Suppose I have a function that looks like this:
def foo(x: Int*)(y: Int*): Int = ???
How can I pass Arrays of x and y to foo?
val x = Array(4,6,3,7)
val y = Array(3,4,6,3)
foo(x, y) // Error:Type mismatch
Use :_* to tell the compiler to unpack the sequence to match the expected varargs input. Also, since foo is declared using two parameter lists, calling the function has to match:
foo(x: _*)(y: _*)
Related
I’m learning scala and read this concept called ‘currying’. I know it is used to divide the parameters in a function and pass them one by one. So from what I understood I tried creating a simple basic currying function below:
def add_num(a:Int,b:Int)(c:Int):Int={a+b+c}
add_num(10,20)
add_num(10)
But it gives me an error when I call the function with values 10 and 20. What i understood is it will remember the values and then I can pass the third value as 10 separately. I’m unable to understand this concept. Can someone help me in understanding this concept in most basic terms.
Error is missing argument list for method add_num. Unsupplied methods are only converted to functions when a function type is executed.
A curried function is applied to multiple argument lists, instead of just
one. An example of a non-curried function, which adds two Int parameters, x and y:
scala> def plainOldSum(x: Int, y: Int) = x + y
plainOldSum: (x: Int, y: Int)Int
scala> plainOldSum(1, 2)
res4: Int = 3
A similar function that’s curried:
scala> def curriedSum(x: Int)(y: Int) = x + y
curriedSum: (x: Int)(y: Int)Int
scala> curriedSum(1)(2)
res5: Int = 3
What's happening here is that when you invoke curriedSum, you actually
get two traditional function invocations back-to-back. The first function
invocation takes a single Int parameter named x, and returns a function
value for the second function. This second function takes the Int parameter
y.
Here's a function named first that does in spirit what the first traditional
function invocation of curriedSum would do:
scala> def first(x: Int) = (y: Int) => x + y
first: (x: Int)Int => Int
Applying the first function to 1—in other words, invoking the first function
and passing in 1—yields the second function:
scala> val second = first(1)
second: Int => Int = <function1>
Applying the second function to 2 yields the result:
scala> second(2)
res6: Int = 3
These first and second functions are just an illustration of the currying
process. They are not directly connected to the curriedSum function. Nevertheless,
there is a way to get an actual reference to curriedSum's "second"
function. You can use the placeholder notation to use curriedSum in a partially
applied function expression, like this:
scala> val onePlus = curriedSum(1)_
onePlus: Int => Int = <function1>
The underscore in curriedSum(1)_ is a placeholder for the second parameter
list.2 The result is a reference to a function which, when invoked, adds one
to its sole Int argument and returns the result:
scala> onePlus(2)
res7: Int = 3
And here's how you'd get a function that adds two to its sole Int argument:
scala> val twoPlus = curriedSum(2)_
twoPlus: Int => Int = <function1>
scala> twoPlus(2)
res8: Int = 4
I am working on spark and not an expert in scala. I have got the two variants of map function. Could you please explain the difference between them.?
first variant and known format.
first variant
val.map( (x,y) => x.size())
Second variant -> This has been applied on tuple
val.map({case (x, y) => y.toString()});
The type of val is RDD[(IntWritable, Text)]. When i tried with first function, it gave error as below.
type mismatch;
found : (org.apache.hadoop.io.IntWritable, org.apache.hadoop.io.Text) ⇒ Unit
required: ((org.apache.hadoop.io.IntWritable, org.apache.hadoop.io.Text)) ⇒ Unit
When I added extra parenthesis it said,
Tuples cannot be directly destructured in method or function parameters.
Well you say:
The type of val is RDD[(IntWritable, Text)]
so it is a tuple of arity 2 with IntWritable and Text as components.
If you say
val.map( (x,y) => x.size())
what you're doing is you are essentially passing in a Function2, a function with two arguments to the map function. This will never compile because map wants a function with one argument. What you can do is the following:
val.map((xy: (IntWritable, Text)) => xy._2.toString)
using ._2 to get the second part of the tuple which is passed in as xy (the type annotation is not required but makes it more clear).
Now the second variant (you can leave out the outer parens):
val.map { case (x, y) => y.toString() }
this is special scala syntax for creating a PartialFunction that immediately matches on the tuple that is passed in to access the x and y parts. This is possible because PartialFunction extends from the regular Function1 class (Function1[A,B] can be written as A => B) with one argument.
Hope that makes it more clear :)
I try this in repl:
scala> val l = List(("firstname", "tom"), ("secondname", "kate"))
l: List[(String, String)] = List((firstname,tom), (secondname,kate))
scala> l.map((x, y) => x.size)
<console>:9: error: missing parameter type
Note: The expected type requires a one-argument function accepting a 2-Tuple.
Consider a pattern matching anonymous function, `{ case (x, y) => ... }`
l.map((x, y) => x.size)
maybe can give you some inspire.
Your first example is a function that takes two arguments and returns a String. This is similar to this example:
scala> val f = (x:Int,y:Int) => x + y
f: (Int, Int) => Int = <function2>
You can see that the type of f is (Int,Int) => Int (just slightly changed this to be returning an int instead of a string). Meaning that this is a function that takes two Int as arguments and returns an Int as a result.
Now the second example you have is a syntactic sugar (a shortcut) for writing something like this:
scala> val g = (k: (Int, Int)) => k match { case (x: Int, y: Int) => x + y }
g: ((Int, Int)) => Int = <function1>
You see that the return type of function g is now ((Int, Int)) => Int. Can you spot the difference? The input type of g has two parentheses. This shows that g takes one argument and that argument must be a Tuple[Int,Int] (or (Int,Int) for short).
Going back to your RDD, what you have is an Collection of Tuple[IntWritable, Text] so the second function will work, whereas the first one will not work.
i tried
type ?[_] = Option[_]
def f(x: ?[Int]) = for (y <- x) yield y
(but i don't know what i am doing.)
insofar as types are just objects, i should be able to define a postix operator (i.e. zero arity method) for use in type signatures (i think). it might need a space like
def f(x: Int ?) = for (y <- x) yield y
scala makes it easy to use the Option type with matching and polymorphism, avoid null. but, most classes are (nullable) vars and java often returns vars. using classes and calling java are two of scala's selling points. an easy-to-write and easy-to-read syntax would support Options even more strongly.
what are all the things that scala does with "?" that make its parsing special.
ideally, one could write
def f(x: Int?) = for (y <- x) yield y
like other languages. can we do this in scala (without a macro)?
First, types are not objects. In fact, Scala has exactly two namespaces: values and types. They are very different things, and play by very different rules.
The postfix idea is kind of nice, actually, but it is not possible. There's an infix notation for types, though.
Now, to what you wrote:
type ?[_] = Option[_]
Each underscore has a different meaning. The underscore in ?[_] means ? is higher-kinded, but you don't care what it's type parameter is. The underscore in Option[_] means Option is an existential type. So when you write x: ?[Int], Scala will convert it to x: Option[t] { forSome type t }. This means that not only you don't get the Int, but the type parameter of Option is unknowable (you just know it exists).
However, it does compile:
scala> def f(x: ?[Int]) = for (y <- x) yield y
f: (x: ?[Int])Option[Any]
Which version of Scala did you use? 2.11? A co-worker of mine has already found some type inference regressions on 2.11, so that could be it.
The proper way to write the type alias would be this:
type ?[+A] = Option[A]
Not only we pass the type parameter along (it is a parameter, after all!), but we need to specify co-variance for it to act just Option (which is co-variant itself).
Now, as to your two questions, Scala has absolutely no special treatment of ?. And, no, you can't do this. This ? is not exactly widespread among languages either, and in all of them that support it, it is built in the language, and not something externally defined.
Besides, it's kind of a joke that, when interface with Java, typing out Option would be a problem -- not with the average identifier size in Java!
You intended to get an Option[Int] out:
scala> type ?[A] = Option[A]
defined type alias $qmark
scala> def f(x: ?[Int]) = for (y <- x) yield y + 1
f: (x: ?[Int])Option[Int]
and it does compile anyway.
You could maybe
scala> type ?[A,_] = Option[A]
defined type alias $qmark
scala> def f(x: Int ? _) = for (y <- x) yield y + 1
f: (x: ?[Int, _])Option[Int]
or similar.
scala> def f(x: Int ?_) = for (y <- x) yield y + 1
f: (x: ?[Int, _])Option[Int]
looks more postfixy.
P.S. Still curious whether variance annotation on type alias is required or merely advisable.
scala> type ?[A] = Option[A]
defined type alias $qmark
scala> trait X ; trait Y extends X ; trait Z extends X
defined trait X
defined trait Y
defined trait Z
scala> val x: ?[X] = null.asInstanceOf[?[Y]] // why is this OK?
x: ?[X] = null
scala> class C[A]
defined class C
scala> val c: C[X] = null.asInstanceOf[C[Y]] // like this is not OK
<console>:10: error: type mismatch;
found : C[Y]
required: C[X]
Note: Y <: X, but class C is invariant in type A.
You may wish to define A as +A instead. (SLS 4.5)
val c: C[X] = null.asInstanceOf[C[Y]]
^
Maybe compare SI-8522 and related issues.
You might consider a renaming import. When you create a type alias you only rename a type. When you rename a symbol during import you include all referents of that name, both type and value.
To wit:
scala> import scala.{Option => ?}
import scala.{Option=>$qmark}
scala> val oi1: ?[Int] = Some(1)
oi1: Option[Int] = Some(1)
scala> def mi1(oi: ?[Int]): Int = oi.getOrElse(-1)
mi1: (oi: Option[Int])Int
scala> mi1(None)
res1: Int = -1
scala> mi1(?(1))
res2: Int = 1
Compare with this:
scala> type ?[A] = Option[A]
scala> def mi1(oi: ?[Int]): Int = oi.getOrElse(-1)
mi1: (oi: ?[Int])Int
scala> mi1(?(1))
<console>:10: error: not found: value ?
mi1(?(1))
^
In Scala, I could generate a curried function like so:
def multiply(m: Int)(n: Int): Int = (m + 1) * (n + 2)
If I wanted, I could generate a new function, by filling that first parameter, like so:
val timesTwo = multiply(1) _
But what is the syntax for replacing the second argument, instead of the first?
val timesThree = multiply _ (1) // Incorrect Syntax
More importantly, why is there not a direct parallel to multiply(1) _?
val timesThree = multiply(_: Int)(1)
or
val timesThree = (x: Int) => multiply(x)(1)
Being new to Scala (2.9.1), I have a List[Event] and would like to copy it into a Queue[Event], but the following Syntax yields a Queue[List[Event]] instead:
val eventQueue = Queue(events)
For some reason, the following works:
val eventQueue = Queue(events : _*)
But I would like to understand what it does, and why it works? I already looked at the signature of the Queue.apply function:
def apply[A](elems: A*)
And I understand why the first attempt doesn't work, but what's the meaning of the second one? What is :, and _* in this case, and why doesn't the apply function just take an Iterable[A] ?
a: A is type ascription; see What is the purpose of type ascriptions in Scala?
: _* is a special instance of type ascription which tells the compiler to treat a single argument of a sequence type as a variable argument sequence, i.e. varargs.
It is completely valid to create a Queue using Queue.apply that has a single element which is a sequence or iterable, so this is exactly what happens when you give a single Iterable[A].
This is a special notation that tells the compiler to pass each element as its own argument, rather than all of it as a single argument. See here.
It is a type annotation that indicates a sequence argument and is mentioned as an "exception" to the general rule in section 4.6.2 of the language spec, "Repeated Parameters".
It is useful when a function takes a variable number of arguments, e.g. a function such as def sum(args: Int*), which can be invoked as sum(1), sum(1,2) etc. If you have a list such as xs = List(1,2,3), you can't pass xs itself, because it is a List rather than an Int, but you can pass its elements using sum(xs: _*).
For Python folks:
Scala's _* operator is more or less the equivalent of Python's *-operator.
Example
Converting the scala example from the link provided by Luigi Plinge:
def echo(args: String*) =
for (arg <- args) println(arg)
val arr = Array("What's", "up", "doc?")
echo(arr: _*)
to Python would look like:
def echo(*args):
for arg in args:
print "%s" % arg
arr = ["What's", "up", "doc?"]
echo(*arr)
and both give the following output:
What's
up
doc?
The Difference: unpacking positional parameters
While Python's *-operator can also deal with unpacking of positional parameters/parameters for fixed-arity functions:
def multiply (x, y):
return x * y
operands = (2, 4)
multiply(*operands)
8
Doing the same with Scala:
def multiply(x:Int, y:Int) = {
x * y;
}
val operands = (2, 4)
multiply (operands : _*)
will fail:
not enough arguments for method multiply: (x: Int, y: Int)Int.
Unspecified value parameter y.
But it is possible to achieve the same with scala:
def multiply(x:Int, y:Int) = {
x*y;
}
val operands = (2, 4)
multiply _ tupled operands
According to Lorrin Nelson this is how it works:
The first part, f _, is the syntax for a partially applied function in which none of the arguments have been specified. This works as a mechanism to get a hold of the function object. tupled returns a new function which of arity-1 that takes a single arity-n tuple.
Futher reading:
stackoverflow.com - scala tuple unpacking