shorter, and may be more readable. It allows to reason about functions as entities, without going mentally a "level deeper" to function application, but of course you need getting used to it first.
I don't know any example where performance improves by using it (maybe it gets worse in cases where you end up with a function when a method would be sufficient).
Scala's point-free syntax is part of the magic Scala operators-which-are-really-functions. Even the most basic operators are functions:
For example:
val x = 1
val y = x + 1
...is the same as...
val x = 1
val y = x.+(1)
...but of course, the point-free style reads more naturally (the plus appears to be an operator).