scalaz - function composition - WriterT - scala

Let's define a Kleisli on \/:
abstract class MyError
case class NumericalError(msg: String) extends MyError
// Either is a Monad with two type parameters: M[A,B] which represent left and right respectively
// Let's create an ad-hoc type
type EEither[+T] = \/[MyError, T]
and one ad-hoc function for testing purposes:
def safeSqrtEither(t: Double): EEither[Double] =
safeSqrtOpt(t) match {
case Some(r) => r.right
case None => NumericalError("Sqrt on double is not define if _ < 0").left
}
val kSafeSqrtEither = Kleisli.kleisli( (x: Double) => safeSqrtEither(x) )
Function composition works smoothly:
val pipeEither = kSafeSqrtEither >>> kSafeSqrtEither
val r5b = pipeEither2 run 16.0
//which gives r5b: EEither[Double] = \/-(2.0)
I'd like to add logging:
type LoggedROCFun[I,O] = I => WriterT[EEither,scalaz.NonEmptyList[String],O]
val sqrtWithLog: LoggedROCFun[Double, Double] =
(t: Double) =>
WriterT.put(kSafeSqrtEither(t))(s"squared $t".wrapNel)
which seems having the desired behaviour:
val resA = sqrtWithLog(16.0)
// resA: scalaz.WriterT[EEither,scalaz.NonEmptyList[String],Double] = WriterT(\/-((NonEmpty[squared 16.0],4.0)))
Sleek. However, I am struggling to put together an operator which:
combines the values in the WriterT applying >>>
chains (appends) each log, keeping track of each step made
Desired output:
val combinedFunction = sqrtWithLog >>> sqrtWithLog
val r = combinedFunction run 16.0
// r: WriterT(\/-((NonEmpty[squared 16.0, squared 4.0],2.0)))
My best shot:
def myCompositionOp[I,A,B](f1: LoggedROCFun[I,A])(f2: LoggedROCFun[A,B]): LoggedROCFun[I,B] =
(x: I) => {
val e = f1.apply(x)
val v1: EEither[A] = e.value
v1 match {
case Right(v) => f2(v)
case Left(err) =>
val lastLog = e.written
val v2 = err.left[B]
WriterT.put(v2)(lastLog)
}
}
In the above I first apply f1 to x, and then I pass along the result to f2. Otherwise, I short-circuit to Left.
This is wrong, because in the case Right I am dropping the previous logging history.
One last Q
val safeDivWithLog: Kleisli[W, (Double,Double), Double] =
Kleisli.kleisli[W, (Double, Double), Double]( (t: (Double, Double)) => {
val (n,d) = t
WriterT.put(safeDivEither(t))(s"divided $n by $d".wrapNel)
}
)
val combinedFunction2 = safeDivWithLog >>> sqrtWithLog
val rAgain = combinedFunction2 run (-10.0,2.0)
// rAgain: W[Double] = WriterT(-\/(NumericalError(Sqrt on double is not define if _ < 0)))
Not sure why the logs are not carried through after a pipeline switches to Left. Is it because:
type MyMonad e w a = ErrorT e (Writer w) a is isomorphic to (Either e a, w)
type MyMonad e w a = WriterT w (Either e) a is isomorphic to Either r (a, w)
therefore I have flipped the order?
Sources: here, scalaz, here, and real world haskell on transformers

You're very close—the issue is just that you've buried your Kleisli, while you want it on the outside. Your LoggedROCFun is just an ordinary function, and the Compose instance for ordinary functions demands that the output of the first function match the type of the input of the second. If you make sqrtWithLog a kleisli arrow it'll work just fine:
import scalaz._, Scalaz._
abstract class MyError
case class NumericalError(msg: String) extends MyError
type EEither[T] = \/[MyError, T]
def safeSqrtEither(t: Double): EEither[Double] =
if (t >= 0) math.sqrt(t).right else NumericalError(
"Sqrt on double is not define if _ < 0"
).left
type W[A] = WriterT[EEither, NonEmptyList[String], A]
val sqrtWithLog: Kleisli[W, Double, Double] =
Kleisli.kleisli[W, Double, Double](t =>
WriterT.put(safeSqrtEither(t))(s"squared $t".wrapNel)
)
val combinedFunction = sqrtWithLog >>> sqrtWithLog
val r = combinedFunction run 16.0
Note that I've modified your code slightly for the sake of making it a complete working example.
In response to your comment: if you want the writer to accumulate across failures, you'll need to flip the order of Either and Writer in the transformer:
import scalaz._, Scalaz._
abstract class MyError
case class NumericalError(msg: String) extends MyError
type EEither[T] = \/[MyError, T]
def safeSqrtEither(t: Double): EEither[Double] =
if (t >= 0) math.sqrt(t).right else NumericalError(
"Sqrt on double is not define if _ < 0"
).left
type W[A] = Writer[List[String], A]
type E[A] = EitherT[W, MyError, A]
val sqrtWithLog: Kleisli[E, Double, Double] =
Kleisli.kleisli[E, Double, Double](t =>
EitherT[W, MyError, Double](safeSqrtEither(t).set(List(s"squared $t")))
)
val constNegative1: Kleisli[E, Double, Double] =
Kleisli.kleisli[E, Double, Double](_ => -1.0.point[E])
val combinedFunction = sqrtWithLog >>> constNegative1 >>> sqrtWithLog
And then:
scala> combinedFunction.run(16.0).run.written
res9: scalaz.Id.Id[List[String]] = List(squared 16.0, squared -1.0)
Note that this won't work with NonEmptyList in the writer, since you need to be able to return an empty log in the case of e.g. constNegative1.run(0.0).run.written. I've used a List, but in real code you'd want a type with less expensive appends.

Related

Extract Value from nested options

What is the most concise way to get 10 out of Some(Some(Some(Some(10))))?
without resorting to some external library like Scalaz.
import scala.language.higherKinds
case class Flattener[W[_], WW, T](fn : WW => W[T])
implicit def optionRecFlattenFn[WW, T](
implicit f : Flattener[Option, WW, T] = Flattener((ww: WW) => Option(ww))
) = Flattener((ww : Option[WW]) => ww.flatMap(f.fn))
def optionRecursiveFlatten[WW, T](www : Option[WW])(
implicit f : Flattener[Option, Option[WW], T]
) = f.fn(www)
val nestedOption = Option(Option(Option(Option(10))))
// Some(Some(Some(Some(10))))
val flatOption = optionRecursiveFlatten(nestedOption)
// Some(10)
val evenMoreNestedOption = Option(Option(Option(Option(Option(Option(10))))))
// Some(Some(Some(Some(Some(Some(10))))))
val flatOption2 = optionRecursiveFlatten(evenMoreNestedOption)
// Some(10)
In case you don't know the nesting level in advance, this will work for any level:
def unwrapRec(o: Option[Any]) : Any = o match {
case Some(inner # Some(_)) => unwrapRec(inner)
case Some(x) => x
case _ => ???
}
However, please note that an Any is returned. You can change it to whatever type you like and adapt the pattern match accordingly but I think you will have to pass in an Option[Any]. So it's not typesafe at this point.
You can use flatten on nested Option[Option[A]] repeatedly:
scala> val a = Some(Some(Some(Some(10))))
a: Some[Some[Some[Some[Int]]]] = Some(Some(Some(Some(10))))
scala> a.flatten.flatten.flatten.get
res0: Int = 10
I do not think there is any generic and type-safe way to extract A from T[A] := Option[T[A]] | A.
Edit: This method can dynamically get the contents, returns either the innermost value, or None:
def unwrap(x: Any): Any = x match {
case Some(v) => unwrap(v)
case v => v
}
scala> unwrap(Some(Some(Some(Some(10)))))
res1: Any = 10
scala> unwrap(Some(None))
res2: Any = None
It has unfortunately too broad type: Any => Any.

Apply several transformation functions to string

Suppose I have 2 methods:
def a(s: String) = s + "..."
def b(s: String) = s + ",,,"
And I want to create 3rd method which will call both methods:
def c (s: String) = a(b(s))
How I can do it in idiomatic Scala way?
I think it's better to aggregate this functions into some List and then sequentially apply them:
List(a_, b_)
I think it's better to aggregate this functions into some List and
then sequentially apply them.
You get some help by specifying an expected type:
scala> val fs: List[String => String] = List(a,b)
fs: List[String => String] = List(<function1>, <function1>)
scala> fs.foldLeft("something")((s,f) => f(s))
res0: String = something...,,,
Here is how you can combine a set of functions into one:
// a() and b() are as defined in the question
// the following is equivalent to newfunc(x) = b(a(x))
val newFunc: String => String = List( a _, b _).reduce( _ andThen _ )
You can even create a generic function to combine them:
def functionChaining[A]( functions: A => A *): A => A = functions.reduce( _ andThen _ )
or using foldLeft:
def functionChaining[A]( functions: A => A *): A => A = functions.foldLeft( (x:A) => x )( _ andThen _ )
Here is an example of how to use this on the REPL:
scala> val newFunc: String => String = functionChaining( (x:String) => x + "---", (x:String) => x * 4)
scala> newFunc("|")
res12: String = |---|---|---|---
Many answers use andThen, but that will be give you
b(a(s))
Given that you want
a(b(s))
compose is the way to go (well, that or reversing the list, but what's the point?)
def c(s: String) = List[String => String](a, b).reduce(_ compose _)(s)
// or alternatively
def c(s: String) = List(a _, b _).reduce(_ compose _)(s)
As a result
c("foo") // foo,,,...
Now, speaking of what's idiomatic, I believe that
a(b(s))
is more idiomatic and readable than
List(a _, b _).reduce(_ compose _)(s)
This clearly depends on the number of functions you're composing. If you were to have
a(b(c(d(e(f(g(h(s))))))))
then
List[String => String](a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h).reduce(_ compose _)(s)
is probably neater and more idiomatic as well.
If you really think you need to do this:
val c = a _ andThen b
// (The signature is:)
val c:(String)=>String = a _ andThen b
or, more obviously:
def d(s:String) = a _ andThen b
If chained application is preferred then the below works. Caveats - Implicit syntax is a bit ugly; This being a structural type uses reflection.
object string {
implicit def aPimp(s: String) = new {
def a = "(a- " + s + " -a)"
}
implicit def bPimp(s: String) = new {
def b = "(b- " + s + " -b)"
}
}
scala> import string._
scala> "xyz".a.b
res0: String = (b- (a- xyz -a) -b)
scala> "xyz".b.a
res1: String = (a- (b- xyz -b) -a)
In my opinion, if not for the ugly syntax, this would be idiomatic scala.

Convert Any to Double using asInstanceOf?

Is there a supported way to achieve a conversion of any numeric type to a double. E.g.
val i = 12345
val f = 1234.5F
val d = 1234.5D
val arr = Array[Any](i,f,d)
val anotherD = arr(0).asInstanceOf[Numeric].toDouble
Naturally the above code is not correct as given - since Numeric requires Type arguments.
scala> val i = 12345
i: Int = 12345
scala> val f = 1234.5F
f: Float = 1234.5
scala> val d = 1234.5D
d: Double = 1234.5
scala> val arr = Array[Any](i,f,d)
arr: Array[Any] = Array(12345, 1234.5, 1234.5)
scala> val anotherD = arr(0).asInstanceOf[Numeric].toDouble
<console>:11: error: type Numeric takes type parameters
val anotherD = arr(0).asInstanceOf[Numeric].toDouble
Now I realize the above may be achieved via match/case , along the following lines:
(a, e) match {
case (a : Double, e : Double) =>
Math.abs(a - e) <= CompareTol
case (a : Float, e : Float) =>
Math.abs(a - e) <= CompareTol
.. etc
But I was wondering if there were a means to more compactly express the operation. This code is within TEST classes and efficiency is not an important criterion. Specifically: reflection calls are OK. Thanks.
I assume you are on the JVM. The Number class does like what you want to achieve with the doubleValue method:
val arr = Array[Number](i,f,d)
val ds = arr.map(_.doubleValue())
This is horrible, and probably not efficient, but it works (on your example) :p
scala> import scala.language.reflectiveCalls
import scala.language.reflectiveCalls
scala> arr.map(_.asInstanceOf[{ def toDouble: Double }].toDouble)
res2: Array[Double] = Array(12345.0, 1234.5, 1234.5)

Automatic case class mapping

I'm building a web-application using Play and Slick, and find myself in a situation where the user-facing forms are similar, but not exactly the same as the database model.
Hence I have two very similar case classes, and need to map from one to another (e.g. while filling the form for rendering an "update" view).
In the case I'm interested in, the database model case class is a super-set of the form case-class, i.e. the only difference between both is that the database model has two more fields (two identifiers, basically).
What I'm now wondering about is whether there'd be a way to build a small library (e.g. macro-driven) to automatically populate the form case class from the database case class based on the member names. I've seen that it may be possible to access this kind of information via reflection using Paranamer, but I'd rather not venture into this.
Here is a solution using Dynamic because I wanted to try it out. A macro would decide statically whether to emit an apply of a source value method, the default value method, or just to supply a literal. The syntax could look something like newFrom[C](k). (Update: see below for the macro.)
import scala.language.dynamics
trait Invocable extends Dynamic {
import scala.reflect.runtime.currentMirror
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
def applyDynamic(method: String)(source: Any) = {
require(method endsWith "From")
def caseMethod(s: Symbol) = s.asTerm.isCaseAccessor && s.asTerm.isMethod
val sm = currentMirror reflect source
val ms = sm.symbol.asClass.typeSignature.members filter caseMethod map (_.asMethod)
val values = ms map (m => (m.name, (sm reflectMethod m)()))
val im = currentMirror reflect this
invokeWith(im, method dropRight 4, values.toMap)
}
def invokeWith(im: InstanceMirror, name: String, values: Map[Name, Any]): Any = {
val at = TermName(name)
val ts = im.symbol.typeSignature
val method = (ts member at).asMethod
// supplied value or defarg or default val for type of p
def valueFor(p: Symbol, i: Int): Any = {
if (values contains p.name) values(p.name)
else ts member TermName(s"$name$$default$$${i+1}") match {
case NoSymbol =>
if (p.typeSignature.typeSymbol.asClass.isPrimitive) {
if (p.typeSignature <:< typeOf[Int]) 0
else if (p.typeSignature <:< typeOf[Double]) 0.0
else ???
} else null
case defarg => (im reflectMethod defarg.asMethod)()
}
}
val args = (for (ps <- method.paramss; p <- ps) yield p).zipWithIndex map (p => valueFor(p._1,p._2))
(im reflectMethod method)(args: _*)
}
}
case class C(a: String, b: Int, c: Double = 2.0, d: Double)
case class K(b: Int, e: String, a: String)
object C extends Invocable
object Test extends App {
val res = C applyFrom K(8, "oh", "kay")
Console println res // C(kay,8,2.0,0.0)
}
Update: Here is the macro version, more for fun than for profit:
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros._
import scala.collection.mutable.ListBuffer
def newFrom[A, B](source: A): B = macro newFrom_[A, B]
def newFrom_[A: c.WeakTypeTag, B: c.WeakTypeTag](c: Context)(source: c.Expr[A]): c.Expr[B] = {
import c.{ literal, literalNull }
import c.universe._
import treeBuild._
import nme.{ CONSTRUCTOR => Ctor }
def caseMethod(s: Symbol) = s.asTerm.isCaseAccessor && s.asTerm.isMethod
def defaulter(name: Name, i: Int): String = s"${name.encoded}$$default$$${i+1}"
val noargs = List[c.Tree]()
// side effects: first evaluate the arg
val side = ListBuffer[c.Tree]()
val src = TermName(c freshName "src$")
side += ValDef(Modifiers(), src, TypeTree(source.tree.tpe), source.tree)
// take the arg as instance of a case class and use the case members
val a = implicitly[c.WeakTypeTag[A]].tpe
val srcs = (a.members filter caseMethod map (m => (m.name, m.asMethod))).toMap
// construct the target, using src fields, defaults (from the companion), or zero
val b = implicitly[c.WeakTypeTag[B]].tpe
val bm = b.typeSymbol.asClass.companionSymbol.asModule
val bc = bm.moduleClass.asClass.typeSignature
val ps = (b declaration Ctor).asMethod.paramss.flatten.zipWithIndex
val args: List[c.Tree] = ps map { case (p, i) =>
if (srcs contains p.name)
Select(Ident(src), p.name)
else bc member TermName(defaulter(Ctor, i)) match {
case NoSymbol =>
if (p.typeSignature.typeSymbol.asClass.isPrimitive) {
if (p.typeSignature <:< typeOf[Int]) literal(0).tree
else if (p.typeSignature <:< typeOf[Double]) literal(0.0).tree
else ???
} else literalNull.tree
case defarg => Select(mkAttributedRef(bm), defarg.name)
}
}
c.Expr(Block(side.toList, Apply(Select(New(mkAttributedIdent(b.typeSymbol)), Ctor), args)))
}
With usage:
case class C(a: String, b: Int, c: Double = 2.0, d: Double)
case class K(b: Int, e: String, a: String) { def i() = b }
val res = newFrom[K, C](K(8, "oh", "kay"))

abstracting over a collection

Recently, I wrote an iterator for a cartesian product of Anys, and started with a List of List, but recognized, that I can easily switch to the more abstract trait Seq.
I know, you like to see the code. :)
class Cartesian (val ll: Seq[Seq[_]]) extends Iterator [Seq[_]] {
def combicount: Int = (1 /: ll) (_ * _.length)
val last = combicount
var iter = 0
override def hasNext (): Boolean = iter < last
override def next (): Seq[_] = {
val res = combination (ll, iter)
iter += 1
res
}
def combination (xx: Seq [Seq[_]], i: Int): List[_] = xx match {
case Nil => Nil
case x :: xs => x (i % x.length) :: combination (xs, i / x.length)
}
}
And a client of that class:
object Main extends Application {
val illi = new Cartesian (List ("abc".toList, "xy".toList, "AB".toList))
// val ivvi = new Cartesian (Vector (Vector (1, 2, 3), Vector (10, 20)))
val issi = new Cartesian (Seq (Seq (1, 2, 3), Seq (10, 20)))
// val iaai = new Cartesian (Array (Array (1, 2, 3), Array (10, 20)))
(0 to 5).foreach (dummy => println (illi.next ()))
// (0 to 5).foreach (dummy => println (issi.next ()))
}
/*
List(a, x, A)
List(b, x, A)
List(c, x, A)
List(a, y, A)
List(b, y, A)
List(c, y, A)
*/
The code works well for Seq and Lists (which are Seqs), but of course not for Arrays or Vector, which aren't of type Seq, and don't have a cons-method '::'.
But the logic could be used for such collections too.
I could try to write an implicit conversion to and from Seq for Vector, Array, and such, or try to write an own, similar implementation, or write an Wrapper, which transforms the collection to a Seq of Seq, and calls 'hasNext' and 'next' for the inner collection, and converts the result to an Array, Vector or whatever. (I tried to implement such workarounds, but I have to recognize: it's not that easy. For a real world problem I would probably rewrite the Iterator independently.)
However, the whole thing get's a bit out of control if I have to deal with Arrays of Lists or Lists of Arrays and other mixed cases.
What would be the most elegant way to write the algorithm in the broadest, possible way?
There are two solutions. The first is to not require the containers to be a subclass of some generic super class, but to be convertible to one (by using implicit function arguments). If the container is already a subclass of the required type, there's a predefined identity conversion which only returns it.
import collection.mutable.Builder
import collection.TraversableLike
import collection.generic.CanBuildFrom
import collection.mutable.SeqLike
class Cartesian[T, ST[T], TT[S]](val ll: TT[ST[T]])(implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, T, ST[T]], seqLike: ST[T] => SeqLike[T, ST[T]], traversableLike: TT[ST[T]] => TraversableLike[ST[T], TT[ST[T]]] ) extends Iterator[ST[T]] {
def combicount (): Int = (1 /: ll) (_ * _.length)
val last = combicount - 1
var iter = 0
override def hasNext (): Boolean = iter < last
override def next (): ST[T] = {
val res = combination (ll, iter, cbf())
iter += 1
res
}
def combination (xx: TT[ST[T]], i: Int, builder: Builder[T, ST[T]]): ST[T] =
if (xx.isEmpty) builder.result
else combination (xx.tail, i / xx.head.length, builder += xx.head (i % xx.head.length) )
}
This sort of works:
scala> new Cartesian[String, Vector, Vector](Vector(Vector("a"), Vector("xy"), Vector("AB")))
res0: Cartesian[String,Vector,Vector] = empty iterator
scala> new Cartesian[String, Array, Array](Array(Array("a"), Array("xy"), Array("AB")))
res1: Cartesian[String,Array,Array] = empty iterator
I needed to explicitly pass the types because of bug https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-3343
One thing to note is that this is better than using existential types, because calling next on the iterator returns the right type, and not Seq[Any].
There are several drawbacks here:
If the container is not a subclass of the required type, it is converted to one, which costs in performance
The algorithm is not completely generic. We need types to be converted to SeqLike or TraversableLike only to use a subset of functionality these types offer. So making a conversion function can be tricky.
What if some capabilities can be interpreted differently in different contexts? For example, a rectangle has two 'length' properties (width and height)
Now for the alternative solution. We note that we don't actually care about the types of collections, just their capabilities:
TT should have foldLeft, get(i: Int) (to get head/tail)
ST should have length, get(i: Int) and a Builder
So we can encode these:
trait HasGet[T, CC[_]] {
def get(cc: CC[T], i: Int): T
}
object HasGet {
implicit def seqLikeHasGet[T, CC[X] <: SeqLike[X, _]] = new HasGet[T, CC] {
def get(cc: CC[T], i: Int): T = cc(i)
}
implicit def arrayHasGet[T] = new HasGet[T, Array] {
def get(cc: Array[T], i: Int): T = cc(i)
}
}
trait HasLength[CC] {
def length(cc: CC): Int
}
object HasLength {
implicit def seqLikeHasLength[CC <: SeqLike[_, _]] = new HasLength[CC] {
def length(cc: CC) = cc.length
}
implicit def arrayHasLength[T] = new HasLength[Array[T]] {
def length(cc: Array[T]) = cc.length
}
}
trait HasFold[T, CC[_]] {
def foldLeft[A](cc: CC[T], zero: A)(op: (A, T) => A): A
}
object HasFold {
implicit def seqLikeHasFold[T, CC[X] <: SeqLike[X, _]] = new HasFold[T, CC] {
def foldLeft[A](cc: CC[T], zero: A)(op: (A, T) => A): A = cc.foldLeft(zero)(op)
}
implicit def arrayHasFold[T] = new HasFold[T, Array] {
def foldLeft[A](cc: Array[T], zero: A)(op: (A, T) => A): A = {
var i = 0
var result = zero
while (i < cc.length) {
result = op(result, cc(i))
i += 1
}
result
}
}
}
(strictly speaking, HasFold is not required since its implementation is in terms of length and get, but i added it here so the algorithm will translate more cleanly)
now the algorithm is:
class Cartesian[T, ST[_], TT[Y]](val ll: TT[ST[T]])(implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, T, ST[T]], stHasLength: HasLength[ST[T]], stHasGet: HasGet[T, ST], ttHasFold: HasFold[ST[T], TT], ttHasGet: HasGet[ST[T], TT], ttHasLength: HasLength[TT[ST[T]]]) extends Iterator[ST[T]] {
def combicount (): Int = ttHasFold.foldLeft(ll, 1)((a,l) => a * stHasLength.length(l))
val last = combicount - 1
var iter = 0
override def hasNext (): Boolean = iter < last
override def next (): ST[T] = {
val res = combination (ll, 0, iter, cbf())
iter += 1
res
}
def combination (xx: TT[ST[T]], j: Int, i: Int, builder: Builder[T, ST[T]]): ST[T] =
if (ttHasLength.length(xx) == j) builder.result
else {
val head = ttHasGet.get(xx, j)
val headLength = stHasLength.length(head)
combination (xx, j + 1, i / headLength, builder += stHasGet.get(head, (i % headLength) ))
}
}
And use:
scala> new Cartesian[String, Vector, List](List(Vector("a"), Vector("xy"), Vector("AB")))
res6: Cartesian[String,Vector,List] = empty iterator
scala> new Cartesian[String, Array, Array](Array(Array("a"), Array("xy"), Array("AB")))
res7: Cartesian[String,Array,Array] = empty iterator
Scalaz probably has all of this predefined for you, unfortunately, I don't know it well.
(again I need to pass the types because inference doesn't infer the right kind)
The benefit is that the algorithm is now completely generic and that there is no need for implicit conversions from Array to WrappedArray in order for it to work
Excercise: define for tuples ;-)