I have the following two methods in Scala:
def myFunc: Int => String = { age =>
"Here " + age
}
def myFunc2 (age: Int) : String = {
"Here" + age
}
Is there any difference in these two methods? (other than the names of course). The syntax looks quite different to me. Is it just a matter of style? Is one prefered over the other?
Yes, there is a difference. The former is a method which takes no arguments and returns a function of type Function1[Int, String]. The latter is a method taking a String and returning an Int.
In Scala, methods with arity-0 can be declared and invoked without parenthesis, so invoking myFunction(1) and myFunction2(1) looks the same.
If we'd convert both methods to functions, you'd see the difference in the fact that the former would take the shape of Function0[Function1[Int, String]], while the latter would be Function1[Int, String]:
myFunc: Int => String
myFunc2: (age: Int)String
scala> myFunc _
res6: () => Int => String = <function0>
scala> myFunc2 _
res7: Int => String = <function1>
Related
I am trying to understand Partially applied function in scala
scala> val a=sum _
a: (Int, Int, Int) => Int = <function3>
scala> a(1,2,3)
res7: Int = 6
I am just giving this val a=sum _
I want to understand how scala interprets it will take 3 arguments
a: (Int, Int, Int) => Int = <function3>
You've just experienced the eta-expansion that is converting a method into a function.
Your method is sum which you are not demonstrating but based on the function version must be:
def sum(a:Int,b:Int,c:Int):Int = a + b + c
The underscore you are adding at the end is converting your method into a function as the descriptive type signature of the result shows: (Int, Int, Int) => Int
This way you are converting your method into a function value that can be assigned to a variable and passed around in your application logic conveying a behavioural change to your data (addition in your instance).
If I define a simple stringToInt function and store it as a val, everything works as expected, e.g.
scala> def stringToInt1: (String => Int) = _.toInt
stringToInt1: String => Int
scala> stringToInt1("1")
res0: Int = 1
However, if I then make that implicit, it causes a stack overflow:
scala> implicit def stringToInt2: (String => Int) = _.toInt
stringToInt2: String => Int
scala> stringToInt2("1")
java.lang.StackOverflowError
at .stringToInt2(<console>:7)
at $anonfun$stringToInt2$1.apply(<console>:7)
at $anonfun$stringToInt2$1.apply(<console>:7)
...
At first I suspected that this was because the underscore wasn't resolving to what I expected, but that's not the case, as this style of implicit val works fine for the following simple function:
scala> implicit def plusTwo: (Int => Int) = _ + 2
plusTwo: Int => Int
scala> plusTwo(2)
res2: Int = 4
If I define the parameter explicitly, no stack overflow:
scala> implicit def stringToInt3(s: String) = s.toInt
stringToInt3: (s: String)Int
scala> stringToInt3("1")
res3: Int = 1
(If trying this yourself and this last case stack overflows, restart the scala console and redo this last step)
So my question is, why is the original implicit not correctly resolving?
Edit
Ok digging a little deeper here, it seems that the problem is with the implicit conversion from String to StringOps. If we cut that out, it works fine:
scala> import scala.collection.immutable.StringOps
import scala.collection.immutable.StringOps
scala> implicit def stringToInt4: (String => Int) = new StringOps(_).toInt
stringToInt4: String => Int
scala> stringToInt4("1")
res4: Int = 1
But why would that implicit conversion be causing the issue?
Adding to the other replies.
There is no toInt method on String. Scala has to find an implicit conversion that will yield a type that has a toInt method.
Usually the StringOps conversion provides this toInt.
However Int has a toInt too, so scala finds your conversion from String => Int and decides that it has precedence over the StringOps conversion, thus applying it recursively.
This is why StringToInt4 works, as you explicitly tell the compiler what conversion you want. Maybe you could write it as: implicit def stringToInt5: (StringOps => Int) = _.toInt or check how implicits are resolved and how one takes precedence over the other.
Note what you are doing here:
scala> def stringToInt1: (String => Int) = _.toInt
stringToInt1: String => Int
You are defining a method (using def) that takes no parameters and returns a function from String to Int. Are you doing it this way on purpose, or is it just because you don't exactly understand the syntax?
You could have created a val instead:
val stringToInt1: (String => Int) = _.toInt
Now, stringToInt1 is a val that contains a function to convert String to Int.
With your stringToInt2, Scala is recursively applying the method. I don't know why it does that in the case of stringToInt2 but not with plusTwo.
Note that stringToInt3 is not the same thing as stringToInt1 and stringToInt2. It's a method that takes a String and returns an Int, not a method that takes no parameters and returns a function from String to Int.
Being relatively new at Scala, I was playing around with partially-applied function syntax on sbt console. I ran into a very weird issue in which I do not understand Scala's behavior.
The example is contrived and would unlikely be encountered in reality. That said, here it is. Suppose I define the following function:
scala> def f(x: Int, y: Int) = "%d %d".format(x, y)
Now if I type in
scala> f(1, _:Int)(2)
res: Int => Char = <function1>
The result is a Int => Char function, which is very unusual. In other words, Scala is (temporarily) treating f(1, _:Int) as a String (vs. its actual type: Int => String) when applying the parameter (i.e., 2).
If, instead, parentheses are used, what I expect to happen occurs:
scala> (f(1, _:Int))(2)
res: String = 1 2
However, this does not appear to be an order-of-operations issue, as I cannot find a way to add parentheses to achieve the unexpected behavior (i.e., having the result be of type Int => Char).
Any ideas?
At first about the result type of:
scala> f(1, _:Int)(2)
res: Int => Char = <function1>
Check this out:
scala> val str = "hello"
str: String = hello
scala> str(2)
res12: Char = l
I think this is clear.
No to the function itself, as it also easy. When you are lifting it to a function with an underscore you are lifting not only f, but also with a call (2) on a string (first result), which is why you get:
res: Int => Char = <function1>
Added
More explicit version. You function f is of type (Int, Int) => String, when you write f(1, _: Int), you are partially applying it to the argument one and returning a function of type Int => String, where Int is the second argument. Then your argument (2) call apply method on the result string from the function Int => String which returns you a Char, from here you get function of type Int => Char, where Int is a second argument to your f function and Char is a char from the resulting string
In the second case, where you have:
scala> (f(1, _:Int))(2)
res: String = 1 2
by parenthesis you are spliting this into to things, the first one is a function Int => String and (2) calls this function, you are passing an argument 2 into this function Int => String:
val ff = f(1, _: Int)
val res = ff(2)
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/
I am new to Scala, and trying to understand the following codes (derived from an example in the Beginning Scala book)
scala> def w42(f: Int => Int) = f(42) //(A)
w42: (f: Int => Int)Int
scala> w42 (1 +) //(B)
res120: Int = 43
I do not understand how "1 +" at point (B) is consider as a function (take 1 Int parameter, and return an Int) that satisfies the w42 definition at point (A)?
Would you mind please explain or point me to some documents that have the answer?
Simple. In Scala 1 + 2 is just a syntax sugar over 1.+(2). This means Int has a method named + that accepts Int:
final class Int extends AnyVal {
def +(x: Int): Int = //...
//...
}
This is why you can use 1 + as if it was a function. Example with less unexpected method naming:
scala> def s42(f: String => String) = f("42")
s42: (f: String => String)String
scala> s42("abc".concat)
res0: String = abc42
BTW Technically speaking, eta-expansion is also involved to convert method to a function.