Related
What are the precise rules for when you can omit (omit) parentheses, dots, braces, = (functions), etc.?
For example,
(service.findAllPresentations.get.first.votes.size) must be equalTo(2).
service is my object
def findAllPresentations: Option[List[Presentation]]
votes returns List[Vote]
must and be are both functions of specs
Why can't I go:
(service findAllPresentations get first votes size) must be equalTo(2)
?
The compiler error is:
"RestServicesSpecTest.this.service.findAllPresentations
of type
Option[List[com.sharca.Presentation]]
does not take parameters"
Why does it think I'm trying to pass in a parameter? Why must I use dots for every method call?
Why must (service.findAllPresentations get first votes size) be equalTo(2) result in:
"not found: value first"
Yet, the "must be equalTo 2" of
(service.findAllPresentations.get.first.votes.size) must be equalTo 2, that is, method chaining works fine? - object chain chain chain param.
I've looked through the Scala book and website and can't really find a comprehensive explanation.
Is it in fact, as Rob H explains in Stack Overflow question Which characters can I omit in Scala?, that the only valid use-case for omitting the '.' is for "operand operator operand" style operations, and not for method chaining?
You seem to have stumbled upon the answer. Anyway, I'll try to make it clear.
You can omit dot when using the prefix, infix and postfix notations -- the so called operator notation. While using the operator notation, and only then, you can omit the parenthesis if there is less than two parameters passed to the method.
Now, the operator notation is a notation for method-call, which means it can't be used in the absence of the object which is being called.
I'll briefly detail the notations.
Prefix:
Only ~, !, + and - can be used in prefix notation. This is the notation you are using when you write !flag or val liability = -debt.
Infix:
That's the notation where the method appears between an object and it's parameters. The arithmetic operators all fit here.
Postfix (also suffix):
That notation is used when the method follows an object and receives no parameters. For example, you can write list tail, and that's postfix notation.
You can chain infix notation calls without problem, as long as no method is curried. For example, I like to use the following style:
(list
filter (...)
map (...)
mkString ", "
)
That's the same thing as:
list filter (...) map (...) mkString ", "
Now, why am I using parenthesis here, if filter and map take a single parameter? It's because I'm passing anonymous functions to them. I can't mix anonymous functions definitions with infix style because I need a boundary for the end of my anonymous function. Also, the parameter definition of the anonymous function might be interpreted as the last parameter to the infix method.
You can use infix with multiple parameters:
string substring (start, end) map (_ toInt) mkString ("<", ", ", ">")
Curried functions are hard to use with infix notation. The folding functions are a clear example of that:
(0 /: list) ((cnt, string) => cnt + string.size)
(list foldLeft 0) ((cnt, string) => cnt + string.size)
You need to use parenthesis outside the infix call. I'm not sure the exact rules at play here.
Now, let's talk about postfix. Postfix can be hard to use, because it can never be used anywhere except the end of an expression. For example, you can't do the following:
list tail map (...)
Because tail does not appear at the end of the expression. You can't do this either:
list tail length
You could use infix notation by using parenthesis to mark end of expressions:
(list tail) map (...)
(list tail) length
Note that postfix notation is discouraged because it may be unsafe.
I hope this has cleared all the doubts. If not, just drop a comment and I'll see what I can do to improve it.
Class definitions:
val or var can be omitted from class parameters which will make the parameter private.
Adding var or val will cause it to be public (that is, method accessors and mutators are generated).
{} can be omitted if the class has no body, that is,
class EmptyClass
Class instantiation:
Generic parameters can be omitted if they can be inferred by the compiler. However note, if your types don't match, then the type parameter is always infered so that it matches. So without specifying the type, you may not get what you expect - that is, given
class D[T](val x:T, val y:T);
This will give you a type error (Int found, expected String)
var zz = new D[String]("Hi1", 1) // type error
Whereas this works fine:
var z = new D("Hi1", 1)
== D{def x: Any; def y: Any}
Because the type parameter, T, is inferred as the least common supertype of the two - Any.
Function definitions:
= can be dropped if the function returns Unit (nothing).
{} for the function body can be dropped if the function is a single statement, but only if the statement returns a value (you need the = sign), that is,
def returnAString = "Hi!"
but this doesn't work:
def returnAString "Hi!" // Compile error - '=' expected but string literal found."
The return type of the function can be omitted if it can be inferred (a recursive method must have its return type specified).
() can be dropped if the function doesn't take any arguments, that is,
def endOfString {
return "myDog".substring(2,1)
}
which by convention is reserved for methods which have no side effects - more on that later.
() isn't actually dropped per se when defining a pass by name paramenter, but it is actually a quite semantically different notation, that is,
def myOp(passByNameString: => String)
Says myOp takes a pass-by-name parameter, which results in a String (that is, it can be a code block which returns a string) as opposed to function parameters,
def myOp(functionParam: () => String)
which says myOp takes a function which has zero parameters and returns a String.
(Mind you, pass-by-name parameters get compiled into functions; it just makes the syntax nicer.)
() can be dropped in the function parameter definition if the function only takes one argument, for example:
def myOp2(passByNameString:(Int) => String) { .. } // - You can drop the ()
def myOp2(passByNameString:Int => String) { .. }
But if it takes more than one argument, you must include the ():
def myOp2(passByNameString:(Int, String) => String) { .. }
Statements:
. can be dropped to use operator notation, which can only be used for infix operators (operators of methods that take arguments). See Daniel's answer for more information.
. can also be dropped for postfix functions
list tail
() can be dropped for postfix operators
list.tail
() cannot be used with methods defined as:
def aMethod = "hi!" // Missing () on method definition
aMethod // Works
aMethod() // Compile error when calling method
Because this notation is reserved by convention for methods that have no side effects, like List#tail (that is, the invocation of a function with no side effects means that the function has no observable effect, except for its return value).
() can be dropped for operator notation when passing in a single argument
() may be required to use postfix operators which aren't at the end of a statement
() may be required to designate nested statements, ends of anonymous functions or for operators which take more than one parameter
When calling a function which takes a function, you cannot omit the () from the inner function definition, for example:
def myOp3(paramFunc0:() => String) {
println(paramFunc0)
}
myOp3(() => "myop3") // Works
myOp3(=> "myop3") // Doesn't work
When calling a function that takes a by-name parameter, you cannot specify the argument as a parameter-less anonymous function. For example, given:
def myOp2(passByNameString:Int => String) {
println(passByNameString)
}
You must call it as:
myOp("myop3")
or
myOp({
val source = sourceProvider.source
val p = myObject.findNameFromSource(source)
p
})
but not:
myOp(() => "myop3") // Doesn't work
IMO, overuse of dropping return types can be harmful for code to be re-used. Just look at specification for a good example of reduced readability due to lack of explicit information in the code. The number of levels of indirection to actually figure out what the type of a variable is can be nuts. Hopefully better tools can avert this problem and keep our code concise.
(OK, in the quest to compile a more complete, concise answer (if I've missed anything, or gotten something wrong/inaccurate please comment), I have added to the beginning of the answer. Please note this isn't a language specification, so I'm not trying to make it exactly academically correct - just more like a reference card.)
A collection of quotes giving insight into the various conditions...
Personally, I thought there'd be more in the specification. I'm sure there must be, I'm just not searching for the right words...
There are a couple of sources however, and I've collected them together, but nothing really complete / comprehensive / understandable / that explains the above problems to me...:
"If a method body has more than one
expression, you must surround it with
curly braces {…}. You can omit the
braces if the method body has just one
expression."
From chapter 2, "Type Less, Do More", of Programming Scala:
"The body of the upper method comes
after the equals sign ‘=’. Why an
equals sign? Why not just curly braces
{…}, like in Java? Because semicolons,
function return types, method
arguments lists, and even the curly
braces are sometimes omitted, using an
equals sign prevents several possible
parsing ambiguities. Using an equals
sign also reminds us that even
functions are values in Scala, which
is consistent with Scala’s support of
functional programming, described in
more detail in Chapter 8, Functional
Programming in Scala."
From chapter 1, "Zero to Sixty: Introducing Scala", of Programming Scala:
"A function with no parameters can be
declared without parentheses, in which
case it must be called with no
parentheses. This provides support for
the Uniform Access Principle, such
that the caller does not know if the
symbol is a variable or a function
with no parameters.
The function body is preceded by "="
if it returns a value (i.e. the return
type is something other than Unit),
but the return type and the "=" can be
omitted when the type is Unit (i.e. it
looks like a procedure as opposed to a
function).
Braces around the body are not
required (if the body is a single
expression); more precisely, the body
of a function is just an expression,
and any expression with multiple parts
must be enclosed in braces (an
expression with one part may
optionally be enclosed in braces)."
"Functions with zero or one argument
can be called without the dot and
parentheses. But any expression can
have parentheses around it, so you can
omit the dot and still use
parentheses.
And since you can use braces anywhere
you can use parentheses, you can omit
the dot and put in braces, which can
contain multiple statements.
Functions with no arguments can be
called without the parentheses. For
example, the length() function on
String can be invoked as "abc".length
rather than "abc".length(). If the
function is a Scala function defined
without parentheses, then the function
must be called without parentheses.
By convention, functions with no
arguments that have side effects, such
as println, are called with
parentheses; those without side
effects are called without
parentheses."
From blog post Scala Syntax Primer:
"A procedure definition is a function
definition where the result type and
the equals sign are omitted; its
defining expression must be a block.
E.g., def f (ps) {stats} is
equivalent to def f (ps): Unit =
{stats}.
Example 4.6.3 Here is a declaration
and a de?nition of a procedure named
write:
trait Writer {
def write(str: String)
}
object Terminal extends Writer {
def write(str: String) { System.out.println(str) }
}
The code above is implicitly completed
to the following code:
trait Writer {
def write(str: String): Unit
}
object Terminal extends Writer {
def write(str: String): Unit = { System.out.println(str) }
}"
From the language specification:
"With methods which only take a single
parameter, Scala allows the developer
to replace the . with a space and omit
the parentheses, enabling the operator
syntax shown in our insertion operator
example. This syntax is used in other
places in the Scala API, such as
constructing Range instances:
val firstTen:Range = 0 to 9
Here again, to(Int) is a vanilla
method declared inside a class
(there’s actually some more implicit
type conversions here, but you get the
drift)."
From Scala for Java Refugees Part 6: Getting Over Java:
"Now, when you try "m 0", Scala
discards it being a unary operator, on
the grounds of not being a valid one
(~, !, - and +). It finds that "m" is
a valid object -- it is a function,
not a method, and all functions are
objects.
As "0" is not a valid Scala
identifier, it cannot be neither an
infix nor a postfix operator.
Therefore, Scala complains that it
expected ";" -- which would separate
two (almost) valid expressions: "m"
and "0". If you inserted it, then it
would complain that m requires either
an argument, or, failing that, a "_"
to turn it into a partially applied
function."
"I believe the operator syntax style
works only when you've got an explicit
object on the left-hand side. The
syntax is intended to let you express
"operand operator operand" style
operations in a natural way."
Which characters can I omit in Scala?
But what also confuses me is this quote:
"There needs to be an object to
receive a method call. For instance,
you cannot do “println “Hello World!”"
as the println needs an object
recipient. You can do “Console
println “Hello World!”" which
satisfies the need."
Because as far as I can see, there is an object to receive the call...
I find it easier to follow this rule of thumb: in expressions spaces alternate between methods and parameters. In your example, (service.findAllPresentations.get.first.votes.size) must be equalTo(2) parses as (service.findAllPresentations.get.first.votes.size).must(be)(equalTo(2)). Note that the parentheses around the 2 have a higher associativity than the spaces. Dots also have higher associativity, so (service.findAllPresentations.get.first.votes.size) must be.equalTo(2)would parse as (service.findAllPresentations.get.first.votes.size).must(be.equalTo(2)).
service findAllPresentations get first votes size must be equalTo 2 parses as service.findAllPresentations(get).first(votes).size(must).be(equalTo).2.
Actually, on second reading, maybe this is the key:
With methods which only take a single
parameter, Scala allows the developer
to replace the . with a space and omit
the parentheses
As mentioned on the blog post: http://www.codecommit.com/blog/scala/scala-for-java-refugees-part-6 .
So perhaps this is actually a very strict "syntax sugar" which only works where you are effectively calling a method, on an object, which takes one parameter. e.g.
1 + 2
1.+(2)
And nothing else.
This would explain my examples in the question.
But as I said, if someone could point out to be exactly where in the language spec this is specified, would be great appreciated.
Ok, some nice fellow (paulp_ from #scala) has pointed out where in the language spec this information is:
6.12.3:
Precedence and associativity of
operators determine the grouping of
parts of an expression as follows.
If there are several infix operations in an expression, then
operators with higher precedence bind
more closely than operators with lower
precedence.
If there are consecutive infix operations e0 op1 e1 op2 . . .opn en
with operators op1, . . . , opn of the
same precedence, then all these
operators must have the same
associativity. If all operators are
left-associative, the sequence is
interpreted as (. . . (e0 op1 e1) op2
. . .) opn en. Otherwise, if all
operators are rightassociative, the
sequence is interpreted as e0 op1 (e1
op2 (. . .opn en) . . .).
Postfix operators always have lower precedence than infix operators. E.g.
e1 op1 e2 op2 is always equivalent to
(e1 op1 e2) op2.
The right-hand operand of a
left-associative operator may consist
of several arguments enclosed in
parentheses, e.g. e op (e1, . . .
,en). This expression is then
interpreted as e.op(e1, . . . ,en).
A left-associative binary operation e1
op e2 is interpreted as e1.op(e2). If
op is rightassociative, the same
operation is interpreted as { val
x=e1; e2.op(x ) }, where x is a fresh
name.
Hmm - to me it doesn't mesh with what I'm seeing or I just don't understand it ;)
There aren't any. You will likely receive advice around whether or not the function has side-effects. This is bogus. The correction is to not use side-effects to the reasonable extent permitted by Scala. To the extent that it cannot, then all bets are off. All bets. Using parentheses is an element of the set "all" and is superfluous. It does not provide any value once all bets are off.
This advice is essentially an attempt at an effect system that fails (not to be confused with: is less useful than other effect systems).
Try not to side-effect. After that, accept that all bets are off. Hiding behind a de facto syntactic notation for an effect system can and does, only cause harm.
I am using _ as placeholder for creating anonymous function, and the problem is I cannot predict how Scala is going to transform my code. More precisely, it mistakenly determines how "large" the anonymous function I want.
List(1,2,3) foreach println(_:Int) //error !
List(1,2,3) foreach (println(_:Int)) //work
List(1,2,3) foreach(println(_:Int)) //work
Using -Xprint:typer I can see Scala transforms the first one into "a big anonymous function":
x$1 => List(1,2,3) foreach(println(x$1:Int))
the worked 2th 3th are right transformation into what I want.
... foreach (x$1 => println(x$1:Int))
Why this? What's the rule ?
Simple rules to determine the scope of underscore:
If the underscore is an argument to a method, then the scope will be outside that method, otherwise respective the rules below;
If the underscore is inside an expression delimited by () or {}, the innermost such delimiter that contains the underscore will be used;
All other things being equal, the largest expression possible will be used.
So, by the rule #1, instead of println((x: Int) => x), the scope will be placed outside (including) println.
By rule #2, the latter two examples will have the function delimited by parenthesis, so (x => println(x: Int)).
By rule #3, the first example will be the whole expression, as there are no delimiting parenthesis.
I believe Mr. Sobral's answer is incorrect. The actual rules can be found in Scala Language Reference, section 6.23, subhead "Placeholder Syntax for Anonymous Functions."
The only rule is that the innermost expression that properly contains the underscore defines the scope of the anonymous function. That means that Mr. Sobral's first two rules are correct, because a method call is an expression and parenthesizing an expression doesn't change its meaning. But the third rule is the opposite of the truth: all other things being equal, the smallest expression that makes sense will be used.
Unfortunately, my explanation for the behavior Mr. Laskowski observed for his first example is a bit involved and speculative. When
List(1,2,3) foreach println(_:Int)
is typed at the Scala read-eval-print loop. The error message is:
error: type mismatch;
found : Unit
required: Int => ?
List(1,2,3) foreach println(_:Int)
^
If you vary the example a tiny bit:
List(1,2,3).foreach println(_:Int)
the error message is easier to make sense of --
error: missing arguments for method foreach in class List;
follow this method with `_' if you want to treat it as a partially applied function
List(1,2,3).foreach println(_:Int)
^
To understand things a little better, call scala thus: scala -Xprint:parser, which, after every expression is typed by the user, causes the expression as fleshed out by the parser to be printed. (Along with a lot of garbage, which I'll omit.) For Laskowski's first example, the expression understood by the parser is
((x$1: Int) => List(1, 2, 3).foreach(println((x$1: Int))))
For the second example, the parser's version is
((x$1: Int) => List(1, 2, 3).foreach.println((x$1: Int)))
Apparently the scope rule is applied before the expression structure has been fully fleshed out. In both cases, the parser guesses that the smallest expression starts at List, even though once the parens are inserted that's no longer true. In the second example, in addition to that assumption it assumes that, because println is an identifier, foreach println is a chain of methods, the first having no arguments. The error at foreach is then caught before the error at println, masking it. The error at println is that its result is Unit, and foreach requires a function. Once you see the parse tree, it's easy to see that this is correct, but it's not clear (to me) why the parse tree is what it is.
Say I want to have a number of rules that all follow the same pattern. I have ran into this situation when I want to avoid non-deterministic behavior by explicitly listing all possible first arguments. I know, however, that I need to do exactly the same for some of the possibilities. One way to deal with it would be to have a catch-all clause at the end:
foo(a) :- /* do something */.
foo(b) :- /* do something else*/.
foo(_). /* ignore the rest */
but this is not very nice because I can't actually know if got unexpected input, or if I made a mistake in my program. To avoid this, I could also say
foo(X) :- memberchk(X, [ /* list of possible values of X */ ]).
but again, I am now fighting against Prolog's deterministic behavior and indexing when the argument is ground.
So, instead, I do something like this:
term_expansion(foos(Foos), Foo_rules) :-
maplist(expand_foo, Foos, Foo_rules).
expand_foo(Foo, foo(Foo)).
other_foos([x,y,z]).
The thing is, I sort of tried to find existing code like this and I couldn't. Is it because I am doing something wrong? Is there a better way to approach this problem? Or circumvent it altogether?
I don't mind answers that say "you are solving the wrong problem".
EDIT: Some googling actually got me to this very similar example from the SWI-Prolog documentation:
http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=ext-dquotes-motivation
(at the very bottom)
First a few comments on the variants you already suggest:
foo(a) :- /* do something */.
foo(b) :- /* do something else */.
foo(_). /* ignore the rest */
The main problem with this is that the final clause (foo(_)) applies when the other - presumably more specialized - clauses also apply. So the query ?- foo(a). is now unintentionally non-deterministic.
You say this version "is not very nice because I can't actually know if got unexpected input, or if I made a mistake in my program". We could guard against unexpected input by making sure, in the check-all clause, that the given term is not unexpected:
foo(a) :- /* do something */.
foo(b) :- /* do something else */.
foo(X) :- must_be(oneof([a,b,x,y], X).
This raises an error when the term is of an unexpected form. I used x and y as examples for terms that are not handled specially. Note that a and b must of course be included, because the clause (again) applies to both of them as well. The predicate is still not deterministic even when its argument is instantiated, because first argument indexing cannot distinguish the cases. You write "I am now fighting against Prolog's deterministic behavior and indexing when the argument is ground" and probably (and correctly) mean that you cannot benefit from these features when you use this representation.
And now the nice declarative solution: Every time you are tempted to introduce a "catch-all" or "default" clause, reconsider your data representation, and introduce distinguishing functors for the different cases that can apply. In your example, the two cases are:
the term needs to be handled in a special way
nothing special needs to be done with the term.
I will use special(_) and ordinary(_) to distinguish the cases. Thus:
foo(special(S)) :- foo_special(S).
foo(ordinary(_)). % do nothing
foo_special(a) :- /* do something */
foo_special(b) :- /* do something else */
These predicates can be used in all directions, and are deterministic when the argument is known. Type-checks can be added easily.
I am working in a Scala embedded DSL and macros are becoming a main tool for achieving my purposes. I am getting an error while trying to reuse a subtree from the incoming macro expression into the resulting one. The situation is quite complex, but (I hope) I have simplified it for its understanding.
Suppose we have this code:
val y = transform {
val x = 3
x
}
println(y) // prints 3
where 'transform' is the involved macro. Although it could seem it does absolutely nothing, it is really transforming the shown block into this expression:
3 match { case x => x }
It is done with this macro implementation:
def transform(c: Context)(block: c.Expr[Int]): c.Expr[Int] = {
import c.universe._
import definitions._
block.tree match {
/* {
* val xNam = xVal
* xExp
* }
*/
case Block(List(ValDef(_, xNam, _, xVal)), xExp) =>
println("# " + showRaw(xExp)) // prints Ident(newTermName("x"))
c.Expr(
Match(
xVal,
List(CaseDef(
Bind(xNam, Ident(newTermName("_"))),
EmptyTree,
/* xExp */ Ident(newTermName("x")) ))))
case _ =>
c.error(c.enclosingPosition, "Can't transform block to function")
block // keep original expression
}
}
Notice that xNam corresponds with the variable name, xVal corresponds with its associated value and finally xExp corresponds with the expression containing the variable. Well, if I print the xExp raw tree I get Ident(newTermName("x")), and that is exactly what is set in the case RHS. Since the expression could be modified (for instance x+2 instead of x), this is not a valid solution for me. What I want to do is to reuse the xExp tree (see the xExp comment) while altering the 'x' meaning (it is a definition in the input expression but will be a case LHS variable in the output one), but it launches a long error summarized in:
symbol value x does not exist in org.habla.main.Main$delayedInit$body.apply); see the error output for details.
My current solution consists on the parsing of the xExp to sustitute all the Idents with new ones, but it is totally dependent on the compiler internals, and so, a temporal workaround. It is obvious that the xExp comes along with more information that the offered by showRaw. How can I clean that xExp for allowing 'x' to role the case variable? Can anyone explain the whole picture of this error?
PS: I have been trying unsuccessfully to use the substitute* method family from the TreeApi but I am missing the basics to understand its implications.
Disassembling input expressions and reassembling them in a different fashion is an important scenario in macrology (this is what we do internally in the reify macro). But unfortunately, it's not particularly easy at the moment.
The problem is that input arguments of the macro reach macro implementation being already typechecked. This is both a blessing and a curse.
Of particular interest for us is the fact that variable bindings in the trees corresponding to the arguments are already established. This means that all Ident and Select nodes have their sym fields filled in, pointing to the definitions these nodes refer to.
Here is an example of how symbols work. I'll copy/paste a printout from one of my talks (I don't give a link here, because most of the info in my talks is deprecated by now, but this particular printout has everlasting usefulness):
>cat Foo.scala
def foo[T: TypeTag](x: Any) = x.asInstanceOf[T]
foo[Long](42)
>scalac -Xprint:typer -uniqid Foo.scala
[[syntax trees at end of typer]]// Scala source: Foo.scala
def foo#8339
[T#8340 >: Nothing#4658 <: Any#4657]
(x#9529: Any#4657)
(implicit evidence$1#9530: TypeTag#7861[T#8341])
: T#8340 =
x#9529.asInstanceOf#6023[T#8341];
Test#14.this.foo#8339[Long#1641](42)(scala#29.reflect#2514.`package`#3414.mirror#3463.TypeTag#10351.Long#10361)
To recap, we write a small snippet and then compile it with scalac, asking the compiler to dump the trees after the typer phase, printing unique ids of the symbols assigned to trees (if any).
In the resulting printout we can see that identifiers have been linked to corresponding definitions. For example, on the one hand, the ValDef("x", ...), which represents the parameter of the method foo, defines a method symbol with id=9529. On the other hand, the Ident("x") in the body of the method got its sym field set to the same symbol, which establishes the binding.
Okay, we've seen how bindings work in scalac, and now is the perfect time to introduce a fundamental fact.
If a symbol has been assigned to an AST node,
then subsequent typechecks will never reassign it.
This is why reify is hygienic. You can take a result of reify and insert it into an arbitrary tree (that possibly defines variables with conflicting names) - the original bindings will remain intact. This works because reify preserves the original symbols, so subsequent typechecks won't rebind reified AST nodes.
Now we're all set to explain the error you're facing:
symbol value x does not exist in org.habla.main.Main$delayedInit$body.apply); see the error output for details.
The argument of the transform macro contains both a definition and a reference to a variable x. As we've just learned, this means that the corresponding ValDef and Ident will have their sym fields synchronized. So far, so good.
However unfortunately the macro corrupts the established binding. It recreates the ValDef, but doesn't clean up the sym field of the corresponding Ident. Subsequent typecheck assigns a fresh symbol to the newly created ValDef, but doesn't touch the original Ident that is copied to the result verbatim.
After the typecheck, the original Ident points to a symbol that no longer exists (this is exactly what the error message was saying :)), which leads to a crash during bytecode generation.
So how do we fix the error? Unfortunately there is no easy answer.
One option would be to utilize c.resetLocalAttrs, which recursively erases all symbols in a given AST node. Subsequent typecheck will then reestablish the bindings granted that the code you generated doesn't mess with them (if, for example, you wrap xExp in a block that itself defines a value named x, then you're in trouble).
Another option is to fiddle with symbols. For example, you could write your own resetLocalAttrs that only erases corrupted bindings and doesn't touch the valid ones. You could also try and assign symbols by yourself, but that's a short road to madness, though sometimes one is forced to walk it.
Not cool at all, I agree. We're aware of that and intend to try and fix this fundamental issue sometimes. However right now our hands are full with bugfixing before the final 2.10.0 release, so we won't be able to address the problem in the nearest future. upd. See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scala-internals/rIyJ4yHdPDU for some additional information.
Bottom line. Bad things happen, because bindings get messed up. Try resetLocalAttrs first, and if it doesn't work, prepare yourself for a chore.
I have defined a prolog file with the following code:
divisible(X, Y) :-
X mod Y =:= 0.
divisibleBy(X, Y) :-
divisible(X, Y).
op(35,xfx,divisibleBy).
Prolog is complaining that
'$record_clause'/2: No permission to modify static_procedure `op/3'
What am I doing wrong? I want to define an divisibleBy operator that will allow me to write code like the following:
4 divisibleBy 2
Thanks.
Use
:- op(35,xfx,divisibleBy).
:- tells the Prolog interpreter to evaluate the next term while loading the file, i.e. make a predicate call, instead of treating it as a definition (in this case a redefinition of op/3).
The answer given by #larsmans is spot-on regarding your original problem.
However, you should reconsider if you should define a new operator.
In general, I would strongly advise against defining new operators for the following reasons:
The gain in readability is often overrated.
It may easily introduce new problems in places you wouldn't normally expect buggy.
It doesn't "scale" well: a small number of operators can make code on presentation slides super-concise, but what if you add more discriminate union cases over time? More operators?