I'm trying to decipher somebody else's code. The following appeared in a Scala trait. This isn't its exact content, I flattened out some of the detail to make it more general (it had some extra lines before the closed-curly-bracket incorporating a zipWithIndex method, and some other pattern matching stuff.) My main concern was that I am not familiar with this concept; a value definition that begins with an open-curly-bracket and then a bunch of indented stuff.
val example: ExampleType = {
val anOtherExample = "String"
val yetAnOtherExample = 22
new ExampleType(anOtherExample, yetAnOtherExample)
}
Having experience with C-like languages and/or Java, you may be used to the fact that curly braces {} denote a block of code - i.e. just a set of instructions that will be invoked.
Scala is different on this part, because in Scala almost everything is an expression, i.e. almost everything evaluates to some value and therefore can be assigned to a val, passed as an argument, etc.
Therefore, a block of code in Scala is not just a sequence of instructions, but a valid expression that can be assigned and passed around. Block of code evaluates to the last expression in that block, i.e.
val x: Int = {
doSomething()
doSomethingElse()
42
}
In the above example, x will have 42 assigned as its value.
{
val anotherExample = "String"
val yetAnotherExample = 22
}
This is called block. It is evaluated to its last statement. Here the last statement is an assignment val yetAnotherExample = 22 which is of type Unit in Scala. So your code will not compile if your ExampleType is not the same type as Unit.
Related
Methods are often declared with obvious parameter names, e.g.
def myMethod(s: String, image: BufferedImage, mesh: Mesh) { ... }
Parameter names correspond to parameter types.
1) "s" is often used for String
2) "i" for Int
3) lowercased class name for one word named classes (Mesh -> mesh)
4) lowercased last word from class name for long class names (BufferedImage -> image)
(Of course, it would not be convenient for ALL methods and arguments. Of course, somebody would prefer other rules…)
Scala macros are intended to generate some expressions in code. I would like to write some specific macros to convert to correct Scala expressions something like this:
// "arguments interpolation" style
// like string interpolation
def myMethod s[String, BufferedImage, Mesh]
{ /* code using vars "s", "image", "mesh" */ }
// or even better:
mydef myMethod[String, BufferedImage, Mesh]
{ /* code using vars "s", "image", "mesh" */ }
Is it possible?
Currently it is not possible and probably it will never be. Macros can not introduce their own syntax - they must be represented through valid Scala code (which can be executed at compile time) and, too, they must generate valid Scala code (better say a valid Scala AST).
Both of your shown examples are not valid Scala code, thus Macros can not handle them. Nevertheless, the current nightly build of Macro Paradise includes untyped macros. They allow to write Scala code which is typechecked after they are expanded, this means it is possible to write:
forM({i = 0; i < 10; i += 1}) {
println(i)
}
Notice, that the curly braces inside of the first parameter list are needed because, although the code is not typechecked when one writes it, it must represent a valid Scala AST.
The implementation of this macro looks like this:
def forM(header: _)(body: _) = macro __forM
def __forM(c: Context)(header: c.Tree)(body: c.Tree): c.Tree = {
import c.universe._
header match {
case Block(
List(
Assign(Ident(TermName(name)), Literal(Constant(start))),
Apply(Select(Ident(TermName(name2)), TermName(comparison)), List(Literal(Constant(end))))
),
Apply(Select(Ident(TermName(name3)), TermName(incrementation)), List(Literal(Constant(inc))))
) =>
// here one can generate the behavior of the loop
// but omit full implementation for clarity now ...
}
}
Instead of an already typechecked expression, the macro expects only a tree, that is typechecked after the expansion. The method call itself expects two parameter lists, whose parameter types can be delayed after the expansion phase if one uses an underscore.
Currently there is a little bit of documentation available but because it is extremely beta a lot of things will probably change in future.
With type macros it is possible to write something like this:
object O extends M {
// traverse the body of O to find what you want
}
type M(x: _) = macro __M
def __M(c: Context)(x: c.Tree): c.Tree = {
// omit full implementation for clarity ...
}
This is nice in order to delay the typechecking of the whole body because it allows to to cool things...
Macros that can change Scalas syntax are not planned at the moment and are probably not a good idea. I can't say if they will happen one day only future can tell us this.
Aside from the "why" (no really, why do you want to do that?), the answer is no, because as far as I know macros cannot (in their current state) generate methods or types, only expressions.
I've read a lot of code snippets in scala that make use of the symbol =>, but I've never really been able to comprehend it. I've tried to search in the internet, but couldn't find anything comprehensive. Any pointers/explanation about how the symbol is/can be used will be really helpful.
(More specifially, I also want to know how the operator comes into picture in function literals)
More than passing values/names, => is used to define a function literal, which is an alternate syntax used to define a function.
Example time. Let's say you have a function that takes in another function. The collections are full of them, but we'll pick filter. filter, when used on a collection (like a List), will take out any element that causes the function you provide to return false.
val people = List("Bill Nye", "Mister Rogers", "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", "Jesus", "Superman", "The newspaper guy")
// Let's only grab people who have short names (less than 10 characters)
val shortNamedPeople = people.filter(<a function>)
We could pass in an actual function from somewhere else (def isShortName(name: String): Boolean, perhaps), but it would be nicer to just place it right there. Alas, we can, with function literals.
val shortNamedPeople = people.filter( name => name.length < 10 )
What we did here is create a function that takes in a String (since people is of type List[String]), and returns a Boolean. Pretty cool, right?
This syntax is used in many contexts. Let's say you want to write a function that takes in another function. This other function should take in a String, and return an Int.
def myFunction(f: String => Int): Int = {
val myString = "Hello!"
f(myString)
}
// And let's use it. First way:
def anotherFunction(a: String): Int = {
a.length
}
myFunction(anotherFunction)
// Second way:
myFunction((a: String) => a.length)
That's what function literals are. Going back to by-name and by-value, there's a trick where you can force a parameter to not be evaluated until you want to. The classic example:
def logger(message: String) = {
if(loggingActivated) println(message)
}
This looks alright, but message is actually evaluated when logger is called. What if message takes a while to evaluate? For example, logger(veryLongProcess()), where veryLongProcess() returns a String. Whoops? Not really. We can use our knowledge about function literals to force veryLongProcess() not to be called until it is actually needed.
def logger(message: => String) = {
if(loggingActivated) println(message)
}
logger(veryLongProcess()) // Fixed!
logger is now taking in a function that takes no parameters (hence the naked => on the left side). You can still use it as before, but now, message is only evaluated when it's used (in the println).
I am a beginning practitioner in Scala and I saw a few different syntax for calling a method. Some are nice, as ignoring parenthesis for a parameterless method, or ignoring the dot as in
1 to 10
but some really puzzle me. for instance:
breakable { ... }
this is simply a method call right? Can I also do that for more than one parameter or a parameter which is not a parameterless function?
Thanks
There are two standard ways of calling methods:
obj.method(params) // dot notation
obj method (params) // operator notation
The above can be modified in the following ways:
If params is a single parameter, you can replace () with {}.
If params is a single parameter and you are using operator notation, you can drop the parenthesis.
If method doesn't take parameters, you can drop (params) (that is, drop the empty ()).
If method ends with :, then it actually binds to the right in operator notation. That is, (params) method_: obj is equivalent to obj.method_:(params).
Either way, spaces are optional as long as identifiers can be told apart. So one can add spaces to the dot notation, like obj . method ( params ) or write .method(params) on the next line -- as often happens with call chaining --, as well as remove spaces from the operator notation, as in a+b.
There's also some stuff with tuple inference, but I try to avoid it, so I'm not sure of the exact rules.
None of these will explain the example you are confused about, however. Before I explain it, however, I'd like to show some syntactic sugars that can also be used to call methods:
obj(params) // equivalent to obj.apply(params)
obj.x = y // equivalent to obj.x_=(y), if obj.x also exists
obj(x) = y // equivalent to obj.update(x, y)
obj op= y // equivalent to obj = obj op y, if op is symbolic
~obj // equivalent to obj.unary_~; also for !, + and -, but no other symbol
Ok, now to the example you gave. One can import members of stable values. Java can do it for static methods with its static import, but Scala has a more general mechanism: importing from packages, objects or common instances is no different: it brings both type members and value members. Methods fall in the latter category.
So, imagine you have val a = 2, and you do import a._. That will bring into scope all of Int methods, so you can call them directly. You can't do +(2), because that would be interpreted as a call to unary_+, but you could call *(4), for example:
scala> val a = 2
a: Int = 2
scala> import a._
import a._
scala> *(4)
res16: Int = 8
Now, here's the rule. You can call
method(params)
If:
method was imported into scope.
You keep the parenthesis (even if there's only one parameter)
Note that there's a precedence issue as well. If you write obj method(params), Scala will presume method belongs to obj, even if it was imported into scope.
If we desugar this we will have:
breakable({ ... })
this matches signature
breakable: (op: ⇒ Unit): Unit
and uses so named call-by-name arguments (you may think of this as pass a block of code as argument)
More over scala allows you to write this:
scala> def foo (op1: => Unit)(op2: => Unit) = {op1;op2;}
foo: (op1: => Unit)(op2: => Unit)Unit
scala> foo { println(1) } { println(2) }
1
2
Above is the example of curried function
I'm experimenting with the scala 2.10 macro features. I have trouble using LabelDef in some cases, though. To some extent I peeked in the compiler's code, read excerpts of Miguel Garcia's papers but I'm still stuck.
If my understanding is correct, a pseudo-definition would be:
LabelDef(labelName, listOfParameters, stmsAndApply) where the 3 arguments are Trees and:
- labelNameis the identifier of the label $L being defined
- listOfParameters correspond to the arguments passed when label-apply occurs, as in $L(a1,...,an), and can be empty
- stmsAndApplycorresponds to the block of statements (possibly none) and final apply-expression
label-apply meaning more-or-less a GOTO to a label
For instance, in the case of a simple loop, a LabelDef can eventually apply itself:
LabelDef($L, (), {...; $L()})
Now, if I want to define 2 LabelDef that jump to each other:
...
LabelDef($L1, (), $L2())
...
LabelDef($L2, (), $L1())
...
The 2nd LabelDef is fine, but the compiler outputs an error on the 1st, "not found: value $L2". I guess that is because $L2 isn't yet defined while there is an attempt to apply it. This is a tree being constructed so that would make sense to me. Is my understanding correct so far? Because if no error is expected, that means my macro implementation is probably buggy.
Anyway, I believe there must be a way to apply $L2 (i.e. Jumping to $L2) from $L1, somehow, but I just have no clue how to do it. Does someone have an example of doing that, or any pointer?
Other unclear points (but less of a concern right now) about using LabelDef in macros are:
-what the 2nd argument is, concretely, how is it used when non-empty? In other words, what are the mechanisms of a label-apply with parameters?
-is it valid to put in the 3rd argument's final expression anything else than a label-apply? (not that I can't try, but macros are still experimental)
-is it possible to perform a forwarding label-apply outside a LabelDef? (maybe this is a redundant question)
Any macro implementation example in the answer is, of course, very welcome!
Cheers,
Because if no error is expected, that means my macro implementation is probably buggy.
Yes, it seems that was a bug (^^; Although I'm not sure whether or not the limitation with the Block/LabelDef combination exists on purpose.
def EVIL_LABELS_MACRO = macro EVIL_LABELS_MACRO_impl
def EVIL_LABELS_MACRO_impl(c:Context):c.Expr[Unit] = { // fails to expand
import c.universe._
val lt1 = newTermName("$L1"); val lt2 = newTermName("$L2")
val ld1 = LabelDef(lt1, Nil, Block(c.reify{println("$L1")}.tree, Apply(Ident(lt2), Nil)))
val ld2 = LabelDef(lt2, Nil, Block(c.reify{println("$L2")}.tree, Apply(Ident(lt1), Nil)))
c.Expr( Block(ld1, c.reify{println("ignored")}.tree, ld2) )
}
def FINE_LABELS_MACRO = macro FINE_LABELS_MACRO_impl
def FINE_LABELS_MACRO_impl(c:Context):c.Expr[Unit] = { // The End isn't near
import c.universe._
val lt1 = newTermName("$L1"); val lt2 = newTermName("$L2")
val ld1 = LabelDef(lt1, Nil, Block(c.reify{println("$L1")}.tree, Apply(Ident(lt2), Nil)))
val ld2 = LabelDef(lt2, Nil, Block(c.reify{println("$L2")}.tree, Apply(Ident(lt1), Nil)))
c.Expr( Block(ld1, c.reify{println("ignored")}.tree, ld2, c.reify{println("The End")}.tree) )
}
I think a Block is parsed into { statements; expression } thus the last argument is the expression. If a LabelDef "falls in" expression, e.g. the EVIL_LABELS_MACRO pattern, its expansion won't be visible in statements; hence error "not found: value $L2".
So it's better to make sure all LabelDef "fall in" statements. FINE_LABELS_MACRO does that and expands to:
{
$L1(){
scala.this.Predef.println("$L1");
$L2()
};
scala.this.Predef.println("ignored");
$L2(){
scala.this.Predef.println("$L2");
$L1()
};
scala.this.Predef.println("The End")
}
I don't understand why the following code doesn't compile:
class Abc
{
def b (x : String) = x + "abc"
def a (y : String) =
{
val ls : List[String] = y.lines toList
b (ls.head)
}
}
Main.scala:8: error: type mismatch;
found : java.lang.String
required: Int
b (ls.head)
When I change "y.lines toList" to
y.lines.toList
or even to
y.lines toList;
it does compile.
Perhaps the compiler understands it like
(y.lines).toList(b (ls.head))
or something like that, but I still don't understand the rules.
It's not obvious, and it's a combination of Scala's shortcut syntax and list indexing. If you want a hint, try redefining b to:
def b(x : String) = 0
You'll get some other compiler garbage back, but the error will change. In short, the Scala compiler will let you omit parens and dots for zero- or one-parameter methods, and we know b looks like it's somehow getting chained.. The rub is that Scala also uses parens for list indexing, so toList, which returns an iterator, may take one parameter as the list index. I'm not sure of this part exactly, but it looks like once you start omitting dots, the lexer will become greedy, and when it comes across a method that may take one parameter, will attempt to pass the next statement to it. In this case, that's a string, so it throws a syntax error.
You got it spot on with this:
(y.lines).toList(b (ls.head))
With the only possible correction being:
(y.lines).toList(b).apply(ls.head)
I'm not sure that Scala would decide in this particular case.
The rule, roughly speaking, is object (method parameters)* [method]. The compiler will continue as long as it finds tokens for a valid expression. A ; finishes the expression, and so would a ) or }. If the next line is blank, the expression also ends. If the next line begins with a reserved keyword (val, def, if, etc), the expression would end too.