Here is a function to memoize /cache intermediate result :
def memoize[I, O](f: I => O) = new scala.collection.mutable.HashMap[I, O]() {
override def apply(key: I): O = getOrElseUpdate(key, f(key))
}
This works fine for code like below,
val double: Int=>Int = memoize {
_*2
}
However, when I try to use tuple as input parameter(I) it shows compile time error,
val isGivenNumIsHead:(List[Int], Int) => Boolean = memoize {
case (Nil, _) => false
case (a:: as, n) => a == n
}
Compile time error is :
Expression of type mutable.HashMap[Nothing, Boolean] {def apply(key: Nothing): Boolean} doesn't conform to expected type (List[Int], Int) => Boolean
Is this something related to erasure.
How do i fix it ?
I am assuming you want to use the tuple as the key in the HashMap. With that in mind, here is the explanation.
The actual return type of memoize is scala.collection.mutable.HashMap[_,_] . That is being assigned to double which is of type Int => Int or Function1[Int,Int] ( a function that takes an integer and gives an interger). The compiler doesnt throw an error because mutable.HashMap extends scala.collection.mutable.MapLike which in turn extends scala.collection.MapLike which in turn extends scala.PartialFunction[A, B] which in turn extends scala.Function1[A, B]. Hence there is no compilation error.
On the other hand, the syntax for functions taking one parameter and returning one value is val functionName : A => B = a => {return b} or can be written as val function : (A) => B = a => {return b} or val function: (A => B) = a => {return b}. You have used the second method. In that case, the value of A should be of single type. You have used List[Int],Int which is not a single type. Note that I intentionally removed the brackets. So in order to make that as a single type and to pass it as a tuple, you have to use one more set of brackets. The correct syntax would be
val isGivenNumIsHead:((List[Int], Int)) => Boolean = memoize {
case (Nil, _) => false
case (a:: as, n) => a == n
}
Note the usage of additional brackets to make it a tuple.
Related
Is there a syntax to allow generic type parameters on function literals? I know I could wrap it in a method such as:
def createLongStringFunction[T](): (T) => Boolean = {
(obj: T) => obj.toString.length > 7
}
but then I end up needing to invoke the method for every type T and getting a new function. I looked through the language reference, and while I see that the function literal syntax is translated by the compiler to an instance of a Functionn object that itself has generic input types, it looks like the compiler magic realizes those parameters at the time of creation. I haven't found any syntax that allows me to, in effect, "leave one or more of the type parameters of Functionn unbound". What I would prefer is something along the lines of:
// doesn't compile
val longStringFunction: [T](T) => Boolean = (obj: T) => obj.toString.length > 7
Does any such thing exist? Or for that matter, what is the explicit type of an eta-expansion function when the method being expanded has generic parameters?
This is a purely contrived and useless example. Of course I could just make the function use Any here.
No, type parameters only apply to methods and not function objects. For example,
def f[T](x: T) = x //> f: [T](x: T)T
val g = f _ //> g: Nothing => Nothing = <function1>
// g(2) // error
val h: Int=>Int = f _ //> h : Int => Int = <function2>
h(2) //> res0: Int = 2
The method f cannot be converted to a polymorphic function object g. As you can see, the inferred type of g is actually Function1[Nothing, Nothing], which is useless. However, with a type hint we can construct h: Function1[Int,Int] that works as expected for Int argument.
As you say, in your example all you're requiring is the toString method and so Any would be the usual solution. However, there is call for being able to use higher-rank types in situations such as applying a type constructor such as List to every element in a tuple.
As the other answers have mentioned, there's no direct support for this, but there's a relatively nice way to encode it:
trait ~>[A[_],B[_]] {
def apply[X](a : A[X]) : B[X]
}
type Id[A] = A //necessary hack
object newList extends (Id ~> List) {
def apply[X](a : Id[X]) = List(a)
}
def tupleize[A,B, F[_]](f : Id ~> F, a : A, b : B) = (f(a), f(b))
tupleize(newList, 1, "Hello") // (List(1), List(Hello))
Since longStringFunction defined as followed is a value, which must have some given type.
val longStringFunction: (T) => Boolean = (obj: T) => obj.toString.length > 7
However, you can reuse a function object with a method:
scala> val funObj: Any => Boolean = _.toString.size > 7
funObj: Any => Boolean = <function1>
scala> def typedFunction[T]: T => Boolean = funObj
typedFunction: [T]=> T => Boolean
scala> val f1 = typedFunction[String]
f1: String => Boolean = <function1>
scala> val f2 = typedFunction[Int]
f2: Int => Boolean = <function1>
scala> f1 eq f2
res0: Boolean = true
This works because trait Function1[-T1, +R] is contravariant of type T1.
In scala, Function values are parametrically monomorphic(while methods are polymorphic)
Shapeless library introduces polymorphic function values which may be mapped over HLists and many more other features.
Please consider the following refs:
http://www.chuusai.com/2012/04/27/shapeless-polymorphic-function-values-1/
http://www.chuusai.com/2012/05/10/shapeless-polymorphic-function-values-2/
Suppose I have a list of functions as so:
val funcList = List(func1: A => T, func2: B => T, func2: C => T)
(where func1, et al. are defined elsewhere)
I want to write a method that will take a value and match it to the right function based on exact type (match a: A with func1: A => T) or throw an exception if there is no matching function.
Is there a simple way to do this?
This is similar to what a PartialFunction does, but I am not able to change the list of functions in funcList to PartialFunctions. I am thinking I have to do some kind of implicit conversion of the functions to a special class that knows the types it can handle and is able to pattern match against it (basically promoting those functions to a specialized PartialFunction). However, I can't figure out how to identify the "domain" of each function.
Thank you.
You cannot identify the domain of each function, because they are erased at runtime. Look up erasure if you want more information, but the short of it is that the information you want does not exist.
There are ways around type erasure, and you'll find plenty discussions on Stack Overflow itself. Some of them come down to storing the type information somewhere as a value, so that you can match on that.
Another possible solution is to simply forsake the use of parameterized types (generics in Java parlance) for your own customized types. That is, doing something like:
abstract class F1 extends (A => T)
object F1 {
def apply(f: A => T): F1 = new F1 {
def apply(n: A): T = f(n)
}
}
And so on. Since F1 doesn't have type parameters, you can match on it, and you can create functions of this type easily. Say both A and T are Int, then you could do this, for example:
F1(_ * 2)
The usual answer to work around type erasure is to use the help of manifests. In your case, you can do the following:
abstract class TypedFunc[-A:Manifest,+R:Manifest] extends (A => R) {
val retType: Manifest[_] = manifest[R]
val argType: Manifest[_] = manifest[A]
}
object TypedFunc {
implicit def apply[A:Manifest, R:Manifest]( f: A => R ): TypedFunc[A, R] = {
f match {
case tf: TypedFunc[A, R] => tf
case _ => new TypedFunc[A, R] { final def apply( arg: A ): R = f( arg ) }
}
}
}
def applyFunc[A, R, T >: A : Manifest]( funcs: Traversable[TypedFunc[A,R]] )( arg: T ): R = {
funcs.find{ f => f.argType <:< manifest[T] } match {
case Some( f ) => f( arg.asInstanceOf[A] )
case _ => sys.error("Could not find function with argument matching type " + manifest[T])
}
}
val func1 = { s: String => s.length }
val func2 = { l: Long => l.toInt }
val func3 = { s: Symbol => s.name.length }
val funcList = List(func1: TypedFunc[String,Int], func2: TypedFunc[Long, Int], func3: TypedFunc[Symbol, Int])
Testing in the REPL:
scala> applyFunc( funcList )( 'hello )
res22: Int = 5
scala> applyFunc( funcList )( "azerty" )
res23: Int = 6
scala> applyFunc( funcList )( 123L )
res24: Int = 123
scala> applyFunc( funcList )( 123 )
java.lang.RuntimeException: Could not find function with argument matching type Int
at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:27)
at .applyFunc(<console>:27)
at .<init>(<console>:14)
...
I think you're misunderstanding how a List is typed. List takes a single type parameter, which is the type of all the elements of the list. When you write
val funcList = List(func1: A => T, func2: B => T, func2: C => T)
the compiler will infer a type like funcList : List[A with B with C => T].
This means that each function in funcList takes a parameter that is a member of all of A, B, and C.
Apart from this, you can't (directly) match on function types due to type erasure.
What you could instead do is match on a itself, and call the appropriate function for the type:
a match {
case x : A => func1(x)
case x : B => func2(x)
case x : C => func3(x)
case _ => throw new Exception
}
(Of course, A, B, and C must remain distinct after type-erasure.)
If you need it to be dynamic, you're basically using reflection. Unfortunately Scala's reflection facilities are in flux, with version 2.10 released a few weeks ago, so there's less documentation for the current way of doing it; see How do the new Scala TypeTags improve the (deprecated) Manifests?.
MWE (obs.: I am avoiding to have to instantiate a class every call of c, this is why functions are desired):
object Main extends App {
def a(s:String, i:Int) ={
s + i * i //some complex op that yields String
}
def b(i:Int) ={
i / 3 //another complex op that yields Int
}
def c(f: Any => Any) = {
val L = List(1,2,3,4) //list of complex elements
L map f //apply f within some complex loop
}
println(c(a))
/*
scala: type mismatch;
found : (String, Int) => String
required: Any => Any
println(c(a))
^
*/
println(c(b))
/*
scala: type mismatch;
found : Int => Int
required: Any => Any
println(c(b))
^
*/
}
Maybe an equivalent question would be "Is there some kind of function inheritance?",
like
def f
def fa(i: Int):String extends f
def fb(s: String):Int extends f
What you're trying to do isn't type-safe, since if it were you could pass a String to a function which takes an Int parameter:
e.g.
def c(f: Any => Any) = {
val L = List("a", "b", "c")
L map f
}
c(a)
However you can take a function of type Int => Any, since it is safe to assign a more derived type to Any.
def c(f: Int => Any) = {
val l = List(1,2,3,4)
l.map(f)
}
This is now safe:
val bList: List[Any] = c(b)
You still can't pass a to c however, since it requires two arguments instead of one. You can partially apply the first String argument and pass that:
val cList = c(a("SomeString", _:Int))
If you find yourself using Any,
you are probably doing something wrong, and
you most likely need generics.
In your case
def c[X,Y](f: X => Y) = { ... }
would probably do the trick, depending on what you have inside that complex loop.
In Scala, you can do
list.filter { item =>
item match {
case Some(foo) => foo.bar > 0
}
}
But you can also do the quicker way by omitting match:
list.filter {
case Some(foo) => foo.bar > 0
}
How is this supported in Scala? Is this new in 2.9? I have been looking for it, and I can figure out what makes this possible. Is it just part of the Scala compiler?
Edit: parts of this answer are wrong; please refer to huynhjl's answer.
If you omit the match, you signal the compiler that you are defining a partial function. A partial function is a function that is not defined for every input value. For instance, your filter function is only defined for values of type Some[A] (for your custom type A).
PartialFunctions throw a MatchError when you try to apply them where they are not defined. Therefore, you should make sure, when you pass a PartialFunction where a regular Function is defined, that your partial function will never be called with an unhanded argument. Such a mechanism is very useful e.g. for unpacking tuples in a collection:
val tupleSeq: Seq[(Int, Int)] = // ...
val sums = tupleSeq.map { case (i1, i2) => i1 + i2 }
APIs which ask for a partial function, like the collect filter-like operation on collections, usually call isDefinedAt before applying the partial function. There, it is safe (and often wanted) to have a partial function that is not defined for every input value.
So you see that although the syntax is close to that of a match, it is actually quite a different thing we're dealing with.
The language specification addresses that in section 8.5. The relevant portions:
An anonymous function can be defined by a sequence of cases
{ case p1 => b1 ... case pn => bn }
If the expected type is scala.Functionk[S1, ..., Sk, R] , the expression is taken to
be equivalent to the anonymous function:
(x1 : S1, ..., xk : Sk) => (x1, ..., xk) match {
case p1 => b1 ... case pn => bn
}
If the expected type is scala.PartialFunction[S, R], the expression is taken to
be equivalent to the following instance creation expression:
new scala.PartialFunction[S, T ] {
def apply(x: S): T = x match {
case p1 => b1 ... case pn => bn
}
def isDefinedAt(x: S): Boolean = {
case p1 => true ... case pn => true
case _ => false
}
}
So typing the expression as PartialFunction or a Function influences how the expression is compiled.
Also trait PartialFunction [-A, +B] extends (A) ⇒ B so a partial function PartialFunction[A,B] is also a Function[A,B].
-- Revised post --
Hmm, I'm not sure I see a difference, Scala 2.9.1.RC3,
val f: PartialFunction[Int, Int] = { case 2 => 3 }
f.isDefinedAt(1) // evaluates to false
f.isDefinedAt(2) // evaluates to true
f(1) // match error
val g: PartialFunction[Int, Int] = x => x match { case 2 => 3 }
g.isDefinedAt(1) // evaluates to false
g.isDefinedAt(2) // evaluates to true
g(1) // match error
It seems f and g behave exactly the same as PartialFunctions.
Here's another example demonstrating the equivalence:
Seq(1, "a").collect(x => x match { case s: String => s }) // evaluates to Seq(a)
Even more interesting:
// this compiles
val g: PartialFunction[Int, Int] = (x: Int) => {x match { case 2 => 3 }}
// this fails; found Function[Int, Int], required PartialFunction[Int, Int]
val g: PartialFunction[Int, Int] = (x: Int) => {(); x match { case 2 => 3 }}
So there's some special casing at the compiler level to convert between x => x match {...} and just {...}.
Update. After reading the language spec, this seems like a bug to me. I filed SI-4940 in the bug tracker.
I'm writing a code generator which produces Scala output.
I need to emulate a ternary operator in such a way that the tokens leading up to '?' remain intact.
e.g. convert the expression c ? p : q to c something. The simple if(c) p else q fails my criteria, as it requires putting if( before c.
My first attempt (still using c/p/q as above) is
c match { case(true) => p; case _ => q }
another option I found was:
class ternary(val g: Boolean => Any) { def |: (b:Boolean) = g(b) }
implicit def autoTernary (g: Boolean => Any): ternary = new ternary(g)
which allows me to write:
c |: { b: Boolean => if(b) p else q }
I like the overall look of the second option, but is there a way to make it less verbose?
Thanks
Even though the syntax doesn't evaluate in the expected order--it binds the conditional to the first option!--you can make your own ternary operator like this:
class IfTrue[A](b: => Boolean, t: => A) { def |(f: => A) = if (b) t else f }
class MakeIfTrue(b: => Boolean) { def ?[A](t: => A) = new IfTrue[A](b,t) }
implicit def autoMakeIfTrue(b: => Boolean) = new MakeIfTrue(b)
The trick is to interpret ? as a method on a MakeIfTrue object that binds the condition to the object to return in the "true" case. The resulting IfTrue object now uses the | method as a request to evaluate the condition, returning the stored true option if the condition is true, or the just-passed-in one if it's false.
Note that I've used stuff like => A instead of just A--by-name parameters--in order to not evaluate the expression unless it's actually used. Thus, you'll only evaluate the side that you actually need (just like an if statement).
Let's see it in action:
scala> List(1,3,2).isEmpty ? "Empty" | "Nonempty"
res0: java.lang.String = Nonempty
scala> (4*4 > 14) ? true | false
res1: Boolean = true
scala> class Scream(s: String) { println(s.toUpperCase + "!!!!") }
defined class Scream
scala> true ? new Scream("true") | new Scream("false")
TRUE!!!!
res3: Scream = Scream#1ccbdf7
(P.S. To avoid confusion with the Actor library ?, you probably ought to call it something else like |?.)
Let's keep it simple:
Java:
tmp = (a > b) ? a : b;
Scala:
tmp = if (a > b) a else b
Besides simplicity, it is clear and fast because: do not allocate objects you don't need, keeps the garbage collector out of equation (as it always should be) and makes better use of processor caches.
You could use something like this
sealed trait TernaryOperand[A] {
def >(q: => A): A
}
case class TernarySecond[A](val p: A) extends TernaryOperand[A] {
def >(q: => A) = p
}
case class TernaryThird[A]() extends TernaryOperand[A] {
def >(q: => A) = q
}
implicit def ternary(c: Boolean) = new {
def ?[A](p: => A): TernaryOperand[A] = if (c) TernarySecond(p) else TernaryThird()
}
val s1 = true ? "a" > "b"
println(s1) //will print "a"
val s2 = false ? "a" > "b"
println(s2) //will print "b"
This code converts any boolean value to an anonymous type that has a method called ?. Depending on the value of the boolean, this method will either return TernarySecond or TernaryThird. They both have a method called > which returns the second operand or the third one respectively.
Ternary operator which adds my improvement to the best of Rex Kerr’s and Michel Krämer’s implementations:
My improvement to use Scala’s new value class to avoid boxing overhead.
Call by-name on 2nd and 3rd operands so only the chosen one is evaluated.
Michel’s call by-value on the 1st (Boolean) operand to avoid by-name overhead; it is always evaluated.
Rex’s concrete class for the condition to avoid any anonymous class overhead.
Michel’s evaluation of the condition to determine which class to construct to avoid of overhead of a two argument constructor.
.
sealed trait TernaryResult[T] extends Any {
def |(op3: => T): T
}
class Ternary2ndOperand[T](val op2: T) extends AnyVal with TernaryResult[T] {
def |(op3: => T) = op2
}
class Ternary3rdOperand[T](val op2: T) extends AnyVal with TernaryResult[T] {
def |(op3: => T) = op3
}
class Ternary(val op1:Boolean) extends AnyVal {
def ?[A](op2: => A): TernaryResult[A] = if (op1) new Ternary2ndOperand(op2) else new Ternary3rdOperand(op2)
}
object Ternary {
implicit def toTernary(condition: Boolean) = new Ternary(condition)
}
Note the improvement over if else is not just the 6 characters saved. With Scala IDE’s syntax coloring on keywords being the same (e.g. purple) for if, else, null, and true, there is better contrast in some cases (which isn't shown by the syntax coloring below as currently rendered on this site):
if (cond) true else null
cond ? true | null