I am learning how to program in Scala and was being told that semicolon is optional in Scala. So with that in mind, I tried with the following nested block of code which does not have semi colon. However, it throws an error in the Scala REPL
scala> { val a = 1
| {val b = a * 2
| {val c = b + 4
| c}
| }
| }
<console>:17: error: Int(1) does not take parameters
{val b = a * 2
And the sample with semi colon worked perfectly fine.
scala> { val a = 1;
| { val b = a*2;
| { val c = b+4; c}
| }
| }
res22: Int = 6
Therefore it seems to me that semi colon is not really optional and is mandatory in some situations. May I ask in what situation the semi colon is mandatory?
I'll try to extract the essence from your example.
Consider the following code snippet:
{ val x = 1 { val y = 2 } }
To the compiler, it looks like syntactic sugar for
{ val x = 1.apply({ val y = 2 }) }
But the object 1 does not have an apply method that takes blocks, therefore the compiler produces an error:
error: Int(1) does not take parameters
{ val x = 1 { val y = 2 } }
^
Contrast this to
object I { def apply(a: => Any): Unit = () }
{ val x = I { val y = 2 } }
This works, because I now does have an apply method.
To make the differentiation between these two cases a little bit easier, the compiler requires a semicolon in the first case.
Now one might wonder why a line break between val x = 1 and the { is not converted into an inferred semicolon. I think the relevant quote from the spec would be this (1.2 Newline Characters) (most parts of enumerations omitted ([...]), emphasis mine):
The Scala grammar [...] contains productions where
optional nl tokens, but not semicolons, are accepted. This has the
effect that a newline in one of these positions does not terminate an
expression or statement. These positions can be summarized as follows:
[...]
in front of an opening brace ‘{’, if that brace is a legal continuation of the current statement or expression,
[...]
Note that this quote covers only the case with a single optional line break. It does not hold for two or more consecutive line breaks, e.g.
scala> {
| val x = 1
|
| { val y = 2 }
| }
is valid, and { val y = 2 } is parsed as a separate expression.
I guess the motivation was to allow embedded DSL's with syntactic sugar like this:
MY_WHILE(x >= 0)
{
println(x)
x -= 1
}
It would be really strange if one had to enclose each such MY_WHILE-statement into an additional pair of round parentheses, wouldn't it?
Adding to Andrey's answer, it's rare that you write code like this in idiomatic Scala, but, when you do, you should use locally:
{
val a = 1
locally {
val b = a * 2
locally {
val c = b + 4
c
}
}
}
This case is exactly why locally exists.
Related
I know that scala allows overloading for it's default operators (+, - ! etc.) . Is it possible to define custom operators and make something like the |.| operator so that | -3| that evaluates to 3. Or defining an operator like ++++ so that a ++++ b equals a+3*b?
You should look at scala operators documentation.
You can easily make the ++++ operator but not the |.| operator.
Operators in scala are just functions with non alphanumeric name. Since scala also support call a.f(b) as a f b then you can achieve the first behavior. For example:
case class A(v: Int) {
def ++++(b: A): A = A(v + 3 * b.v)
}
val a = A(1)
val b = A(2)
a ++++ b
>> A(7)
a.++++(b) // just another way of doing the exact same call
If you want to add this to integer you would simply create an implicit class to add it.
Another option is to prefix the operator for example consider doing -a to get the negative. There is no "first element" to apply the - to, instead - is applied to a (see this answer).
For example:
case class A(v: Int) {
def unary_!(): Int = -v
}
val a = A(3)
!a
>> -3
Doing |.| has two issues: First there are two parts to the operator, i.e. it is split. The second is the use of |
In order to do a two part operator (say !.!) you would probably want to generate some private type and return it from one ! and then use it as the input for the other to return the output type.
The second issue is the use of | which is an illegal character. Look at this answer for a list of legal characters
An example to extend #assaf-mendelson answer
case class Abs(a: Int) {
def !(): Int = a.abs
}
implicit def toAbs(a: Int) = new {
def unary_! : Abs = Abs(a)
}
then
> val a = -3
a: Int = -3
> !a
res0: Abs = Abs(-3)
> !a!
res1: Int = 3
> val b = 12
b: Int = 12
> !b!
res2: Int = 12
> (!a!) + (!b!)
res3: Int = 15
We cannot implement abs as |a| because unary_ works only with !, ~, + and -
I think this question is somewhat related to Kotlin function declaration: equals sign before curly braces
In Scala, every statement is an expression (possibly with Unit type). If we surround multiple expressions with braces, then the final expression is the actual value of the curly braced part. Therefore,
// Scala
val a = {
val b = 1
val c = b + b
c + c
}
println(a)
The type of a is Int and the code prints the value 4.
However, in Kotlin, this is somewhat different.
If we do the same thing in the Kotlin,
// Kotlin
val a = {
val b = 1
val c = b + b
c + c
}
println(a)
The type of a is () -> Int and the code prints the Function0<java.lang.Integer>, which means a 0-ary function object with result type Int.
So if we want to print the value 4, we need to do println(a()).
In fact, the expression {} in Kotlin is a function () -> ().
I cannot find an explanation about this in Kotlin official reference pages. Without a parameter list or ->, curly braces make a function?
When I use Scala, I write many codes like the first code. However, in Kotlin, it creates a function object and we have to call the function, which may be an overhead in a loop or recursion.
Is there any document about this thing: just curly braces make a function object?
Any way to workaround the overhead in the second code if it is used many times?
EDIT
Here is the actual code that iterates many times:
in Java
while ((count = input.read(data, 0, BYTE_BLOCK_SIZE)) != -1) {
....
}
in Scala
while {
count = input.read(data, 0, BYTE_BLOCK_SIZE)
count != -1
} {
....
}
in Kotlin
while ({
count = input.read(data, 0, BYTE_BLOCK_SIZE)
count != -1
}()) {
...
}
You can see, only Kotlin makes a lot of function objects and calls them.
In Kotlin {} are always a lambda expression or a part of a syntax construct like while(true) {}. Probably different from Scala, but easy to grasp, nonetheless.
What you probably want is:
val a = run {
val b = 1
val c = b + b
c + c
}
println(a)
Kotlin has no build-in concept of "code blocks anywhere". Instead we use standard functions-helpers like run in the example above.
https://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin/run.html
If {} defines a function, you can just call the function upon declaring it, which will immediately evaluate it:
val a = {
val b = 1
val c = b + b
c + c
}()
println(a)
prints 4. (Note the () at the end of the block)
In Scala, every statement is an expression (possibly with Unit type)
That's not exactly true. Check: Is everything a function or expression or object in scala?
As Zoltan said {} defines functions so instead of:
// Kotlin
val a = {
val b = 1
val c = b + b
c + c
}
println(a)
it should be:
// Kotlin
val a = {
val b = 1
val c = b + b
c + c
}
println(a()) //you defined a function, which returns `4`, not expression
or
// Kotlin
val a = {
val b = 1
val c = b + b
c + c
}() //note these braces
println(a)
If you would like to print a value, not function, you can try to declare the variable and then use one of Kotlin functions to change a value like in example below:
var sum = 0
ints.filter { it > 0 }.forEach {
sum += it
}
print(sum)
Read: Higher-Order Functions and
Lambdas
Hope it will help
I found this issue of scala: https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-4939
Seems we can define a method whose name is a number:
scala> object Foo { val 1 = 2 }
defined module Foo
But we can't invoke it:
scala> Foo.1
<console>:1: error: ';' expected but double literal found.
Foo.1
And we can invoke it inside the object:
scala> object O { val 1 = 1; def x = 1 }
defined module O
scala> O.x
res1: Int = 1
And follow will throw error:
scala> object O { val 1 = 2; def x = 1 }
defined module O
scala> O.x
scala.MatchError: 2
at O$.<init>(<console>:5)
at O$.<clinit>(<console>)
at .<init>(<console>:7)
at .<clinit>(<console>)
at RequestResult$.<init>(<console>:9)
I use scalac -Xprint:typer to see the code, the val 1 = 2 part is:
<synthetic> private[this] val x$1: Unit = (2: Int(2) #unchecked) match {
case 1 => ()
}
From it, we can see the method name changed to x$1, and only can be invoked inside that object.
And the resolution of that issue is: Won't Fix
I want to know is there any reason to allow a number to be the name of a method? Is there any case we need to use a "number" method?
There is no name "1" being bound here. val 1 = 2 is a pattern-matching expression, in much the same way val (x,2) = (1,2) binds x to 1 (and would throw a MatchError if the second element were not thet same). It's allowed because there's no real reason to add a special case to forbid it; this way val pattern matching works (almost) exactly the same way as match pattern-matching.
There are usually two factors in this kind of decision:
There are many bugs in Scalac that are much higher priority, and bug fixing resources are limited. This behavior is benign and therefore low priority.
There's a long term cost to any increases in the complexity of the language specification, and the current behavior is consistent with the spec. Once things start getting special cased, there can be an avalanche effect.
It's some combination of these two.
Update. Here's what seems strange to me:
val pair = (1, 2)
object Foo
object Bar
val (1, 2) = pair // Pattern matching on constants 1 and 2
val (Foo, Bar) = pair // Pattern matching on stable ids Foo and Bar
val (foo, bar) = pair // Binds foo and bar because they are lowercase
val 1 = 1 // Pattern matching on constant 1
val Foo = 1 // *Not* pattern matching; binds Foo
If val 1 = 1 is pattern matching, then why should val Foo = 1 bind Foo rather than pattern match?
Update 2. Daniel Sobral pointed out that this is a special exception, and Martin Odersky recently wrote the same.
Here's a few examples to show how the LHS of an assignment is more than just a name:
val pair = (1, 2)
val (a1, b1) = pair // LHS of the = is a pattern
val (1, b2) = pair // okay, b2 is bound the the value 2
val (0, b3) = pair // MatchError, as 0 != 1
val a4 = 1 // okay, a4 is bound to the value 1
val 1 = 1 // okay, but useless, no names are bound
val a # 1 = 1 // well, we can bind a name to a pattern with #
val 1 = 0 // MatchError
As always, you can use backticks to escape the name. I see no problem in supporting such names – either you use them and they work for you or they do not work for you, and you don’t use them.
I know that you can do matching on lists in a way like
val list = List(1,2,3)
list match {
case head::tail => head
case _ => //whatever
}
so I started to wonder how this works. If I understand correctly, :: is just an operator, so what's to stop me from doing something like
4 match {
case x + 2 => x //I would expect x=2 here
}
If there is a way to create this kind of functionality, how is it done; if not, then why?
Pattern matching takes the input and decomposes it with an unapply function. So in your case, unapply(4) would have to return the two numbers that sum to 4. However, there are many pairs that sum to 4, so the function wouldn't know what to do.
What you need is for the 2 to be accessible to the unapply function somehow. A special case class that stores the 2 would work for this:
case class Sum(addto: Int) {
def unapply(i: Int) = Some(i - addto)
}
val Sum2 = Sum(2)
val Sum2(x) = 5 // x = 3
(It would be nice to be able to do something like val Sum(2)(y) = 5 for compactness, but Scala doesn't allow parameterized extractors; see here.)
[EDIT: This is a little silly, but you could actually do the following too:
val `2 +` = Sum(2)
val `2 +`(y) = 5 // y = 3
]
EDIT: The reason the head::tail thing works is that there is exactly one way to split the head from the tail of a list.
There's nothing inherently special about :: versus +: you could use + if you had a predetermined idea of how you wanted it to break a number. For example, if you wanted + to mean "split in half", then you could do something like:
object + {
def unapply(i: Int) = Some(i-i/2, i/2)
}
and use it like:
scala> val a + b = 4
a: Int = 2
b: Int = 2
scala> val c + d = 5
c: Int = 3
d: Int = 2
EDIT: Finally, this explains that, when pattern matching, A op B means the same thing as op(A,B), which makes the syntax look nice.
Matching with case head :: tail uses an infix operation pattern of the form p1 op p2 which gets translated to op(p1, p2) before doing the actual matching. (See API for ::)
The problem with + is the following:
While it is easy to add an
object + {
def unapply(value: Int): Option[(Int, Int)] = // ...
}
object which would do the matching, you may only supply one result per value. E.g.
object + {
def unapply(value: Int): Option[(Int, Int)] = value match {
case 0 => Some(0, 0)
case 4 => Some(3, 1)
case _ => None
}
Now this works:
0 match { case x + 0 => x } // returns 0
also this
4 match { case x + 1 => x } // returns 3
But this won’t and you cannot change it:
4 match { case x + 2 => x } // does not match
No problem for ::, though, because it is always defined what is head and what is tail of a list.
There are two ::s (pronounced "cons") in Scala. One is the operator on Lists and the other is a class, which represents a non empty list characterized by a head and a tail. So head :: tail is a constructor pattern, which has nothing to do with the operator.
I'd like to use val to declare multiple variable like this:
val a = 1, b = 2, c = 3
But for whatever reason, it's a syntax error, so I ended up using either:
val a = 1
val b = 2
val c = 3
or
val a = 1; val b = 2; val c = 3;
I personally find both options overly verbose and kind of ugly.
Is there a better option?
Also, I know Scala is very well thought-out language, so why isn't the val a = 1, b = 2, c = 3 syntax allowed?
The trivial answer is to declare them as tuples:
val (a, b, c) = (1, 2, 3)
What might be interesting here is that this is based on pattern matching. What is actually happens is that you are constructing a tuple, and then, through pattern matching, assigning values to a, b and c.
Let's consider some other pattern matching examples to explore this a bit further:
val DatePattern = """(\d{4})-(\d\d)-(\d\d)""".r
val DatePattern(year, month, day) = "2009-12-30"
val List(rnd1, rnd2, rnd3) = List.fill(3)(scala.util.Random.nextInt(100))
val head :: tail = List.range(1, 10)
object ToInt {
def unapply(s: String) = try {
Some(s.toInt)
} catch {
case _ => None
}
}
val DatePattern(ToInt(year), ToInt(month), ToInt(day)) = "2010-01-01"
Just as a side note, the rnd example, in particular, may be written more simply, and without illustrating pattern matching, as shown below.
val rnd1, rnd2, rnd3 = scala.util.Random.nextInt(100)
Daniel's answer nicely sums up the correct way to do this, as well as why it works. Since he already covered that angle, I'll attempt to answer your broader question (regarding language design)...
Wherever possible, Scala strives to avoid adding language features in favor of handling things through existing mechanisms. For example, Scala doesn't include a break statement. However, it's almost trivial to roll one of your own as a library:
case object BreakException extends RuntimeException
def break = throw BreakException
def breakable(body: =>Unit) = try {
body
} catch {
case BreakException => ()
}
This can be used in the following way:
breakable {
while (true) {
if (atTheEnd) {
break
}
// do something normally
}
}
(note: this is included in the standard library for Scala 2.8)
Multiple assignment syntaxes such as are allowed by languages like Ruby (e.g. x = 1, y = 2, z = 3) fall into the category of "redundant syntax". When Scala already has a feature which enables a particular pattern, it avoids adding a new feature just to handle a special case of that pattern. In this case, Scala already has pattern matching (a general feature) which can be used to handle multiple assignment (by using the tuple trick outlined in other answers). There is no need for it to handle that particular special case in a separate way.
On a slightly different aside, it's worth noting that C's (and thus, Java's) multiple assignment syntax is also a special case of another, more general feature. Consider:
int x = y = z = 1;
This exploits the fact that assignment returns the value assigned in C-derivative languages (as well as the fact that assignment is right-associative). This is not the case in Scala. In Scala, assignment returns Unit. While this does have some annoying drawbacks, it is more theoretically valid as it emphasizes the side-effecting nature of assignment directly in its type.
I'll add one quirk here, because it hit myself and might help others.
When using pattern matching, s.a. in declaring multiple variables, don't use Capital names for the variables. They are treated as names of classes in pattern matching, and it applies here as well.
val (A,B)= (10,20) // won't work
println(A)
Error message does not really tell what's going on:
src/xxx.scala:6: error: not found: value A
val (A,B)= (10,20)
^
src/xxx.scala:6: error: not found: value B
val (A,B)= (10,20)
^
src/xxx.scala:7: error: not found: value A
println(A)
^
I thought `-ticking would solve the issue but for some reason does not seem to (not sure, why not):
val (`A`,`B`)= (10,20)
println(A)
Still the same errors even with that.
Please comment if you know how to use tuple-initialization pattern with capital variable names.
If all your variables are of the same type and take same initial value, you could do this.
val a, b, c: Int = 0;
It seems to work if you declare them in a tuple
scala> val (y, z, e) = (1, 2, 45)
y: Int = 1
z: Int = 2
e: Int = 45
scala> e
res1: Int = 45
Although I would probably go for individual statements. To me this looks clearer:
val y = 1
val z = 2
val e = 45
especially if the variables are meaningfully named.