I know that you can match a set of types like so, without using isInstanceOf:
x match {
case fooBar # (_: Foo | _: Bar) => ???
}
But, is there a way to match anything but a set of types? Like, match any x which is not a Foo or a Bar, without using isInstanceOf?
Well, you can do
x match {
case fooBar #(_: Foo | _: Bar) => // do nothing
default => // do something
}
Anyway, the only difference with using isInstanceOf is syntax, as you will be performing a runtime check nonetheless.
From a functional point of view, the combo isInstanceOf/asInstanceOf is identical to type matching.
So (if you really must) I would just go with
if (!(x.isInstanceOf[Foo] || x.isInstanceOf[Bar])) {
// do something
}
Again, there's no practical difference and they're both quite a hacky way of dealing with types. Unless you're working with an external API you have not control over, I would suggest to change your design and avoid matching on the types.
Usually type classes come in handy, but without further details it's hard to tell for sure.
The solution above by #GabrielePetronella work well for most cases, but I'm adding another variant that can help with some edge cases.
Edge case example:
composed Receive functions for akka actors.
consider the following:
override def receive: Receive = handleFoo orElse handleBar
def handleFoo: Receive = {
case FooObject => …
case FooClass(value) => …
case notFoo =>
logger.debug(s"wasn't expecting $notFoo of type ${notFoo.getClass.getSimpleName}")
}
def handleBar: Receive = {
case _: VeryImportantBarMsg => …
case _: LessImportantBarMsg => …
}
The last case of handleFoo will catch everything, making the orElse handleBar obsolete, and obviously we don't handle VeryImportantBarMsg or LessImportantBarMsg any more.
Solution:
use a specialized extractor object, e.g:
object NotBar {
def unapply[T](t: T): Option[T] = t match {
case _: VeryImportantBarMsg | _: LessImportantBarMsg => None
case _ => Some(t)
}
}
and use it like:
def handleFoo: Receive = {
case FooObject => …
case FooClass(value) => …
case NotBar(notFoo) =>
logger.debug(s"wasn't expecting $notFoo of type ${notFoo.getClass.getSimpleName}")
}
This solution is intended for case where you don't want the match to succeed, like partial functions, akka receive, or if you find yourself writing the same excluded list of types _: T1 | … | _: T10 many times, etc'...
P.S.
If you find yourself in need of this solution, most likely something isn't modeled optimally. In most cases, this can be avoided.
Related
If I have an email, I want to either get the user by email if it exists. If it doesn't exist, I want to insert and return the User.
val userOptFut: Future[Option[User] = emailOpt.map { email =>
userDao.getByEmail(email).map { maybeUserFut =>
maybeUserFut match {
case Some(u) => Future.successful(Some(u))
case None =>
userDao.insert(User(....)) // Future[User]
}
}
}.getOrElse(Future.successful(None))
Where userDao.getByEmail(..) returns Future[Option[User]]
I am not sure what is wrong, but for some reason it says I am return a Object and not a User.
expression of type Future[Object] does not conform to expected type
Future[Option[User]]
What is wrong with the above?
It's really difficult with nesting like that to match the types up correctly everywhere. What the compiler ends up doing is inferring the most specific type it can, which is Object, and that doesn't match your declared types.
It really helps to break down your functions into smaller pieces, with fewer levels of nesting, so the types are much more difficult to mess up. I would do it something like the following:
// This is very close to Future.sequence, but Option isn't a subclass
// of TraversableOnce. There's probably an existing function to do
// this in a library like cats or scalaz.
def toFutureOption[A](in: Option[Future[A]]): Future[Option[A]] = in match {
case Some(fut) => fut map {Some(_)}
case None => Future.successful(None)
}
def getOrInsert(email: String): Future[User] =
userDao.getByEmail(email) transformWith {
case Success(Some(user)) => Future.successful(user)
case Success(None) | Failure(_) => userDao.insert(User(email))
}
val userOptFut: Future[Option[User]] =
toFutureOption(emailOpt map getOrInsert)
Your problem is that the two branches of your match statement don't return the same type:
case Some(u) => u // User
case None => userDao.insert(User(....)) // Future[User]
Depending on what you are trying to achieve, you could do something like this:
case Some(u) => Future.successful(Some(u))
The .getOrElse at the end may not be suitable for your type either.
I'm trying to match an Option, and test to see if it's a Some containing the object making the call. So the code I want to write looks like this:
methodReturningOption() match {
case Some(this) => doSomething()
case _ => doSomethingElse()
}
but that fails to compile, with the error
'.' expected but ')' found
I also tried using Some(`this`) which gives the error
not found: value this
I can make it work if I add a variable which refers to this
val This = this
methodReturningOption() match {
case Some(This) => doSomething()
case _ => doSomethingElse()
}
but that looks ugly and seems like an unpleasant workaround. Is there an easier way to pattern match with this as an argument?
I suppose you could try this:
methodReturningOption() match {
case Some(x) if x == this => doSomething()
case _ => doSomethingElse()
}
It looks like this is considered a special keyword and can't be used in that context.
Jack Leow's solution is probably the best - I'd recommend going with that since it's much more explicit. However as an alternative you can also create a variable point to 'this' using the following syntax. (Note the self => on the first line)
class Person { self =>
def bla() = methodReturningOption() match {
case Some(`self`) => ???
case _ => ???
}
}
This doesn't really answer the question, it's just a potential alternative syntax that may be useful to you.
I have a Scala Option[T]. If the value is Some(x) I want to process it with a a process that does not return a value (Unit), but if it is None, I want to print an error.
I can use the following code to do this, but I understand that the more idiomatic way is to treat the Option[T] as a sequence and use map, foreach, etc. How do I do this?
opt match {
case Some(x) => // process x with no return value, e.g. write x to a file
case None => // print error message
}
I think explicit pattern matching suits your use case best.
Scala's Option is, sadly, missing a method to do exactly this. I add one:
class OptionWrapper[A](o: Option[A]) {
def fold[Z](default: => Z)(action: A => Z) = o.map(action).getOrElse(default)
}
implicit def option_has_utility[A](o: Option[A]) = new OptionWrapper(o)
which has the slightly nicer (in my view) usage
op.fold{ println("Empty!") }{ x => doStuffWith(x) }
You can see from how it's defined that map/getOrElse can be used instead of pattern matching.
Alternatively, Either already has a fold method. So you can
op.toRight(()).fold{ _ => println("Empty!") }{ x => doStuffWith(x) }
but this is a little clumsy given that you have to provide the left value (here (), i.e. Unit) and then define a function on that, rather than just stating what you want to happen on None.
The pattern match isn't bad either, especially for longer blocks of code. For short ones, the overhead of the match starts getting in the way of the point. For example:
op.fold{ printError }{ saveUserInput }
has a lot less syntactic overhead than
op match {
case Some(x) => saveUserInput(x)
case None => printError
}
and therefore, once you expect it, is a lot easier to comprehend.
I'd recommend to simply and safely use opt.get which itself throws a NoSuchElementException exception if opt is None. Or if you want to throw your own exception, you can do this:
val x = opt.getOrElse(throw new Exception("Your error message"))
// x is of type T
as #missingfaktor says, you are in the exact scenario where pattern matching is giving the most readable results.
If Option has a value you want to do something, if not you want to do something else.
While there are various ways to use map and other functional constructs on Option types, they are generally useful when:
you want to use the Some case and ignore the None case e.g. in your case
opt.map(writeToFile(_)) //(...if None just do nothing)
or you want to chain the operations on more than one option and give a result only when all of them are Some. For instance, one way of doing this is:
val concatThreeOptions =
for {
n1 <- opt1
n2 <- opt2
n3 <- opt3
} yield n1 + n2 + n3 // this will be None if any of the three is None
// we will either write them all to a file or none of them
but none of these seem to be your case
Pattern matching is the best choice here.
However, if you want to treat Option as a sequence and to map over it, you can do it, because Unit is a value:
opt map { v =>
println(v) // process v (result type is Unit)
} getOrElse {
println("error")
}
By the way, printing an error is some kind of "anti-pattern", so it's better to throw an exception anyway:
opt.getOrElse(throw new SomeException)
In Scala, I have progressively lost my Java/C habit of thinking in a control-flow oriented way, and got used to go ahead and get the object I'm interested in first, and then usually apply something like a match or a map() or foreach() for collections. I like it a lot, since it now feels like a more natural and more to-the-point way of structuring my code.
Little by little, I've wished I could program the same way for conditions; i.e., obtain a Boolean value first, and then match it to do various things. A full-blown match, however, does seem a bit overkill for this task.
Compare:
obj.isSomethingValid match {
case true => doX
case false => doY
}
vs. what I would write with style closer to Java:
if (obj.isSomethingValid)
doX
else
doY
Then I remembered Smalltalk's ifTrue: and ifFalse: messages (and variants thereof). Would it be possible to write something like this in Scala?
obj.isSomethingValid ifTrue doX else doY
with variants:
val v = obj.isSomethingValid ifTrue someVal else someOtherVal
// with side effects
obj.isSomethingValid ifFalse {
numInvalid += 1
println("not valid")
}
Furthermore, could this style be made available to simple, two-state types like Option? I know the more idiomatic way to use Option is to treat it as a collection and call filter(), map(), exists() on it, but often, at the end, I find that I want to perform some doX if it is defined, and some doY if it isn't. Something like:
val ok = resultOpt ifSome { result =>
println("Obtained: " + result)
updateUIWith(result) // returns Boolean
} else {
numInvalid += 1
println("missing end result")
false
}
To me, this (still?) looks better than a full-blown match.
I am providing a base implementation I came up with; general comments on this style/technique and/or better implementations are welcome!
First: we probably cannot reuse else, as it is a keyword, and using the backticks to force it to be seen as an identifier is rather ugly, so I'll use otherwise instead.
Here's an implementation attempt. First, use the pimp-my-library pattern to add ifTrue and ifFalse to Boolean. They are parametrized on the return type R and accept a single by-name parameter, which should be evaluated if the specified condition is realized. But in doing so, we must allow for an otherwise call. So we return a new object called Otherwise0 (why 0 is explained later), which stores a possible intermediate result as a Option[R]. It is defined if the current condition (ifTrue or ifFalse) is realized, and is empty otherwise.
class BooleanWrapper(b: Boolean) {
def ifTrue[R](f: => R) = new Otherwise0[R](if (b) Some(f) else None)
def ifFalse[R](f: => R) = new Otherwise0[R](if (b) None else Some(f))
}
implicit def extendBoolean(b: Boolean): BooleanWrapper = new BooleanWrapper(b)
For now, this works and lets me write
someTest ifTrue {
println("OK")
}
But, without the following otherwise clause, it cannot return a value of type R, of course. So here's the definition of Otherwise0:
class Otherwise0[R](intermediateResult: Option[R]) {
def otherwise[S >: R](f: => S) = intermediateResult.getOrElse(f)
def apply[S >: R](f: => S) = otherwise(f)
}
It evaluates its passed named argument if and only if the intermediate result it got from the preceding ifTrue or ifFalse is undefined, which is exactly what is wanted. The type parametrization [S >: R] has the effect that S is inferred to be the most specific common supertype of the actual type of the named parameters, such that for instance, r in this snippet has an inferred type Fruit:
class Fruit
class Apple extends Fruit
class Orange extends Fruit
val r = someTest ifTrue {
new Apple
} otherwise {
new Orange
}
The apply() alias even allows you to skip the otherwise method name altogether for short chunks of code:
someTest.ifTrue(10).otherwise(3)
// equivalently:
someTest.ifTrue(10)(3)
Finally, here's the corresponding pimp for Option:
class OptionExt[A](option: Option[A]) {
def ifNone[R](f: => R) = new Otherwise1(option match {
case None => Some(f)
case Some(_) => None
}, option.get)
def ifSome[R](f: A => R) = new Otherwise0(option match {
case Some(value) => Some(f(value))
case None => None
})
}
implicit def extendOption[A](opt: Option[A]): OptionExt[A] = new OptionExt[A](opt)
class Otherwise1[R, A1](intermediateResult: Option[R], arg1: => A1) {
def otherwise[S >: R](f: A1 => S) = intermediateResult.getOrElse(f(arg1))
def apply[S >: R](f: A1 => S) = otherwise(f)
}
Note that we now also need Otherwise1 so that we can conveniently passed the unwrapped value not only to the ifSome function argument, but also to the function argument of an otherwise following an ifNone.
You may be looking at the problem too specifically. You would probably be better off with the pipe operator:
class Piping[A](a: A) { def |>[B](f: A => B) = f(a) }
implicit def pipe_everything[A](a: A) = new Piping(a)
Now you can
("fish".length > 5) |> (if (_) println("Hi") else println("Ho"))
which, admittedly, is not quite as elegant as what you're trying to achieve, but it has the great advantage of being amazingly versatile--any time you want to put an argument first (not just with booleans), you can use it.
Also, you already can use options the way you want:
Option("fish").filter(_.length > 5).
map (_ => println("Hi")).
getOrElse(println("Ho"))
Just because these things could take a return value doesn't mean you have to avoid them. It does take a little getting used to the syntax; this may be a valid reason to create your own implicits. But the core functionality is there. (If you do create your own, consider fold[B](f: A => B)(g: => B) instead; once you're used to it the lack of the intervening keyword is actually rather nice.)
Edit: Although the |> notation for pipe is somewhat standard, I actually prefer use as the method name, because then def reuse[B,C](f: A => B)(g: (A,B) => C) = g(a,f(a)) seems more natural.
Why don't just use it like this:
val idiomaticVariable = if (condition) {
firstExpression
} else {
secondExpression
}
?
IMO, its very idiomatic! :)
I found myself writing something like this quite often:
a match {
case `b` => // do stuff
case _ => // do nothing
}
Is there a shorter way to check if some value matches a pattern? I mean, in this case I could just write if (a == b) // do stuff, but what if the pattern is more complex? Like when matching against a list or any pattern of arbitrary complexity. I'd like to be able to write something like this:
if (a matches b) // do stuff
I'm relatively new to Scala, so please pardon, if I'm missing something big :)
This is exactly why I wrote these functions, which are apparently impressively obscure since nobody has mentioned them.
scala> import PartialFunction._
import PartialFunction._
scala> cond("abc") { case "def" => true }
res0: Boolean = false
scala> condOpt("abc") { case x if x.length == 3 => x + x }
res1: Option[java.lang.String] = Some(abcabc)
scala> condOpt("abc") { case x if x.length == 4 => x + x }
res2: Option[java.lang.String] = None
The match operator in Scala is most powerful when used in functional style. This means, rather than "doing something" in the case statements, you would return a useful value. Here is an example for an imperative style:
var value:Int = 23
val command:String = ... // we get this from somewhere
command match {
case "duplicate" => value = value * 2
case "negate" => value = -value
case "increment" => value = value + 1
// etc.
case _ => // do nothing
}
println("Result: " + value)
It is very understandable that the "do nothing" above hurts a little, because it seems superflous. However, this is due to the fact that the above is written in imperative style. While constructs like these may sometimes be necessary, in many cases you can refactor your code to functional style:
val value:Int = 23
val command:String = ... // we get this from somewhere
val result:Int = command match {
case "duplicate" => value * 2
case "negate" => -value
case "increment" => value + 1
// etc.
case _ => value
}
println("Result: " + result)
In this case, you use the whole match statement as a value that you can, for example, assign to a variable. And it is also much more obvious that the match statement must return a value in any case; if the last case would be missing, the compiler could not just make something up.
It is a question of taste, but some developers consider this style to be more transparent and easier to handle in more real-world examples. I would bet that the inventors of the Scala programming language had a more functional use in mind for match, and indeed the if statement makes more sense if you only need to decide whether or not a certain action needs to be taken. (On the other hand, you can also use if in the functional way, because it also has a return value...)
This might help:
class Matches(m: Any) {
def matches[R](f: PartialFunction[Any, R]) { if (f.isDefinedAt(m)) f(m) }
}
implicit def any2matches(m: Any) = new Matches(m)
scala> 'c' matches { case x: Int => println("Int") }
scala> 2 matches { case x: Int => println("Int") }
Int
Now, some explanation on the general nature of the problem.
Where may a match happen?
There are three places where pattern matching might happen: val, case and for. The rules for them are:
// throws an exception if it fails
val pattern = value
// filters for pattern, but pattern cannot be "identifier: Type",
// though that can be replaced by "id1 # (id2: Type)" for the same effect
for (pattern <- object providing map/flatMap/filter/withFilter/foreach) ...
// throws an exception if none of the cases match
value match { case ... => ... }
There is, however, another situation where case might appear, which is function and partial function literals. For example:
val f: Any => Unit = { case i: Int => println(i) }
val pf: PartialFunction[Any, Unit] = { case i: Int => println(i) }
Both functions and partial functions will throw an exception if called with an argument that doesn't match any of the case statements. However, partial functions also provide a method called isDefinedAt which can test whether a match can be made or not, as well as a method called lift, which will turn a PartialFunction[T, R] into a Function[T, Option[R]], which means non-matching values will result in None instead of throwing an exception.
What is a match?
A match is a combination of many different tests:
// assign anything to x
case x
// only accepts values of type X
case x: X
// only accepts values matches by pattern
case x # pattern
// only accepts a value equal to the value X (upper case here makes a difference)
case X
// only accepts a value equal to the value of x
case `x`
// only accept a tuple of the same arity
case (x, y, ..., z)
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns true of Some(Seq()) (some empty sequence)
case extractor()
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns Some something
case extractor(x)
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns Some Seq or Tuple of the same arity
case extractor(x, y, ..., z)
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns Some Tuple2 or Some Seq with arity 2
case x extractor y
// accepts if any of the patterns is accepted (patterns may not contain assignable identifiers)
case x | y | ... | z
Now, extractors are the methods unapply or unapplySeq, the first returning Boolean or Option[T], and the second returning Option[Seq[T]], where None means no match is made, and Some(result) will try to match result as described above.
So there are all kinds of syntactic alternatives here, which just aren't possible without the use of one of the three constructions where pattern matches may happen. You may able to emulate some of the features, like value equality and extractors, but not all of them.
Patterns can also be used in for expressions. Your code sample
a match {
case b => // do stuff
case _ => // do nothing
}
can then be expressed as
for(b <- Some(a)) //do stuff
The trick is to wrap a to make it a valid enumerator. E.g. List(a) would also work, but I think Some(a) is closest to your intended meaning.
The best I can come up with is this:
def matches[A](a:A)(f:PartialFunction[A, Unit]) = f.isDefinedAt(a)
if (matches(a){case ... =>}) {
//do stuff
}
This won't win you any style points though.
Kim's answer can be “improved” to better match your requirement:
class AnyWrapper[A](wrapped: A) {
def matches(f: PartialFunction[A, Unit]) = f.isDefinedAt(wrapped)
}
implicit def any2wrapper[A](wrapped: A) = new AnyWrapper(wrapped)
then:
val a = "a" :: Nil
if (a matches { case "a" :: Nil => }) {
println("match")
}
I wouldn't do it, however. The => }) { sequence is really ugly here, and the whole code looks much less clear than a normal match. Plus, you get the compile-time overhead of looking up the implicit conversion, and the run-time overhead of wrapping the match in a PartialFunction (not counting the conflicts you could get with other, already defined matches methods, like the one in String).
To look a little bit better (and be less verbose), you could add this def to AnyWrapper:
def ifMatch(f: PartialFunction[A, Unit]): Unit = if (f.isDefinedAt(wrapped)) f(wrapped)
and use it like this:
a ifMatch { case "a" :: Nil => println("match") }
which saves you your case _ => line, but requires double braces if you want a block instead of a single statement... Not so nice.
Note that this construct is not really in the spirit of functional programming, as it can only be used to execute something that has side effects. We can't easily use it to return a value (therefore the Unit return value), as the function is partial — we'd need a default value, or we could return an Option instance. But here again, we would probably unwrap it with a match, so we'd gain nothing.
Frankly, you're better off getting used to seeing and using those match frequently, and moving away from this kind of imperative-style constructs (following Madoc's nice explanation).