Related
So I have a generic compose combinator.
Recall that the composition of two functions—f and g-- is h(x) = f(g(x))
def inc(x: Double) = x + 1
def double(x: Double) = 2 * x
def compose[A,B,C](f: B => C, g: A => B, x: A): C = f(g(x))
//TEST
println(compose(double, inc, 2.0))
//OUTPUT
// 6.0
But now I want to implement the self-composition iterator combinator, recursively, using my compose function where:
def selfIter[T](f: T=>T, n: Int) = f composed with itself n times.
I tried doing this:
def selfIter[T](f: T, n: Int): T = {
if(n == 0) f
else f + selfIter(f, n-1)
}
//TEST
println(selfIter(compose(double, inc, 2.0), 2))
I get an error, I know I'm doing something fundamentally wrong, but I cant figure out what I need to do.
In this case, the output should be 14.0 because first call will be 2(2+1) = 6.0, and then second call will be 2(6.0 + 1) = 14.0
Question: How should I refactor my code so that selfIter will compose f with itself n times until we have n == 0, and returns the final value
The easiest way to solve this kind of problems is to use the combinators provided by Scala. Also you should first compose the function you want to use and then apply the input
def compose[A,B,C](f: B => C, g: A => B): A => C = g.andThen(f)
def selfIter[T](f: T=>T, n: Int): T => T = Function.chain(List.fill(n)(f))
println(selfIter(compose(double, inc), 2)(2.0))
If compose signature could not be changed then
def compose[A,B,C](f: B => C, g: A => B, x: A): C = f(g(x))
def selfIter[T](f: T=>T, n: Int): T => T = Function.chain(List.fill(n)(f))
println(selfIter[Double](compose(double, inc, _), 2)(2.0))
But it makes much more sense the first solution
There are a few things going wrong here.
This f + selfIter(f, n-1) says that f (type T) must have a + method that takes another T as an argument. But you don't want to add these things, you want to compose them.
Here's a simpler way to get the result you're after.
Stream.iterate(2.0)(compose(double, inc, _))(2) // res0: Double = 14.0
If you're intent on a recursive method, this appears to achieve your goal.
def selfIter[T](start:T, n:Int)(f:T=>T): T = {
if (n < 2) f(start)
else f(selfIter(start, n-1)(f))
}
selfIter(2.0, 2)(compose(double, inc, _)) // res0: Double = 14.0
Whilst I understand what a partially applied/curried function is, I still don't fully understand why I would use such a function vs simply overloading a function. I.e. given:
def add(a: Int, b: Int): Int = a + b
val addV = (a: Int, b: Int) => a + b
What is the practical difference between
def addOne(b: Int): Int = add(1, b)
and
def addOnePA = add(1, _:Int)
// or currying
val addOneC = addV.curried(1)
Please note I am NOT asking about currying vs partially applied functions as this has been asked before and I have read the answers. I am asking about currying/partially applied functions VS overloaded functions
The difference in your example is that overloaded function will have hardcoded value 1 for the first argument to add, i.e. set at compile time, while partially applied or curried functions are meant to capture their arguments dynamically, i.e. at run time. Otherwise, in your particular example, because you are hardcoding 1 in both cases it's pretty much the same thing.
You would use partially applied/curried function when you pass it through different contexts, and it captures/fills-in arguments dynamically until it's completely ready to be evaluated. In FP this is important because many times you don't pass values, but rather pass functions around. It allows for higher composability and code reusability.
There's a couple reasons why you might prefer partially applied functions. The most obvious and perhaps superficial one is that you don't have to write out intermediate functions such as addOnePA.
List(1, 2, 3, 4) map (_ + 3) // List(4, 5, 6, 7)
is nicer than
def add3(x: Int): Int = x + 3
List(1, 2, 3, 4) map add3
Even the anonymous function approach (that the underscore ends up expanding out to by the compiler) feels a tiny bit clunky in comparison.
List(1, 2, 3, 4) map (x => x + 3)
Less superficially, partial application comes in handy when you're truly passing around functions as first-class values.
val fs = List[(Int, Int) => Int](_ + _, _ * _, _ / _)
val on3 = fs map (f => f(_, 3)) // partial application
val allTogether = on3.foldLeft{identity[Int] _}{_ compose _}
allTogether(6) // (6 / 3) * 3 + 3 = 9
Imagine if I hadn't told you what the functions in fs were. The trick of coming up with named function equivalents instead of partial application becomes harder to use.
As for currying, currying functions often lets you naturally express transformations of functions that produce other functions (rather than a higher order function that simply produces a non-function value at the end) which might otherwise be less clear.
For example,
def integrate(f: Double => Double, delta: Double = 0.01)(x: Double): Double = {
val domain = Range.Double(0.0, x, delta)
domain.foldLeft(0.0){case (acc, a) => delta * f(a) + acc
}
can be thought of and used in the way that you actually learned integration in calculus, namely as a transformation of a function that produces another function.
def square(x: Double): Double = x * x
// Ignoring issues of numerical stability for the moment...
// The underscore is really just a wart that Scala requires to bind it to a val
val cubic = integrate(square) _
val quartic = integrate(cubic) _
val quintic = integrate(quartic) _
// Not *utterly* horrible for a two line numerical integration function
cubic(1) // 0.32835000000000014
quartic(1) // 0.0800415
quintic(1) // 0.015449626499999999
Currying also alleviates a few of the problems around fixed function arity.
implicit class LiftedApply[A, B](fOpt: Option[A => B]){
def ap(xOpt: Option[A]): Option[B] = for {
f <- fOpt
x <- xOpt
} yield f(x)
}
def not(x: Boolean): Boolean = !x
def and(x: Boolean)(y: Boolean): Boolean = x && y
def and3(x: Boolean)(y: Boolean)(z: Boolean): Boolean = x && y && z
Some(not _) ap Some(false) // true
Some(and _) ap Some(true) ap Some(true) // true
Some(and3 _) ap Some(true) ap Some(true) ap Some(true) // true
By having curried functions, we've been able to "lift" a function to work on Option for as many arguments as we need. If our logic functions had not been curried, then we would have had to have separate functions to lift A => B to Option[A] => Option[B], (A, B) => C to (Option[A], Option[B]) => Option[C], (A, B, C) => D to (Option[A], Option[B], Option[C]) => Option[D] and so on for all the arities we cared about.
Currying also has some other miscellaneous benefits when it comes to type inference and is required if you have both implicit and non-implicit arguments for a method.
Finally, the answers to this question list out some more times you might want currying.
Is there a pre-existing / Scala-idiomatic / better way of accomplishing this?
def sum(x: Int, y: Int) = x + y
var x = 10
x = applyOrBypass(target=x, optValueToApply=Some(22), sum)
x = applyOrBypass(target=x, optValueToApply=None, sum)
println(x) // will be 32
My applyOrBypass could be defined like this:
def applyOrBypass[A, B](target: A, optValueToApply: Option[B], func: (A, B) => A) = {
optValueToApply map { valueToApply =>
func(target, valueToApply)
} getOrElse {
target
}
}
Basically I want to apply operations depending on wether certain Option values are defined or not. If they are not, I should get the pre-existing value. Ideally I would like to chain these operations and not having to use a var.
My intuition tells me that folding or reducing would be involved, but I am not sure how it would work. Or maybe there is another approach with monadic-fors...
Any suggestions / hints appreciated!
Scala has a way to do this with for comprehensions (The syntax is similar to haskell's do notation if you are familiar with it):
(for( v <- optValueToApply )
yield func(target, v)).getOrElse(target)
Of course, this is more useful if you have several variables that you want to check the existence of:
(for( v1 <- optV1
; v2 <- optV2
; v3 <- optV3
) yield func(target, v1, v2, v3)).getOrElse(target)
If you are trying to accumulate a value over a list of options, then I would recommend a fold, so your optional sum would look like this:
val vs = List(Some(1), None, None, Some(2), Some(3))
(target /: vs) ( (x, v) => x + v.getOrElse(0) )
// => 6 + target
You can generalise this, under the condition that your operation func has some identity value, identity:
(target /: vs) ( (x, v) => func(x, v.getOrElse(identity)) )
Mathematically speaking this condition is that (func, identity) forms a Monoid. But that's by-the-by. The actual effect is that whenever a None is reached, applying func to it and x will always produce x, (None's are ignored, and Some values are unwrapped and applied as normal), which is what you want.
What I would do in a case like this is use partially applied functions and identity:
def applyOrBypass[A, B](optValueToApply: Option[B], func: B => A => A): A => A =
optValueToApply.map(func).getOrElse(identity)
You would apply it like this:
def sum(x: Int)(y: Int) = x + y
var x = 10
x = applyOrBypass(optValueToApply=Some(22), sum)(x)
x = applyOrBypass(optValueToApply=None, sum)(x)
println(x)
Yes, you can use fold. If you have multiple optional operands, there are some useful abstractions in the Scalaz library I believe.
var x = 10
x = Some(22).fold(x)(sum(_, x))
x = None .fold(x)(sum(_, x))
If you have multiple functions, it can be done with Scalaz.
There are several ways to do it, but here is one of the most concise.
First, add your imports:
import scalaz._, Scalaz._
Then, create your functions (this way isn't worth it if your functions are always the same, but if they are different, it makes sense)
val s = List(Some(22).map((i: Int) => (j: Int) => sum(i,j)),
None .map((i: Int) => (j: Int) => multiply(i,j)))
Finally, apply them all:
(s.flatten.foldMap(Endo(_)))(x)
It's a function to find the third largest of a collection of integers. I'm calling it like this:
val lineStream = thirdLargest(Source.fromFile("10m.txt").getLines.toIterable
val intStream = lineStream map { s => Integer.parseInt(s) }
thirdLargest(intStream)
The file 10m.txt contains 10 million lines with a random integer on each one. The thirdLargest function below should not be keeping any of the integers after it has tested them, and yet it causes the JVM to run out of memory (after about 90 seconds in my case).
def thirdLargest(numbers: Iterable[Int]): Option[Int] = {
def top3of4(top3: List[Int], fourth: Int) = top3 match {
case List(a, b, c) =>
if (fourth > c) List(b, c, fourth)
else if (fourth > b) List(b, fourth, c)
else if (fourth > a) List(fourth, b, c)
else top3
}
#tailrec
def find(top3: List[Int], rest: Iterable[Int]): Int = (top3, rest) match {
case (List(a, b, c), Nil) => a
case (top3, d #:: rest) => find(top3of4(top3, d), rest)
}
numbers match {
case a #:: b #:: c #:: rest => Some(find(List[Int](a, b, c).sorted, rest))
case _ => None
}
}
The OOM error has nothing to do with the way you read the file. It is totally fine and even recommended to use Source.getLines here. The problem is elsewhere.
Many people are being confused by the nature of Scala Stream concept. In fact this is not something you would want to use just to iterate over things. It is lazy indeed however it doesn't discard previous results – they're being memoized so there's no need to recalculate them again on the next use (which never happens in your case but that's where your memory goes). See also this answer.
Consider using foldLeft. Here's a working (but intentionally simplified) example for illustration purposes:
val lines = Source.fromFile("10m.txt").getLines()
print(lines.map(_.toInt).foldLeft(-1 :: -1 :: -1 :: Nil) { (best3, next) =>
(next :: best3).sorted.reverse.take(3)
})
I'm guessing that there must be a better functional way of expressing the following:
def foo(i: Any) : Int
if (foo(a) < foo(b)) a else b
So in this example f == foo and p == _ < _. There's bound to be some masterful cleverness in scalaz for this! I can see that using BooleanW I can write:
p(f(a), f(b)).option(a).getOrElse(b)
But I was sure that I would be able to write some code which only referred to a and b once. If this exists it must be on some combination of Function1W and something else but scalaz is a bit of a mystery to me!
EDIT: I guess what I'm asking here is not "how do I write this?" but "What is the correct name and signature for such a function and does it have anything to do with FP stuff I do not yet understand like Kleisli, Comonad etc?"
Just in case it's not in Scalaz:
def x[T,R](f : T => R)(p : (R,R) => Boolean)(x : T*) =
x reduceLeft ((l, r) => if(p(f(l),f(r))) r else l)
scala> x(Math.pow(_ : Int,2))(_ < _)(-2, 0, 1)
res0: Int = -2
Alternative with some overhead but nicer syntax.
class MappedExpression[T,R](i : (T,T), m : (R,R)) {
def select(p : (R,R) => Boolean ) = if(p(m._1, m._2)) i._1 else i._2
}
class Expression[T](i : (T,T)){
def map[R](f: T => R) = new MappedExpression(i, (f(i._1), f(i._2)))
}
implicit def tupleTo[T](i : (T,T)) = new Expression(i)
scala> ("a", "bc") map (_.length) select (_ < _)
res0: java.lang.String = a
I don't think that Arrows or any other special type of computation can be useful here. Afterall, you're calculating with normal values and you can usually lift a pure computation that into the special type of computation (using arr for arrows or return for monads).
However, one very simple arrow is arr a b is simply a function a -> b. You could then use arrows to split your code into more primitive operations. However, there is probably no reason for doing that and it only makes your code more complicated.
You could for example lift the call to foo so that it is done separately from the comparison. Here is a simiple definition of arrows in F# - it declares *** and >>> arrow combinators and also arr for turning pure functions into arrows:
type Arr<'a, 'b> = Arr of ('a -> 'b)
let arr f = Arr f
let ( *** ) (Arr fa) (Arr fb) = Arr (fun (a, b) -> (fa a, fb b))
let ( >>> ) (Arr fa) (Arr fb) = Arr (fa >> fb)
Now you can write your code like this:
let calcFoo = arr <| fun a -> (a, foo a)
let compareVals = arr <| fun ((a, fa), (b, fb)) -> if fa < fb then a else b
(calcFoo *** calcFoo) >>> compareVals
The *** combinator takes two inputs and runs the first and second specified function on the first, respectively second argument. >>> then composes this arrow with the one that does comparison.
But as I said - there is probably no reason at all for writing this.
Here's the Arrow based solution, implemented with Scalaz. This requires trunk.
You don't get a huge win from using the arrow abstraction with plain old functions, but it is a good way to learn them before moving to Kleisli or Cokleisli arrows.
import scalaz._
import Scalaz._
def mod(n: Int)(x: Int) = x % n
def mod10 = mod(10) _
def first[A, B](pair: (A, B)): A = pair._1
def selectBy[A](p: (A, A))(f: (A, A) => Boolean): A = if (f.tupled(p)) p._1 else p._2
def selectByFirst[A, B](f: (A, A) => Boolean)(p: ((A, B), (A, B))): (A, B) =
selectBy(p)(f comap first) // comap adapts the input to f with function first.
val pair = (7, 16)
// Using the Function1 arrow to apply two functions to a single value, resulting in a Tuple2
((mod10 &&& identity) apply 16) assert_≟ (6, 16)
// Using the Function1 arrow to perform mod10 and identity respectively on the first and second element of a `Tuple2`.
val pairs = ((mod10 &&& identity) product) apply pair
pairs assert_≟ ((7, 7), (6, 16))
// Select the tuple with the smaller value in the first element.
selectByFirst[Int, Int](_ < _)(pairs)._2 assert_≟ 16
// Using the Function1 Arrow Category to compose the calculation of mod10 with the
// selection of desired element.
val calc = ((mod10 &&& identity) product) ⋙ selectByFirst[Int, Int](_ < _)
calc(pair)._2 assert_≟ 16
Well, I looked up Hoogle for a type signature like the one in Thomas Jung's answer, and there is on. This is what I searched for:
(a -> b) -> (b -> b -> Bool) -> a -> a -> a
Where (a -> b) is the equivalent of foo, (b -> b -> Bool) is the equivalent of <. Unfortunately, the signature for on returns something else:
(b -> b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> a -> c
This is almost the same, if you replace c with Bool and a in the two places it appears, respectively.
So, right now, I suspect it doesn't exist. It occured to me that there's a more general type signature, so I tried it as well:
(a -> b) -> ([b] -> b) -> [a] -> a
This one yielded nothing.
EDIT:
Now I don't think I was that far at all. Consider, for instance, this:
Data.List.maximumBy (on compare length) ["abcd", "ab", "abc"]
The function maximumBy signature is (a -> a -> Ordering) -> [a] -> a, which, combined with on, is pretty close to what you originally specified, given that Ordering is has three values -- almost a boolean! :-)
So, say you wrote on in Scala:
def on[A, B, C](f: ((B, B) => C), g: A => B): (A, A) => C = (a: A, b: A) => f(g(a), g(b))
The you could write select like this:
def select[A](p: (A, A) => Boolean)(a: A, b: A) = if (p(a, b)) a else b
And use it like this:
select(on((_: Int) < (_: Int), (_: String).length))("a", "ab")
Which really works better with currying and dot-free notation. :-) But let's try it with implicits:
implicit def toFor[A, B](g: A => B) = new {
def For[C](f: (B, B) => C) = (a1: A, a2: A) => f(g(a1), g(a2))
}
implicit def toSelect[A](t: (A, A)) = new {
def select(p: (A, A) => Boolean) = t match {
case (a, b) => if (p(a, b)) a else b
}
}
Then you can write
("a", "ab") select (((_: String).length) For (_ < _))
Very close. I haven't figured any way to remove the type qualifier from there, though I suspect it is possible. I mean, without going the way of Thomas answer. But maybe that is the way. In fact, I think on (_.length) select (_ < _) reads better than map (_.length) select (_ < _).
This expression can be written very elegantly in Factor programming language - a language where function composition is the way of doing things, and most code is written in point-free manner. The stack semantics and row polymorphism facilitates this style of programming. This is what the solution to your problem will look like in Factor:
# We find the longer of two lists here. The expression returns { 4 5 6 7 8 }
{ 1 2 3 } { 4 5 6 7 8 } [ [ length ] bi# > ] 2keep ?
# We find the shroter of two lists here. The expression returns { 1 2 3 }.
{ 1 2 3 } { 4 5 6 7 8 } [ [ length ] bi# < ] 2keep ?
Of our interest here is the combinator 2keep. It is a "preserving dataflow-combinator", which means that it retains its inputs after the given function is performed on them.
Let's try to translate (sort of) this solution to Scala.
First of all, we define an arity-2 preserving combinator.
scala> def keep2[A, B, C](f: (A, B) => C)(a: A, b: B) = (f(a, b), a, b)
keep2: [A, B, C](f: (A, B) => C)(a: A, b: B)(C, A, B)
And an eagerIf combinator. if being a control structure cannot be used in function composition; hence this construct.
scala> def eagerIf[A](cond: Boolean, x: A, y: A) = if(cond) x else y
eagerIf: [A](cond: Boolean, x: A, y: A)A
Also, the on combinator. Since it clashes with a method with the same name from Scalaz, I'll name it upon instead.
scala> class RichFunction2[A, B, C](f: (A, B) => C) {
| def upon[D](g: D => A)(implicit eq: A =:= B) = (x: D, y: D) => f(g(x), g(y))
| }
defined class RichFunction2
scala> implicit def enrichFunction2[A, B, C](f: (A, B) => C) = new RichFunction2(f)
enrichFunction2: [A, B, C](f: (A, B) => C)RichFunction2[A,B,C]
And now put this machinery to use!
scala> def length: List[Int] => Int = _.length
length: List[Int] => Int
scala> def smaller: (Int, Int) => Boolean = _ < _
smaller: (Int, Int) => Boolean
scala> keep2(smaller upon length)(List(1, 2), List(3, 4, 5)) |> Function.tupled(eagerIf)
res139: List[Int] = List(1, 2)
scala> def greater: (Int, Int) => Boolean = _ > _
greater: (Int, Int) => Boolean
scala> keep2(greater upon length)(List(1, 2), List(3, 4, 5)) |> Function.tupled(eagerIf)
res140: List[Int] = List(3, 4, 5)
This approach does not look particularly elegant in Scala, but at least it shows you one more way of doing things.
There's a nice-ish way of doing this with on and Monad, but Scala is unfortunately very bad at point-free programming. Your question is basically: "can I reduce the number of points in this program?"
Imagine if on and if were differently curried and tupled:
def on2[A,B,C](f: A => B)(g: (B, B) => C): ((A, A)) => C = {
case (a, b) => f.on(g, a, b)
}
def if2[A](b: Boolean): ((A, A)) => A = {
case (p, q) => if (b) p else q
}
Then you could use the reader monad:
on2(f)(_ < _) >>= if2
The Haskell equivalent would be:
on' (<) f >>= if'
where on' f g = uncurry $ on f g
if' x (y,z) = if x then y else z
Or...
flip =<< flip =<< (if' .) . on (<) f
where if' x y z = if x then y else z