Related
How to conveniently convert Seq[Try[Option[String, Any]]] into Try[Option[Map[String, Any]]].
If any Try before convert throws an exception, the converted Try should throw as well.
Assuming that the input type has a tuple inside the Option then this should give you the result you want:
val in: Seq[Try[Option[(String, Any)]]] = ???
val out: Try[Option[Map[String,Any]]] = Try(Some(in.flatMap(_.get).toMap))
If any of the Trys is Failure then the outer Try will catch the exception raised by the get and return Failure
The Some is there to give the correct return type
The get extracts the Option from the Try (or raises an exception)
Using flatMap rather than map removes the Option wrapper, keeping all Some values and discaring None values, giving Seq[(String, Any)]
The toMap call converts the Seq to a Map
Here is something that's not very clean but may help get you started. It assumes Option[(String,Any)], returns the first Failure if there are any in the input Seq and just drops None elements.
foo.scala
package foo
import scala.util.{Try,Success,Failure}
object foo {
val x0 = Seq[Try[Option[(String, Any)]]]()
val x1 = Seq[Try[Option[(String, Any)]]](Success(Some(("A",1))), Success(None))
val x2 = Seq[Try[Option[(String, Any)]]](Success(Some(("A",1))), Success(Some(("B","two"))))
val x3 = Seq[Try[Option[(String, Any)]]](Success(Some(("A",1))), Success(Some(("B","two"))), Failure(new Exception("bad")))
def f(x: Seq[Try[Option[(String, Any)]]]) =
x.find( _.isFailure ).getOrElse( Success(Some(x.map( _.get ).filterNot( _.isEmpty ).map( _.get ).toMap)) )
}
Example session
bash-3.2$ scalac foo.scala
bash-3.2$ scala -classpath .
Welcome to Scala 2.13.1 (Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM, Java 1.8.0_66).
Type in expressions for evaluation. Or try :help.
scala> import foo.foo._
import foo.foo._
scala> f(x0)
res0: scala.util.Try[Option[Equals]] = Success(Some(Map()))
scala> f(x1)
res1: scala.util.Try[Option[Equals]] = Success(Some(Map(A -> 1)))
scala> f(x2)
res2: scala.util.Try[Option[Equals]] = Success(Some(Map(A -> 1, B -> two)))
scala> f(x3)
res3: scala.util.Try[Option[Equals]] = Failure(java.lang.Exception: bad)
scala> :quit
If you're willing to use a functional support library like Cats then there are two tricks that can help this along:
Many things like List and Try are traversable, which means that (if Cats's implicits are in scope) they have a sequence method that can swap two types, for example converting List[Try[T]] to Try[List[T]] (failing if any of the items in the list are failure).
Almost all of the container types support a map method that can operate on the contents of a container, so if you have a function from A to B then map can convert a Try[A] to a Try[B]. (In Cats language they are functors but the container-like types in the standard library generally have map already.)
Cats doesn't directly support Seq, so this answer is mostly in terms of List instead.
Given that type signature, you can iteratively sequence the item you have to in effect push the list type down one level in the type chain, then map over that container to work on its contents. That can look like:
import cats.implicits._
import scala.util._
def convert(listTryOptionPair: List[Try[Option[(String, Any)]]]): Try[
Option[Map[String, Any]]
] = {
val tryListOptionPair = listTryOptionPair.sequence
tryListOptionPair.map { listOptionPair =>
val optionListPair = listOptionPair.sequence
optionListPair.map { listPair =>
Map.from(listPair)
}
}
}
https://scastie.scala-lang.org/xbQ8ZbkoRSCXGDJX0PgJAQ has a slightly more complete example.
One way to approach this is by using a foldLeft:
// Let's say this is the object you're trying to convert
val seq: Seq[Try[Option[(String, Any)]]] = ???
seq.foldLeft(Try(Option(Map.empty[String, Any]))) {
case (acc, e) =>
for {
accOption <- acc
elemOption <- e
} yield elemOption match {
case Some(value) => accOption.map(_ + value)
case None => accOption
}
}
You start off with en empty Map. You then use a for comprehension to go through the current map and element and finally you add a new tuple in the map if present.
The following solutions is based on this answer to the point that almost makes the question a duplicate.
Method 1: Using recursion
def trySeqToMap1[X,Y](trySeq : Seq[Try[Option[(X, Y)]]]) : Try[Option[Map[X,Y]]] = {
def helper(it : Iterator[Try[Option[(X,Y)]]], m : Map[X,Y] = Map()) : Try[Option[Map[X,Y]]] = {
if(it.hasNext) {
val x = it.next()
if(x.isFailure)
Failure(x.failed.get)
else if(x.get.isDefined)
helper(it, m + (x.get.get._1-> x.get.get._2))
else
helper(it, m)
} else Success(Some(m))
}
helper(trySeq.iterator)
}
Method 2: directly pattern matching in case you are able to get a stream or a List instead:
def trySeqToMap2[X,Y](trySeq : LazyList[Try[Option[(X, Y)]]], m : Map[X,Y]= Map.empty[X,Y]) : Try[Option[Map[X,Y]]] =
trySeq match {
case Success(Some(h)) #:: tail => trySeqToMap2(tail, m + (h._1 -> h._2))
case Success(None) #:: tail => tail => trySeqToMap2(tail, m)
case Failure(f) #:: _ => Failure(f)
case _ => Success(Some(m))
}
note: this answer was previously using different method signatures. It has been updated to conform to the signature given in the question.
i want to append list of elements to another list based on a condition. for example : find below code.
package test
object main {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit ={
val a = List(1,2,3,4,5)
val b= List[Int]()
for(x <- a){
if (x>3){
b:+x
}
}
println(b)
}
}
when i execute this i am getting empty list.
The List class is immutable in Scala, so you cannot add elements to it. If you really need a mutable list, you can use MutableList.
val a = List(1,2,3,4,5)
val b= MutableList[Int]()
for (x <- a) {
if (x > 3) {
b += x
}
}
println(b)
However, in a functional language like Scala, the best practice is to use immutable collections. Your task can be done very easily with the filter method.
val a = List(1,2,3,4,5)
val b = a.filter(_ > 3)
In Scala List is an immutable collection, you can not add to it, but you can create another collection by applying filter:
val a = List(1,2,3,4,5)
val b = a.filter(x => x > 3)
Actually, to make it much generic, you can use tabulate method to prefill your list with required n;
Example:
val n = 5
List.tabulate(5)(_ + 1).filter(_ > 3)
I wrote this simple program in my attempt to learn how Cats Writer works
import cats.data.Writer
import cats.syntax.applicative._
import cats.syntax.writer._
import cats.instances.vector._
object WriterTest extends App {
type Logged2[A] = Writer[Vector[String], A]
Vector("started the program").tell
val output1 = calculate1(10)
val foo = new Foo()
val output2 = foo.calculate2(20)
val (log, sum) = (output1 + output2).pure[Logged2].run
println(log)
println(sum)
def calculate1(x : Int) : Int = {
Vector("came inside calculate1").tell
val output = 10 + x
Vector(s"Calculated value ${output}").tell
output
}
}
class Foo {
def calculate2(x: Int) : Int = {
Vector("came inside calculate 2").tell
val output = 10 + x
Vector(s"calculated ${output}").tell
output
}
}
The program works and the output is
> run-main WriterTest
[info] Compiling 1 Scala source to /Users/Cats/target/scala-2.11/classes...
[info] Running WriterTest
Vector()
50
[success] Total time: 1 s, completed Jan 21, 2017 8:14:19 AM
But why is the vector empty? Shouldn't it contain all the strings on which I used the "tell" method?
When you call tell on your Vectors, each time you create a Writer[Vector[String], Unit]. However, you never actually do anything with your Writers, you just discard them. Further, you call pure to create your final Writer, which simply creates a Writer with an empty Vector. You have to combine the writers together in a chain that carries your value and message around.
type Logged[A] = Writer[Vector[String], A]
val (log, sum) = (for {
_ <- Vector("started the program").tell
output1 <- calculate1(10)
foo = new Foo()
output2 <- foo.calculate2(20)
} yield output1 + output2).run
def calculate1(x: Int): Logged[Int] = for {
_ <- Vector("came inside calculate1").tell
output = 10 + x
_ <- Vector(s"Calculated value ${output}").tell
} yield output
class Foo {
def calculate2(x: Int): Logged[Int] = for {
_ <- Vector("came inside calculate2").tell
output = 10 + x
_ <- Vector(s"calculated ${output}").tell
} yield output
}
Note the use of for notation. The definition of calculate1 is really
def calculate1(x: Int): Logged[Int] = Vector("came inside calculate1").tell.flatMap { _ =>
val output = 10 + x
Vector(s"calculated ${output}").tell.map { _ => output }
}
flatMap is the monadic bind operation, which means it understands how to take two monadic values (in this case Writer) and join them together to get a new one. In this case, it makes a Writer containing the concatenation of the logs and the value of the one on the right.
Note how there are no side effects. There is no global state by which Writer can remember all your calls to tell. You instead make many Writers and join them together with flatMap to get one big one at the end.
The problem with your example code is that you're not using the result of the tell method.
If you take a look at its signature, you'll see this:
final class WriterIdSyntax[A](val a: A) extends AnyVal {
def tell: Writer[A, Unit] = Writer(a, ())
}
it is clear that tell returns a Writer[A, Unit] result which is immediately discarded because you didn't assign it to a value.
The proper way to use a Writer (and any monad in Scala) is through its flatMap method. It would look similar to this:
println(
Vector("started the program").tell.flatMap { _ =>
15.pure[Logged2].flatMap { i =>
Writer(Vector("ended program"), i)
}
}
)
The code above, when executed will give you this:
WriterT((Vector(started the program, ended program),15))
As you can see, both messages and the int are stored in the result.
Now this is a bit ugly, and Scala actually provides a better way to do this: for-comprehensions. For-comprehension are a bit of syntactic sugar that allows us to write the same code in this way:
println(
for {
_ <- Vector("started the program").tell
i <- 15.pure[Logged2]
_ <- Vector("ended program").tell
} yield i
)
Now going back to your example, what I would recommend is for you to change the return type of compute1 and compute2 to be Writer[Vector[String], Int] and then try to make your application compile using what I wrote above.
Clojure offers a macro called doto that takes its argument and a list of functions and essentially calls each function, prepending the (evaluated) argument:
(doto (new java.util.HashMap) (.put "a" 1) (.put "b" 2))
-> {a=1, b=2}
Is there some way to implement something similar in Scala? I envision something with the following form:
val something =
doto(Something.getInstance) {
x()
y()
z()
}
which will be equivalent to
val something = Something.getInstance
something.x()
something.y()
something.z()
Might it be possible using scala.util.DynamicVariables?
Note that with factory methods, like Something.getInstance, it is not possible to use the common Scala pattern
val something =
new Something {
x()
y()
z()
}
I don't think there is such a thing built-in in the library but you can mimic it quite easily:
def doto[A](target: A)(calls: (A => A)*) =
calls.foldLeft(target) {case (res, f) => f(res)}
Usage:
scala> doto(Map.empty[String, Int])(_ + ("a" -> 1), _ + ("b" ->2))
res0: Map[String,Int] = Map(a -> 1, b -> 2)
scala> doto(Map.empty[String, Int])(List(_ + ("a" -> 1), _ - "a", _ + ("b" -> 2)))
res10: Map[String,Int] = Map(b -> 2)
Of course, it works as long as your function returns the proper type. In your case, if the function has only side effects (which is not so "scalaish"), you can change doto and use foreach instead of foldLeft:
def doto[A](target: A)(calls: (A => Unit)*) =
calls foreach {_(target)}
Usage:
scala> import collection.mutable.{Map => M}
import collection.mutable.{Map=>M}
scala> val x = M.empty[String, Int]
x: scala.collection.mutable.Map[String,Int] = Map()
scala> doto(x)(_ += ("a" -> 1), _ += ("a" -> 2))
scala> x
res16: scala.collection.mutable.Map[String,Int] = Map(a -> 2)
In Scala, the "typical" way to do this would be to chain "tap" or "pipe" methods. These are not in the standard library, but are frequently defined as so:
implicit class PipeAndTap[A](a: A) {
def |>[B](f: A => B): B = f(a)
def tap[B](f: A => B): A = { f(a); a }
}
Then you would
(new java.util.HashMap[String,Int]) tap (_.put("a",1)) tap (_.put("b",2))
This is not as compact as the Clojure version (or as compact as Scala can be), but it is about as close to canonical as one is likely to get.
(Note: if you want to minimize run-time overhead for adding these methods, you can make a a private val and have PipeAndTap extend AnyVal; then this will be a "value class" which is only converted into a real class when you need an object to pass around; just calling a method doesn't actually require class creation.)
(Second note: in older versions of Scala, implicit class does not exist. You have to separately write the class and an implicit def that converts a generic a to a PipeAndTap.)
I think, that the closest would be to import this object's members in scope:
val something = ...
import something._
x()
y()
z()
In this post you can find another example (in section "Small update about theoretical grounds"):
http://hacking-scala.posterous.com/side-effecting-without-braces
Also small advantage with this approach - you can import individual members and rename them:
import something.{x, y => doProcessing}
More simple I guess:
val hm = Map [String, Int] () + ("a"-> 1) + ("b"-> 2)
Your sample
val something =
doto (Something.getInstance) {
x()
y()
z()
}
doesn't look very functional, because - what is the result? I assume you're side effecting.
Something.x().y().z()
could be a way if each call produces the type where the next function can act on.
z(y(x(Something)))
another kind of producing a result.
And there is the andThen method to chain method calls on collections, you might want to have a look at.
For your Map-example, a fold-left is another way to go:
val hm = Map [String, Int] () + ("a"-> 1) + ("b"-> 2)
val l = List (("a", 8), ("b", 7), ("c", 9))
(hm /: l)(_ + _)
// res8: scala.collection.immutable.Map[String,Int] = Map(a -> 8, b -> 7, c -> 9)
Well, I can think of two ways of doing it: passing strings as parameters, and having a macro change the string and compile it, or simply importing the methods. If Scala had untyped macros, maybe they could be used as well -- since it doesn't have them, I'm not going to speculate on it.
At any rate, I'm going to leave macro alternatives to others. Importing the methods is rather simple:
val map = collection.mutable.Map[String, Int]()
locally {
import map._
put("a", 1)
put("b", 2)
}
Note that locally doesn't do anything, except restrict the scope in which the members of map are imported.
One very basic way to chain several actions is function composition:
val f:Map[Int,String]=>Map[Int,String] = _ + (1 -> "x")
val g:Map[Int,String]=>Map[Int,String] = _ + (2 -> "y")
val h:Map[Int,String]=>Map[Int,String] = _ + (3 -> "z")
(h compose g compose f)(Map(42->"a"))
// Map[Int,String] = Map((42,a), (1,x), (2,y), (3,z))
In this case it's not very practical, though, as the type of the functions can't be inferred easily...
I worked my way implementing a recursive version of selection and quick sort,i am trying to modify the code in a way that it can sort a list of any generic type , i want to assume that the generic type supplied can be converted to Comparable at runtime.
Does anyone have a link ,code or tutorial on how to do this please
I am trying to modify this particular code
'def main (args:Array[String]){
val l = List(2,4,5,6,8)
print(quickSort(l))
}
def quickSort(x:List[Int]):List[Int]={
x match{
case xh::xt =>
{
val (first,pivot,second) = partition(x)
quickSort (first):::(pivot :: quickSort(second))
}
case Nil => {x}
}
}
def partition (x:List[Int])=
{
val pivot =x.head
var first:List[Int]=List ()
var second : List[Int]=List ()
val fun=(i:Int)=> {
if (i<pivot)
first=i::first
else
second=i::second
}
x.tail.foreach(fun)
(first,pivot,second)
}
enter code here
def main (args:Array[String]){
val l = List(2,4,5,6,8)
print(quickSort(l))
}
def quickSort(x:List[Int]):List[Int]={
x match{
case xh::xt =>
{
val (first,pivot,second) = partition(x)
quickSort (first):::(pivot :: quickSort(second))
}
case Nil => {x}
}
}
def partition (x:List[Int])=
{
val pivot =x.head
var first:List[Int]=List ()
var second : List[Int]=List ()
val fun=(i:Int)=> {
if (i<pivot)
first=i::first
else
second=i::second
}
x.tail.foreach(fun)
(first,pivot,second)
} '
Language: SCALA
In Scala, Java Comparator is replaced by Ordering (quite similar but comes with more useful methods). They are implemented for several types (primitives, strings, bigDecimals, etc.) and you can provide your own implementations.
You can then use scala implicit to ask the compiler to pick the correct one for you:
def sort[A]( lst: List[A] )( implicit ord: Ordering[A] ) = {
...
}
If you are using a predefined ordering, just call:
sort( myLst )
and the compiler will infer the second argument. If you want to declare your own ordering, use the keyword implicit in the declaration. For instance:
implicit val fooOrdering = new Ordering[Foo] {
def compare( f1: Foo, f2: Foo ) = {...}
}
and it will be implicitly use if you try to sort a List of Foo.
If you have several implementations for the same type, you can also explicitly pass the correct ordering object:
sort( myFooLst )( fooOrdering )
More info in this post.
For Quicksort, I'll modify an example from the "Scala By Example" book to make it more generic.
class Quicksort[A <% Ordered[A]] {
def sort(a:ArraySeq[A]): ArraySeq[A] =
if (a.length < 2) a
else {
val pivot = a(a.length / 2)
sort (a filter (pivot >)) ++ (a filter (pivot == )) ++
sort (a filter(pivot <))
}
}
Test with Int
scala> val quicksort = new Quicksort[Int]
quicksort: Quicksort[Int] = Quicksort#38ceb62f
scala> val a = ArraySeq(5, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 9, 39 ,219)
a: scala.collection.mutable.ArraySeq[Int] = ArraySeq(5, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 9, 39, 21
9)
scala> quicksort.sort(a).foreach(n=> (print(n), print (" " )))
1 1 2 2 3 5 9 39 219
Test with a custom class implementing Ordered
scala> case class Meh(x: Int, y:Int) extends Ordered[Meh] {
| def compare(that: Meh) = (x + y).compare(that.x + that.y)
| }
defined class Meh
scala> val q2 = new Quicksort[Meh]
q2: Quicksort[Meh] = Quicksort#7677ce29
scala> val a3 = ArraySeq(Meh(1,1), Meh(12,1), Meh(0,1), Meh(2,2))
a3: scala.collection.mutable.ArraySeq[Meh] = ArraySeq(Meh(1,1), Meh(12,1), Meh(0
,1), Meh(2,2))
scala> q2.sort(a3)
res7: scala.collection.mutable.ArraySeq[Meh] = ArraySeq(Meh(0,1), Meh(1,1), Meh(
2,2), Meh(12,1))
Even though, when coding Scala, I'm used to prefer functional programming style (via combinators or recursion) over imperative style (via variables and iterations), THIS TIME, for this specific problem, old school imperative nested loops result in simpler code for the reader. I don't think falling back to imperative style is a mistake for certain classes of problems (such as sorting algorithms which usually transform the input buffer (like a procedure) rather than resulting to a new sorted one
Here it is my solution:
package bitspoke.algo
import scala.math.Ordered
import scala.collection.mutable.Buffer
abstract class Sorter[T <% Ordered[T]] {
// algorithm provided by subclasses
def sort(buffer : Buffer[T]) : Unit
// check if the buffer is sorted
def sorted(buffer : Buffer[T]) = buffer.isEmpty || buffer.view.zip(buffer.tail).forall { t => t._2 > t._1 }
// swap elements in buffer
def swap(buffer : Buffer[T], i:Int, j:Int) {
val temp = buffer(i)
buffer(i) = buffer(j)
buffer(j) = temp
}
}
class SelectionSorter[T <% Ordered[T]] extends Sorter[T] {
def sort(buffer : Buffer[T]) : Unit = {
for (i <- 0 until buffer.length) {
var min = i
for (j <- i until buffer.length) {
if (buffer(j) < buffer(min))
min = j
}
swap(buffer, i, min)
}
}
}
As you can see, rather than using java.lang.Comparable, I preferred scala.math.Ordered and Scala View Bounds rather than Upper Bounds. That's certainly works thanks to many Scala Implicit Conversions of primitive types to Rich Wrappers.
You can write a client program as follows:
import bitspoke.algo._
import scala.collection.mutable._
val sorter = new SelectionSorter[Int]
val buffer = ArrayBuffer(3, 0, 4, 2, 1)
sorter.sort(buffer)
assert(sorter.sorted(buffer))