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)
Related
Both F# and Scala act as a hybrid language that is often used to bridge the words of tradional object oriented code to functional code.
A concept that belongs more to the OO world are exceptions, whereas the functional world favors Option types in many cases.
To wrap existing library code that relies on exceptions - and make it more functional - I would thus like to "lift" exception-throwing code to instead return an option type.
In Scala, there is a nice library function to "catch all" and convert to option. It can be used like this:
import scala.util.control.Exception._
val functionalVersion = allCatch opt myFunction
see In Scala, is there a pre-existing library function for converting exceptions to Options?
Now that I'm moving to F# I have the same requirement, but I can't seem to find an existing utility function for this - and also struggle to implement one myself.
I can create such a wrapper for a unit function, aka an action
let catchAll f = try Some (f()) with | _ -> None
But the problem here is that I don't want to first wrap all the exeption throwing code into an action.
For example I would like to wrap the array-indexing operator, so that it doesn't throw.
// Wrap out-of-bounds exception with option type
let maybeGetIndex (array: int[]) (index: int) = catchAll (fun () -> array.[index])
maybeGetIndex [| 1; 2; 3 |] 10 // -> None
However, it would be much nicer if one could simple write
(catchAll a.[index])
i.e. apply catchAll to a whole expression before it is evaluated.
(Scala can achieve this through call-by-name parameters which seem to be missing from F#)
So this question is twofold:
Is there an existing library function to wrap exceptions into option
types?
Is there a language feature that would allow me to implement
it?
First of all, I think that it's not true that a "concept that belongs more to the object-oriented world are exceptions". Exceptions exist in many functional languages of the ML family and, for example, OCaml relies on them quite heavily and uses them even for certain control flow structures. In F#, this is not so much the case, because .NET exceptions are somewhat slower, but I see exceptions very much orthogonal to the object-oriented/functional issue.
For this reason, I actually find exceptions often preferable to option types in F#. The downside is that there is less type-checking (you do not know what might throw), but the upside is that the language provides a nice integrated langauge support for exceptions. If you need to handle exceptional situations then exceptions are a good way of doing that!
To answer your original question about syntactic tricks you can make - I would probably just use a function as your existing code does, because that's explicit and easy to understand (and presumably, you'll only need exception wrapping in some core functions that you implement).
That said, you can define a computation expression builder that wraps the code in the body and serves as your catchAll function with a somewhat neater syntax:
type CatchAllBuilder() =
member x.Delay(f) = try Some(f()) with _ -> None
member x.Return(v) = v
let catchAll = CatchAllBuilder()
This lets you write something like:
catchAll { return Array.empty.[0] }
As mentioned earlier, I wouldn't do this because (i) I don't think all exceptions need to be converted to options in F# and (ii) it introduces unfamiliar syntax that new team members (and future you) might be confused by, but it is probably the nicest syntax you can get.
[EDIT: Now a working version with return - this is somewhat less pretty, but perhaps still useful!]
We are pretty familiar with implicits in Scala for now, but macros are pretty undiscovered area (at least for me) and, despite the presence of some great articles by Eugene Burmako, it is still not an easy material to just dive in.
In this particular question I'd like to find out if there is a possibility to achieve the analogous to the following code functionality using just macros:
implicit class Nonsense(val s: String) {
def ##(i:Int) = s.charAt(i)
}
So "asd" ## 0 will return 'a', for example. Can I implement macros that use infix notation? The reason to this is I'm writing a DSL for some already existing project and implicits allow making the API clear and concise, but whenever I write a new implicit class, I feel like introducing a new speed-reducing factor. And yes, I do know about value classes and stuff, I just think it would be really great if my DSL transformed into the underlying library API calls during compilation rather than in runtime.
TL;DR: can I replace implicits with macros while not changing the API? Can I write macros in infix form? Is there something even more suitable for this case? Is the trouble worth it?
UPD. To those advocating the value classes: in my case I have a little more than just a simple wrapper - they are often stacked. For example, I have an implicit class that takes some parameters, returns a lambda wrapping this parameters (i.e. partial function), and the second implicit class that is made specifically for wrapping this type of functions. I can achieve something like this:
a --> x ==> b
where first class wraps a and adds --> method, and the second one wraps the return type of a --> x and defines ==>(b). Plus it may really be the case when user creates considerable amount of objects in this fashion. I just don't know if this will be efficient, so if you could tell me that value classes cover this case - I'd be really glad to know that.
Back in the day (2.10.0-RC1) I had trouble using implicit classes for macros (sorry, I don't recollect why exactly) but the solution was to use:
an implicit def macro to convert to a class
define the infix operator as a def macro in that class
So something like the following might work for you:
implicit def toNonsense(s:String): Nonsense = macro ...
...
class Nonsense(...){
...
def ##(...):... = macro ...
...
}
That was pretty painful to implement. That being said, macro have become easier to implement since.
If you want to check what I did, because I'm not sure that applies to what you want to do, refer to this excerpt of my code (non-idiomatic style).
I won't address the relevance of that here, as it's been commented by others.
I know that that I should use () by convention if a method has side effects
def method1(a: String): Unit = {
//.....
}
//or
def method2(): Unit = {
//.....
}
Do I have to do the same thing if a method doesn't have side effects but it's not pure, doesn't have any parameters and, of course, it returns the different results each time it's being called?
def method3() = getRemoteSessionId("login", "password")
Edit: After reviewing Luigi Plinge's comment, I came to think that I should rewrite the answer. This is also not a clear yes/no answer, but some suggestions.
First: The case regarding var is an interesting one. Declaring a var foo gives you a getter foo without parentheses. Obviously it is an impure call, but it does not have a side effect (it does not change anything unobserved by the caller).
Second, regarding your question: I now would not argue that the problem with getRemoteSessionId is that it is impure, but that it actually makes the server maintain some session login for you, so clearly you interfere destructively with the environment. Then method3() should be written with parentheses because of this side-effect nature.
A third example: Getting the contents of a directory should thus be written file.children and not file.children(), because again it is an impure function but should not have side effects (other than perhaps a read-only access to your file system).
A fourth example: Given the above, you should write System.currentTimeMillis. I do tend to write System.currentTimeMillis() however...
Using this forth case, my tentative answer would be: Parentheses are preferable when the function has either a side-effect; or if it is impure and depending on state not under the control of your program.
With this definition, it would not matter whether getRemoteSessionId has known side-effects or not. On the other hand, it implies to revert to writing file.children()...
The Scala style guide recommends:
Methods which act as accessors of any sort (either encapsulating a field or a logical property) should be declared without parentheses except if they have side effects.
It doesn't mention any other use case besides accessors. So the question boils down to whether you regard this method as an accessor, which in turns depends on how the rest of the class is set up and perhaps also on the (intended) call sites.
I am new to Scala and heard a lot that everything is an object in Scala. What I don't get is what's the advantage of "everything's an object"? What are things that I cannot do if everything is not an object? Examples are welcome. Thanks
The advantage of having "everything" be an object is that you have far fewer cases where abstraction breaks.
For example, methods are not objects in Java. So if I have two strings, I can
String s1 = "one";
String s2 = "two";
static String caps(String s) { return s.toUpperCase(); }
caps(s1); // Works
caps(s2); // Also works
So we have abstracted away string identity in our operation of making something upper case. But what if we want to abstract away the identity of the operation--that is, we do something to a String that gives back another String but we want to abstract away what the details are? Now we're stuck, because methods aren't objects in Java.
In Scala, methods can be converted to functions, which are objects. For instance:
def stringop(s: String, f: String => String) = if (s.length > 0) f(s) else s
stringop(s1, _.toUpperCase)
stringop(s2, _.toLowerCase)
Now we have abstracted the idea of performing some string transformation on nonempty strings.
And we can make lists of the operations and such and pass them around, if that's what we need to do.
There are other less essential cases (object vs. class, primitive vs. not, value classes, etc.), but the big one is collapsing the distinction between method and object so that passing around and abstracting over functionality is just as easy as passing around and abstracting over data.
The advantage is that you don't have different operators that follow different rules within your language. For example, in Java to perform operations involving objects, you use the dot name technique of calling the code (static objects still use the dot name technique, but sometimes the this object or the static object is inferred) while built-in items (not objects) use a different method, that of built-in operator manipulation.
Number one = Integer.valueOf(1);
Number two = Integer.valueOf(2);
Number three = one.plus(two); // if only such methods existed.
int one = 1;
int two = 2;
int three = one + two;
the main differences is that the dot name technique is subject to polymorphisim, operator overloading, method hiding, and all the good stuff that you can do with Java objects. The + technique is predefined and completely not flexible.
Scala circumvents the inflexibility of the + method by basically handling it as a dot name operator, and defining a strong one-to-one mapping of such operators to object methods. Hence, in Scala everything is an object means that everything is an object, so the operation
5 + 7
results in two objects being created (a 5 object and a 7 object) the plus method of the 5 object being called with the parameter 7 (if my scala memory serves me correctly) and a "12" object being returned as the value of the 5 + 7 operation.
This everything is an object has a lot of benefits in a functional programming environment, for example, blocks of code now are object too, making it possible to pass back and forth blocks of code (without names) as parameters, yet still be bound to strict type checking (the block of code only returns Long or a subclass of String or whatever).
When it boils down to it, it makes some kinds of solutions very easy to implement, and often the inefficiencies are mitigated by the lack of need to handle "move into primitives, manipulate, move out of primitives" marshalling code.
One specific advantage that comes to my mind (since you asked for examples) is what in Java are primitive types (int, boolean ...) , in Scala are objects that you can add functionality to with implicit conversions. For example, if you want to add a toRoman method to ints, you could write an implicit class like:
implicit class RomanInt(i:Int){
def toRoman = //some algorithm to convert i to a Roman representation
}
Then, you could call this method from any Int literal like :
val romanFive = 5.toRoman // V
This way you can 'pimp' basic types to adapt them to your needs
In addition to the points made by others, I always emphasize that the uniform treatment of all values in Scala is in part an illusion. For the most part it is a very welcome illusion. And Scala is very smart to use real JVM primitives as much as possible and to perform automatic transformations (usually referred to as boxing and unboxing) only as much as necessary.
However, if the dynamic pattern of application of automatic boxing and unboxing is very high, there can be undesirable costs (both memory and CPU) associated with it. This can be partially mitigated with the use of specialization, which creates special versions of generic classes when particular type parameters are of (programmer-specified) primitive types. This avoids boxing and unboxing but comes at the cost of more .class files in your running application.
Not everything is an object in Scala, though more things are objects in Scala than their analogues in Java.
The advantage of objects is that they're bags of state which also have some behavior coupled with them. With the addition of polymorphism, objects give you ways of changing the implicit behavior and state. Enough with the poetry, let's go into some examples.
The if statement is not an object, in either scala or java. If it were, you could be able to subclass it, inject another dependency in its place, and use it to do stuff like logging to a file any time your code makes use of the if statement. Wouldn't that be magical? It would in some cases help you debug stuff, and in other cases it would make your hairs grow white before you found a bug caused by someone overwriting the behavior of if.
Visiting an objectless, statementful world: Imaging your favorite OOP programming language. Think of the standard library it provides. There's plenty of classes there, right? They offer ways for customization, right? They take parameters that are other objects, they create other objects. You can customize all of these. You have polymorphism. Now imagine that all the standard library was simply keywords. You wouldn't be able to customize nearly as much, because you can't overwrite keywords. You'd be stuck with whatever cases the language designers decided to implement, and you'd be helpless in customizing anything there. Such languages exist, you know them well, they're the sequel-like languages. You can barely create functions there, but in order to customize the behavior of the SELECT statement, new versions of the language had to appear which included the features most desired. This would be an extreme world, where you'd only be able to program by asking the language designers for new features (which you might not get, because someone else more important would require some feature incompatible with what you want)
In conclusion, NOT everything is an object in scala: Classes, expressions, keywords and packages surely aren't. More things however are, like functions.
What's IMHO a nice rule of thumb is that more objects equals more flexibility
P.S. in Python for example, even more things are objects (like the classes themselves, the analogous concept for packages (that is python modules and packages). You'd see how there, black magic is easier to do, and that brings both good and bad consequences.
I mean if there's some declarative way to prevent an object from changing any of it's members.
In the following example
class student(var name:String)
val s = new student("John")
"s" has been declared as a val, so it will always point to the same student.
But is there some way to prevent s.name from being changed by just declaring it like immutable???
Or the only solution is to declare everything as val, and manually force immutability?
No, it's not possible to declare something immutable. You have to enforce immutability yourself, by not allowing anyone to change it, that is remove all ways of modifying the class.
Someone can still modify it using reflection, but that's another story.
Scala doesn't enforce that, so there is no way to know. There is, however, an interesting compiler-plugin project named pusca (I guess it stands for Pure-Scala). Pure is defined there as not mutating a non-local variable and being side-effect free (e.g. not printing to the console)—so that calling a pure method repeatedly will always yield the same result (what is called referentially transparent).
I haven't tried out that plug-in myself, so I can't say if it's any stable or usable already.
There is no way that Scala could do this generally.
Consider the following hypothetical example:
class Student(var name : String, var course : Course)
def stuff(course : Course) {
magically_pure_val s = new Student("Fredzilla", course)
someFunctionOfStudent(s)
genericHigherOrderFunction(s, someFunctionOfStudent)
course.someMethod()
}
The pitfalls for any attempt to actually implement that magically_pure_val keyword are:
someFunctionOfStudent takes an arbitrary student, and isn't implemented in this compilation unit. It was written/compiled knowing that Student consists of two mutable fields. How do we know it doesn't actually mutate them?
genericHigherOrderFunction is even worse; it's going to take our Student and a function of Student, but it's written polymorphically. Whether or not it actually mutates s depends on what its other arguments are; determining that at compile time with full generality requires solving the Halting Problem.
Let's assume we could get around that (maybe we could set some secret flags that mean exceptions get raised if the s object is actually mutated, though personally I wouldn't find that good enough). What about that course field? Does course.someMethod() mutate it? That method call isn't invoked from s directly.
Worse than that, we only know that we'll have passed in an instance of Course or some subclass of Course. So even if we are able to analyze a particular implementation of Course and Course.someMethod and conclude that this is safe, someone can always add a new subclass of Course whose implementation of someMethod mutates the Course.
There's simply no way for the compiler to check that a given object cannot be mutated. The pusca plugin mentioned by 0__ appears to detect purity the same way Mercury does; by ensuring that every method is known from its signature to be either pure or impure, and by raising a compiler error if the implementation of anything declared to be pure does anything that could cause impurity (unless the programmer promises that the method is pure anyway).[1]
This is quite a different from simply declaring a value to be completely (and deeply) immutable and expecting the compiler to notice if any of the code that could touch it could mutate it. It's also not a perfect inference, just a conservative one
[1]The pusca README claims that it can infer impurity of methods whose last expression is a call to an impure method. I'm not quite sure how it can do this, as checking if that last expression is an impure call requires checking if it's calling a not-declared-impure method that should be declared impure by this rule, and the implementation might not be available to the compiler at that point (and indeed could be changed later even if it is). But all I've done is look at the README and think about it for a few minutes, so I might be missing something.