var lastSize = 0
var all = entries
while(lastSize != all.size){
entries = entries.flatMap(
_.instructions.iterator.asScala
.flatMap(_ match {
case m:MethodInsnNode => Some(MethodCall(m.owner, m.name, m.desc))
case _ => None
})
).toSet.flatMap(findMethod _)
lastSize = all.size
all = all.union(entries)
}
My code uses ASM to generate a Set of all potential MethodNodes that could be called from a given starting set, entries. However, I want to rewrite it in a functional manner. The repeated mapping of sets definitely seems recursive, though I can't entirely wrap my head around how to go about it.
I came up with this, though it uses slightly different (but working?) logic. Would it be possible to write it with tail-call recursion?
private def gatherMethods(current: Set[MethodNode]): Set[MethodNode] = {
val next = current.flatMap(
_.instructions.iterator.asScala
.flatMap(_ match {
case m:MethodInsnNode => Some(MethodCall(m.owner, m.name, m.desc))
case _ => None
})
).toSet.flatMap(findMethod _)
if(next == current) Set()
else current.union(gatherMethods(next))
}
Related
Say I have a set of rules that have a validation function that returns IO[Boolean] at runtime.
case class Rule1() {
def validate(): IO[Boolean] = IO.pure(false)
}
case class Rule2() {
def validate(): IO[Boolean] = IO.pure(false)
}
case class Rule3() {
def validate(): IO[Boolean] = IO.pure(true)
}
val rules = List(Rule1(), Rule2(), Rule3())
Now I have to iterate through these rules and see "if any of these rules" hold valid and if not then throw exception!
for {
i <- rules.map(_.validate()).sequence
_ <- if (i.contains(true)) IO.unit else IO.raiseError(new RuntimeException("Failed"))
} yield ()
The problem with the code snippet above is that it is trying to evaluate all the rules! What I really want is to exit at the encounter of the first true validation.
Not sure how to achieve this using cats effects in Scala.
I claim that existsM is the most direct way to achieve what you want. It behaves pretty much the same as exists, but for monadic predicates:
for {
t <- rules.existsM(_.validate())
_ <- IO.raiseUnless(t)(new RuntimeException("Failed"))
} yield ()
It also stops the search as soon as it finds the first true.
The raiseUnless is just some syntactic sugar that's equivalent to the if-else from your question.
If you take a look at list of available extension methods in your IDE, you can find findM:
for {
opt <- rules.findM(_.validate())
_ <- opt match {
case Some(_) => IO.unit
case None => IO.raiseError(new RuntimeException("Failed")
}
} yield ()
Doing it manually could be done with foldLeft and flatMap:
rules.foldLeft(IO.pure(false)) { (valueSoFar, nextValue) =>
valueSoFar.flatMap {
case true => IO.pure(true) // can skip evaluating nextValue
case false => nextValue.validate() // need to find the first true IO yet
}
}.flatMap {
case true => IO.unit
case false => IO.raiseError(new RuntimeException("Failed")
}
The former should have the additional advantage that it doesn't have to iterate over whole collection when it finds the first match, while the latter will still go through all items, even if will start discarding them at some point. findM solves that by using tailRecM internally to terminate the iteration on first met condition.
You can try recursive
def firstTrue(rules: List[{def validate(): IO[Boolean]}]): IO[Unit] = rules match {
case r :: rs => for {
b <- r.validate()
res <- if (b) IO.unit else firstTrue(rs)
} yield res
case _ => IO.raiseError(new RuntimeException("Failed"))
}
Another approach is not using booleans at all, but the monad capabilities of IO
def validateRules(rules: List[Rule]): IO[Unit] =
rules.traverse_ { rule =>
rule.validate().flatMap { flag =>
IO.raiseUnless(flag)(new RuntimeException("Failed"))
}
}
I'm using pattern matching in scala a lot. Many times I need to do some calculations in guard part and sometimes they are pretty expensive. Is there any way to bind calculated values to separate value?
//i wan't to use result of prettyExpensiveFunc in body safely
people.collect {
case ...
case Some(Right((x, y))) if prettyExpensiveFunc(x, y) > 0 => prettyExpensiveFunc(x)
}
//ideally something like that could be helpful, but it doesn't compile:
people.collect {
case ...
case Some(Right((x, y))) if {val z = prettyExpensiveFunc(x, y); y > 0} => z
}
//this sollution works but it isn't safe for some `Seq` types and is risky when more cases are used.
var cache:Int = 0
people.collect {
case ...
case Some(Right((x, y))) if {cache = prettyExpensiveFunc(x, y); cache > 0} => cache
}
Is there any better solution?
ps: Example is simplified and I don't expect anwers that shows that I don't need pattern matching here.
You can use cats.Eval to make expensive calculations lazy and memoizable, create Evals using .map and extract .value (calculated at most once - if needed) in .collect
values.map { value =>
val expensiveCheck1 = Eval.later { prettyExpensiveFunc(value) }
val expensiveCheck2 = Eval.later { anotherExpensiveFunc(value) }
(value, expensiveCheck1, expensiveCheck2)
}.collect {
case (value, lazyResult1, _) if lazyResult1.value > 0 => ...
case (value, _, lazyResult2) if lazyResult2.value > 0 => ...
case (value, lazyResult1, lazyResult2) if lazyResult1.value > lazyResult2.value => ...
...
}
I don't see a way of doing what you want without creating some implementation of lazy evaluation, and if you have to use one, you might as well use existing one instead of rolling one yourself.
EDIT. Just in case you haven't noticed - you aren't losing the ability to pattern match by using tuple here:
values.map {
// originial value -> lazily evaluated memoized expensive calculation
case a # Some(Right((x, y)) => a -> Some(Eval.later(prettyExpensiveFunc(x, y)))
case a => a -> None
}.collect {
// match type and calculation
...
case (Some(Right((x, y))), Some(lazyResult)) if lazyResult.value > 0 => ...
...
}
Why not run the function first for every element and then work with a tuple?
Seq(1,2,3,4,5).map(e => (e, prettyExpensiveFunc(e))).collect {
case ...
case (x, y) if y => y
}
I tried own matchers and effect is somehow OK, but not perfect. My matcher is untyped, and it is bit ugly to make it fully typed.
class Matcher[T,E](f:PartialFunction[T, E]) {
def unapply(z: T): Option[E] = if (f.isDefinedAt(z)) Some(f(z)) else None
}
def newMatcherAny[E](f:PartialFunction[Any, E]) = new Matcher(f)
def newMatcher[T,E](f:PartialFunction[T, E]) = new Matcher(f)
def prettyExpensiveFunc(x:Int) = {println(s"-- prettyExpensiveFunc($x)"); x%2+x*x}
val x = Seq(
Some(Right(22)),
Some(Right(10)),
Some(Left("Oh now")),
None
)
val PersonAgeRank = newMatcherAny { case Some(Right(x:Int)) => (x, prettyExpensiveFunc(x)) }
x.collect {
case PersonAgeRank(age, rank) if rank > 100 => println("age:"+age + " rank:" + rank)
}
https://scalafiddle.io/sf/hFbcAqH/3
I just started working with scala and am trying to get used to the language. I was wondering if the following is possible:
I have a list of Instruction objects that I am looping over with the foreach method. Am I able to add elements to my Instruction list while I am looping over it? Here is a code example to explain what I want:
instructions.zipWithIndex.foreach { case (value, index) =>
value match {
case WhileStmt() => {
---> Here I want to add elements to the instructions list.
}
case IfStmt() => {
...
}
_ => {
...
}
Idiomatic way would be something like this for rather complex iteration and replacement logic:
#tailrec
def idiomaticWay(list: List[Instruction],
acc: List[Instruction] = List.empty): List[Instruction] =
list match {
case WhileStmt() :: tail =>
// add element to head of acc
idiomaticWay(tail, CherryOnTop :: acc)
case IfStmt() :: tail =>
// add nothing here
idiomaticWay(tail, list.head :: acc)
case Nil => acc
}
val updatedList = idiomaticWay(List(WhileStmt(), IfStmt()))
println(updatedList) // List(IfStmt(), CherryOnTop)
This solution works with immutable list, returns immutable list which has different values in it according to your logic.
If you want to ultimately hack around (add, remove, etc) you could use Java ListIterator class that would allow you to do all operations mentioned above:
def hackWay(list: util.List[Instruction]): Unit = {
val iterator = list.listIterator()
while(iterator.hasNext) {
iterator.next() match {
case WhileStmt() =>
iterator.set(CherryOnTop)
case IfStmt() => // do nothing here
}
}
}
import collection.JavaConverters._
val instructions = new util.ArrayList[Instruction](List(WhileStmt(), IfStmt()).asJava)
hackWay(instructions)
println(instructions.asScala) // Buffer(CherryOnTop, IfStmt())
However in the second case you do not need scala :( So my advise would be to stick to immutable data structures in scala.
I have some code for validating ip addresses that looks like the following:
sealed abstract class Result
case object Valid extends Result
case class Malformatted(val invalid: Iterable[IpConfig]) extends Result
case class Duplicates(val dups: Iterable[Inet4Address]) extends Result
case class Unavailable(val taken: Iterable[Inet4Address]) extends Result
def result(ipConfigs: Iterable[IpConfig]): Result = {
val invalidIpConfigs: Iterable[IpConfig] =
ipConfigs.filterNot(ipConfig => {
(isValidIpv4(ipConfig.address)
&& isValidIpv4(ipConfig.gateway))
})
if (!invalidIpConfigs.isEmpty) {
Malformatted(invalidIpConfigs)
} else {
val ipv4it: Iterable[Inet4Address] = ipConfigs.map { ipConfig =>
InetAddress.getByName(ipConfig.address).asInstanceOf[Inet4Address]
}
val dups = ipv4it.groupBy(identity).filter(_._2.size != 1).keys
if (!dups.isEmpty) {
Duplicates(dups)
} else {
val ipAvailability: Map[Inet4Address, Boolean] =
ipv4it.map(ip => (ip, isIpAvailable(ip)))
val taken: Iterable[Inet4Address] = ipAvailability.filter(!_._2).keys
if (!taken.isEmpty) {
Unavailable(taken)
} else {
Valid
}
}
}
}
I don't like the nested ifs because it makes the code less readable. Is there a nice way to linearize this code? In java, I might use return statements, but this is discouraged in scala.
I personally advocate using a match everywhere you can, as it in my opinion usually makes code very readable
def result(ipConfigs: Iterable[IpConfig]): Result =
ipConfigs.filterNot(ipc => isValidIpv4(ipc.address) && isValidIpv4(ipc.gateway)) match {
case Nil =>
val ipv4it = ipConfigs.map { ipc =>
InetAddress.getByName(ipc.address).asInstanceOf[Inet4Address]
}
ipv4it.groupBy(identity).filter(_._2.size != 1).keys match {
case Nil =>
val taken = ipv4it.map(ip => (ip, isIpAvailable(ip))).filter(!_._2).keys
if (taken.nonEmpty) Unavailable(taken) else Valid
case dups => Duplicates(dups)
}
case invalid => Malformatted(invalid)
}
Note that I've chosen to match on the else part first, since you generally go from specific to generic in matches, since Nil is a subclass of Iterable I put that as the first case, eliminating the need for an i if i.nonEmpty in the other case, since it would be a given if it didn't match Nil
Also a thing to note here, all your vals don't need the type explicitly defined, it significantly declutters the code if you write something like
val ipAvailability: Map[Inet4Address, Boolean] =
ipv4it.map(ip => (ip, isIpAvailable(ip)))
as simply
val ipAvailability = ipv4it.map(ip => (ip, isIpAvailable(ip)))
I've also taken the liberty of removing many one-off variables I didn't find remotely necessary, as all they did was add more lines to the code
A thing to note here about using match over nested ifs, is that is that it's easier to add a new case than it is to add a new else if 99% of the time, thereby making it more modular, and modularity is always a good thing.
Alternatively, as suggested by Nathaniel Ford, you can break it up into several smaller methods, in which case the above code would look like so:
def result(ipConfigs: Iterable[IpConfig]): Result =
ipConfigs.filterNot(ipc => isValidIpv4(ipc.address) && isValidIpv4(ipc.gateway)) match {
case Nil => wellFormatted(ipConfigs)
case i => Malformatted(i)
}
def wellFormatted(ipConfigs: Iterable[IpConfig]): Result = {
val ipv4it = ipConfigs.map(ipc => InetAddress.getByName(ipc.address).asInstanceOf[Inet4Address])
ipv4it.groupBy(identity).filter(_._2.size != 1).keys match {
case Nil => noDuplicates(ipv4it)
case dups => Duplicates(dups)
}
}
def noDuplicates(ipv4it: Iterable[IpConfig]): Result =
ipv4it.map(ip => (ip, isIpAvailable(ip))).filter(!_._2).keys match {
case Nil => Valid
case taken => Unavailable(taken)
}
This has the benefit of splitting it up into smaller more manageable chunks, while keeping to the FP ideal of having functions that only do one thing, but do that one thing well, rather than having god-methods that do everything.
Which style you prefer, of course is up to you.
This has some time now but I will add my 2 cents. The proper way to handle this is with Either. You can create a method like:
def checkErrors[T](errorList: Iterable[T], onError: Result) : Either[Result, Unit] = if(errorList.isEmpty) Right() else Left(onError)
so you can use for comprehension syntax
val invalidIpConfigs = getFormatErrors(ipConfigs)
val result = for {
_ <- checkErrors(invalidIpConfigs, Malformatted(invalidIpConfigs))
dups = getDuplicates(ipConfigs)
_ <- checkErrors(dups, Duplicates(dups))
taken = getAvailability(ipConfigs)
_ <- checkErrors(taken, Unavailable(taken))
} yield Valid
If you don't want to return an Either use
result.fold(l => l, r => r)
In case of the check methods uses Futures (could be the case for getAvailability, for example), you can use cats library to be able of use it in a clean way: https://typelevel.org/cats/datatypes/eithert.html
I think it's pretty readable and I wouldn't try to improve it from there, except that !isEmpty equals to nonEmpty.
Scenario:
val col: IndexedSeq[Array[Char]] = for (i <- 1 to n) yield {
val x = for (j <- 1 to m) yield 'x'
x.toArray
}
This is a fairly simple char matrix. toArray used to allow updating.
var west = last.x - 1
while (west >= 0 && arr(last.y)(west) == '.') {
arr(last.y)(west) = ch;
west -= 1;
}
This is updating all . to ch until a non-dot char is found.
Generically, update until stop condition is met, unknown number of steps.
What is the idiomatic equivalent of it?
Conclusion
It's doable, but the trade-off isn't worth it, a lot of performance is lost to expressive syntax when the collection allows updating.
Your wish for a "cleaner, more idiomatic" solution is of course a little fuzzy, because it leaves a lot of room for subjectivity. In general, I'd consider a tail-recursive updating routine more idiomatic, but it might not be "cleaner" if you're more familiar with a non-functional programming style. I came up with this:
#tailrec
def update(arr:List[Char], replace:Char, replacement:Char, result:List[Char] = Nil):List[Char] = arr match {
case `replace` :: tail =>
update(tail, replace, replacement, replacement :: result)
case _ => result.reverse ::: arr
}
This takes one of the inner sequences (assuming a List for easier pattern matching, since Arrays are trivially convertible to lists), and replaces the replace char with the replacement recursively.
You can then use map to update the outer sequence, like so:
col.map { x => update(x, '.', ch) }
Another more reusable alternative is writing your own mapUntil, or using one which is implemented in a supplemental library (Scalaz probably has something like it). The one I came up with looks like this:
def mapUntil[T](input:List[T])(f:(T => Option[T])) = {
#tailrec
def inner(xs:List[T], result:List[T]):List[T] = xs match {
case Nil => Nil
case head :: tail => f(head) match {
case None => (head :: result).reverse ::: tail
case Some(x) => inner(tail, x :: result)
}
}
inner(input, Nil)
}
It does the same as a regular map invocation, except that it stops as soon as the passed function returns None, e.g.
mapUntil(List(1,2,3,4)) {
case x if x >= 3 => None
case x => Some(x-1)
}
Will result in
List[Int] = List(0, 1, 3, 4)
If you want to look at Scalaz, this answer might be a good place to start.
x3ro's answer is the right answer, esp. if you care about performance or are going to be using this operation in multiple places. I would like to add simple solution using only what you find in the collections API:
col.map { a =>
val (l, r) = a.span(_ == '.')
l.map {
case '.' => ch
case x => x
} ++ r
}