The official scalacheck documentation gives the following example:
property("stringLength") = Prop.forAll { s: String =>
val len = s.length
(s+s).length == len+len
}
I read that this can also be written as:
val stringLength = Prop.forAll { s: String =>
val len = s.length
(s+s).length == len+len
}
How can I run the second form of test code? When I execute sbt test, nothing happens with the second version.
The problem is that the second version is simply declaring a val that holds a reference to the property in question but that isn't enough to get scalacheck to evaluate it. This style of declaring a property is useful for example if you want to compose a new property out of other basic properties. You can check it directly or to assign it the special property setter in order to get it to be evaluated as part of the test run:
val stringLength = Prop.forAll { s: String =>
val len = s.length
(s+s).length == len+len
}
// invoke directly:
stringLength.check
// alternatively, just declare it the usual way
property("stringLength") = stringLength
This isn't very useful by itself, the way it is meant to be used is perhaps something like this:
property("composite") = Prop.all(stringLength, prop2, prop3, ...)
Related
I would like to passing a parameter via String and construct a Set of class objects, like this:
def getTypes(value: String) : Set[Class[Base]] = {
var set = Set[Class[Base]]()
var input = value.split(",")
if(input.contains("XXX"))
set ++ Class[xxx]
if(input.contains("YYY"))
set ++ Class[yyy]
if(input.contains("ZZZ"))
set ++ Class[zzz]
set
}
Then looping the set and use class.newInstance() to create the actual object to do something later. The able code can compile, but when it run, it complaint that
Error:(32, 16) object java.lang.Class is not a value
set ++ Class[xxx]
Any clue about about that?
There are two problems in your snippet. One, as aravindKrishna pointed, is you're trying to get Class literals improperly.
The other one is, you're treating your immutable Set like you would a mutable one. Remember you can't mutate the object itself - every operation returns a new one - so you should either reassign the variable every time (and using vars is discouraged for functional code), or use recursion, or construct the entire set in one go.
Here's an example of how to construct the set in one go:
def getTypes(value: String): Set[Class[_ <: Base]] = {
val mapping = Map(
"XXX", classOf[xxx],
"YYY", classOf[yyy],
"ZZZ", classOf[zzz])
val input = value.split(",").toSet
mapping.collect {
case (k, v) if input contains k => v
}.toSet
}
Or, translating your original code snippet more literally,
def getTypes(value: String): Set[Class[_ <: Base]] = {
val input = value.split(",").toSet
Set[Class[_ <: Base]]() ++
input.find("XXX" ==).map(_ => classOf[xxx]) ++
input.find("YYY" ==).map(_ => classOf[yyy]) ++
input.find("ZZZ" ==).map(_ => classOf[zzz])
}
Is there a way to get the Type of a field with scala reflection?
Let's see the standard reflection example:
scala> class C { val x = 2; var y = 3 }
defined class C
scala> val m = ru.runtimeMirror(getClass.getClassLoader)
m: scala.reflect.runtime.universe.Mirror = JavaMirror ...
scala> val im = m.reflect(new C)
im: scala.reflect.runtime.universe.InstanceMirror = instance mirror for C#5f0c8ac1
scala> val fieldX = ru.typeOf[C].declaration(ru.newTermName("x")).asTerm.accessed.asTerm
fieldX: scala.reflect.runtime.universe.TermSymbol = value x
scala> val fmX = im.reflectField(fieldX)
fmX: scala.reflect.runtime.universe.FieldMirror = field mirror for C.x (bound to C#5f0c8ac1)
scala> fmX.get
res0: Any = 2
Is there a way to do something like
val test: Int = fmX.get
That means can I "cast" the result of a reflection get to the actual type of the field? And otherwise: is it possible to do a reflection set from a string? In the example something like
fmx.set("10")
Thanks for hints!
Here's the deal... the type is not known at compile time, so, basically, you have to tell the compiler what the type it's supposed to be. You can do it safely or not, like this:
val test: Int = fmX.get.asInstanceOf[Int]
val test: Int = fmX.get match {
case n: Int => n
case _ => 0 // or however you want to handle the exception
}
Note that, since you declared test to be Int, you have to assign an Int to it. And even if you kept test as Any, at some point you have to pick a type for it, and it is always going to be something static -- as in, in the source code.
The second case just uses pattern matching to ensure you have the right type.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the second case.
I'm still learning Scala, but one thing I thought was interesting is that Scala blurs the line between methods and fields. For instance, I can build a class like this...
class MutableNumber(var value: Int)
The key here is that the var in the constructor-argument automatically allows me to use the 'value' field like a getter/setter in java.
// use number...
val num = new MutableNumber(5)
num.value = 6
println(num.value)
If I want to add constraints, I can do so by switching to using methods in place of the instance-fields:
// require all mutable numbers to be >= 0
class MutableNumber(private var _value: Int) {
require(_value >= 0)
def value: Int = _value
def value_=(other: Int) {
require(other >=0)
_value = other
}
}
The client side code doesn't break since the API doesn't change:
// use number...
val num = new MutableNumber(5)
num.value = 6
println(num.value)
My hang-up is with the named-parameter feature that was added to Scala-2.8. If I use named-parameters, my API does change and it does break the api.
val num = new MutableNumber(value=5) // old API
val num = new MutableNumber(_value=5) // new API
num.value = 6
println(num.value)
Is there any elegant solution to this? How should I design my MutableNumber class so that I can add constraints later on without breaking the API?
Thanks!
You can use the same trick that case classes do: use a companion object.
object Example {
class MutableNumber private (private var _value: Int) {
require (_value >= 0)
def value: Int = _value
def value_=(i: Int) { require (i>=0); _value = i }
override def toString = "mutable " + _value
}
object MutableNumber {
def apply(value: Int = 0) = new MutableNumber(value)
}
}
And here it is working (and demonstrating that, as constructed, you must use the object for creations, since the constructor is marked private):
scala> new Example.MutableNumber(5)
<console>:10: error: constructor MutableNumber cannot be accessed in object $iw
new Example.MutableNumber(5)
^
scala> Example.MutableNumber(value = 2)
res0: Example.MutableNumber = mutable 2
scala> Example.MutableNumber()
res1: Example.MutableNumber = mutable 0
Thanks for the answer! As an aside, I think the Scala-guys might be aware that there's an issue:
What's New in Scala 2.8: Named and Default Parameters
...
Until now, the names of arguments were a somewhat arbitrary choice for library developers, and weren't considered an important part of the API. This has suddenly changed, so that a method call to mkString(sep = " ") will fail to compile if the argument sep were renamed to separator in a later version.
Scala 2.9 implements a neat solution to this problem, but while we're waiting for that, be cautious about referring to arguments by name if their names may change in the future.
http://www.artima.com/scalazine/articles/named_and_default_parameters_in_scala.html
class MutableNumber {
private var _value = 0 //needs to be initialized
def value: Int = _value
def value_=(other: Int) {
require(other >=0) //this requirement was two times there
_value = other
}
}
you can modify all members of any class within curly braces
val n = new MutableNumber{value = 17}
Is there any reason for Scala not support the ++ operator to increment primitive types by default?
For example, you can not write:
var i=0
i++
Thanks
My guess is this was omitted because it would only work for mutable variables, and it would not make sense for immutable values. Perhaps it was decided that the ++ operator doesn't scream assignment, so including it may lead to mistakes with regard to whether or not you are mutating the variable.
I feel that something like this is safe to do (on one line):
i++
but this would be a bad practice (in any language):
var x = i++
You don't want to mix assignment statements and side effects/mutation.
I like Craig's answer, but I think the point has to be more strongly made.
There are no "primitives" -- if Int can do it, then so can a user-made Complex (for example).
Basic usage of ++ would be like this:
var x = 1 // or Complex(1, 0)
x++
How do you implement ++ in class Complex? Assuming that, like Int, the object is immutable, then the ++ method needs to return a new object, but that new object has to be assigned.
It would require a new language feature. For instance, let's say we create an assign keyword. The type signature would need to be changed as well, to indicate that ++ is not returning a Complex, but assigning it to whatever field is holding the present object. In Scala spirit of not intruding in the programmers namespace, let's say we do that by prefixing the type with #.
Then it could be like this:
case class Complex(real: Double = 0, imaginary: Double = 0) {
def ++: #Complex = {
assign copy(real = real + 1)
// instead of return copy(real = real + 1)
}
The next problem is that postfix operators suck with Scala rules. For instance:
def inc(x: Int) = {
x++
x
}
Because of Scala rules, that is the same thing as:
def inc(x: Int) = { x ++ x }
Which wasn't the intent. Now, Scala privileges a flowing style: obj method param method param method param .... That mixes well C++/Java traditional syntax of object method parameter with functional programming concept of pipelining an input through multiple functions to get the end result. This style has been recently called "fluent interfaces" as well.
The problem is that, by privileging that style, it cripples postfix operators (and prefix ones, but Scala barely has them anyway). So, in the end, Scala would have to make big changes, and it would be able to measure up to the elegance of C/Java's increment and decrement operators anyway -- unless it really departed from the kind of thing it does support.
In Scala, ++ is a valid method, and no method implies assignment. Only = can do that.
A longer answer is that languages like C++ and Java treat ++ specially, and Scala treats = specially, and in an inconsistent way.
In Scala when you write i += 1 the compiler first looks for a method called += on the Int. It's not there so next it does it's magic on = and tries to compile the line as if it read i = i + 1. If you write i++ then Scala will call the method ++ on i and assign the result to... nothing. Because only = means assignment. You could write i ++= 1 but that kind of defeats the purpose.
The fact that Scala supports method names like += is already controversial and some people think it's operator overloading. They could have added special behavior for ++ but then it would no longer be a valid method name (like =) and it would be one more thing to remember.
I think the reasoning in part is that +=1 is only one more character, and ++ is used pretty heavily in the collections code for concatenation. So it keeps the code cleaner.
Also, Scala encourages immutable variables, and ++ is intrinsically a mutating operation. If you require +=, at least you can force all your mutations to go through a common assignment procedure (e.g. def a_=).
The primary reason is that there is not the need in Scala, as in C. In C you are constantly:
for(i = 0, i < 10; i++)
{
//Do stuff
}
C++ has added higher level methods for avoiding for explicit loops, but Scala has much gone further providing foreach, map, flatMap foldLeft etc. Even if you actually want to operate on a sequence of Integers rather than just cycling though a collection of non integer objects, you can use Scala range.
(1 to 5) map (_ * 3) //Vector(3, 6, 9, 12, 15)
(1 to 10 by 3) map (_ + 5)//Vector(6, 9, 12, 15)
Because the ++ operator is used by the collection library, I feel its better to avoid its use in non collection classes. I used to use ++ as a value returning method in my Util package package object as so:
implicit class RichInt2(n: Int)
{
def isOdd: Boolean = if (n % 2 == 1) true else false
def isEven: Boolean = if (n % 2 == 0) true else false
def ++ : Int = n + 1
def -- : Int = n - 1
}
But I removed it. Most of the times when I have used ++ or + 1 on an integer, I have later found a better way, which doesn't require it.
It is possible if you define you own class which can simulate the desired output however it may be a pain if you want to use normal "Int" methods as well since you would have to always use *()
import scala.language.postfixOps //otherwise it will throw warning when trying to do num++
/*
* my custom int class which can do ++ and --
*/
class int(value: Int) {
var mValue = value
//Post-increment
def ++(): int = {
val toReturn = new int(mValue)
mValue += 1
return toReturn
}
//Post-decrement
def --(): int = {
val toReturn = new int(mValue)
mValue -= 1
return toReturn
}
//a readable toString
override def toString(): String = {
return mValue.toString
}
}
//Pre-increment
def ++(n: int): int = {
n.mValue += 1
return n;
}
//Pre-decrement
def --(n: int): int = {
n.mValue -= 1
return n;
}
//Something to get normal Int
def *(n: int): Int = {
return n.mValue
}
Some possible test cases
scala>var num = new int(4)
num: int = 4
scala>num++
res0: int = 4
scala>num
res1: int = 5 // it works although scala always makes new resources
scala>++(num) //parentheses are required
res2: int = 6
scala>num
res3: int = 6
scala>++(num)++ //complex function
res4: int = 7
scala>num
res5: int = 8
scala>*(num) + *(num) //testing operator_*
res6: Int = 16
Of course you can have that in Scala, if you really want:
import scalaz._
import Scalaz._
case class IncLens[S,N](lens: Lens[S,N], num : Numeric[N]) {
def ++ = lens.mods(num.plus(_, num.one))
}
implicit def incLens[S,N:Numeric](lens: Lens[S,N]) =
IncLens[S,N](lens, implicitly[Numeric[N]])
val i = Lens[Int,Int](identity, (x, y) => y)
val imperativeProgram = for {
_ <- i := 0;
_ <- i++;
_ <- i++;
x <- i++
} yield x
def runProgram = imperativeProgram ! 0
And here you go:
scala> runProgram
runProgram: Int = 3
It isn't included because Scala developers thought it make the specification more complex while achieving only negligible benefits and because Scala doesn't have operators at all.
You could write your own one like this:
class PlusPlusInt(i: Int){
def ++ = i+1
}
implicit def int2PlusPlusInt(i: Int) = new PlusPlusInt(i)
val a = 5++
// a is 6
But I'm sure you will get into some trouble with precedence not working as you expect. Additionally if i++ would be added, people would ask for ++i too, which doesn't really fit into Scala's syntax.
Lets define a var:
var i = 0
++i is already short enough:
{i+=1;i}
Now i++ can look like this:
i(i+=1)
To use above syntax, define somewhere inside a package object, and then import:
class IntPostOp(val i: Int) { def apply(op: Unit) = { op; i } }
implicit def int2IntPostOp(i: Int): IntPostOp = new IntPostOp(i)
Operators chaining is also possible:
i(i+=1)(i%=array.size)(i&=3)
The above example is similar to this Java (C++?) code:
i=(i=i++ %array.length)&3;
The style could depend, of course.
I want to create a class that takes string array as a constructor argument and has command line option values as members vals. Something like below, but I don't understand how the Bistate works.
import scalax.data._
import scalax.io.CommandLineParser
class TestCLI(arguments: Array[String]) extends CommandLineParser {
private val opt1Option = new Flag("p", "print") with AllowAll
private val opt2Option = new Flag("o", "out") with AllowAll
private val strOption = new StringOption("v", "value") with AllowAll
private val result = parse(arguments)
// true or false
val opt1 = result(opt1Option)
val opt2 = result(opt2Option)
val str = result(strOption)
}
Here are shorter alternatives to that pattern matching to get a boolean:
val opt1 = result(opt1Option).isInstanceOf[Positive[_]]
val opt2 = result(opt2Option).posValue.isDefined
The second one is probably better. The field posValue is an Option (there's negValue as well). The method isDefined from Option tells you whether it is a Some(x) or None.
I'm not personally familiar with Scalax or Bistate in particular, but just looking at the scaladocs, it looks like a left-right disjunction. Scala's main library has a monad very much like this (Either), so I'm surprised that they didn't just use the standard one.
In essence, Bistate and Either are a bit like Option, except their "None-equivalent" can contain a value. For example, if I were writing code using Either, I might do something like this:
def div(a: Int, b: Int) = if (b != 0) Left(a / b) else Right("Divide by zero")
div(4, 2) match {
case Left(x) => println("Result: " + x)
case Right(e) => Println("Error: " + e)
}
This would print "Result: 2". In this case, we're using Either to simulate an exception. We return an instance of Left which contains the value we want, unless that value cannot be computed for some reason, in which case we return an error message wrapped up inside an instance of Right.
So if I want to assign to variable boolean value of whether flag is found I have to do like below?
val opt1 = result(opt1Option) match {
case Positive(_) => true
case Negative(_) => false
}
Isn't there a way to write this common case with less code than that?