Is there a way to write this code in a more elegant way in Scala?
Basically I have the following algebraic data type:
trait Exp
case class Atom(i: Int) extends Exp
case class Add(l: Exp, r: Exp) extends Exp
and I want to check if a given variable matches a specific term inside
a conditional expression. For example I can write
val x = Add(Atom(1), Atom(2))
if (x match { case Add(Atom(1), Atom(2)) => true; case _ => false }) {
println("match")
}
However, it's ugly and verbose. Is there a more elegant alternative?
You can use a PartialFunction and its isDefinedAt method:
type MatchExp = PartialFunction[Exp, Unit] // alias
val isOnePlusTwo: MatchExp = {
case Add(Atom(1), Atom(2)) =>
}
if (isOnePlusTwo.isDefinedAt(x)) println("match")
A match expression produces either a Function or a PartialFunction, depending on the expected type. The type alias is only for convenience here.
Another possibility, if you do not need de-structuring through the pattern match, is to simply rely on the equality of the expression:
if (x == Add(Atom(1), Atom(2))) println("match")
This works because you use case classes which have correct equality implementations.
Use these for concision:
scala> import PartialFunction._
import PartialFunction._
scala> condOpt(x) { case Add(Atom(x), Atom(y)) => x + y }
res2: Option[Int] = Some(3)
scala> cond(x) { case Add(Atom(x), Atom(y)) => println("yep"); true }
yep
res3: Boolean = true
scala> List(x, Atom(42)) flatMap (condOpt(_) { case Add(Atom(x), Atom(y)) => x + y })
res4: List[Int] = List(3)
You could put the println into the match and get rid of the if entirely:
x match {
case Add(Atom(1), Atom(2)) => println("match")
case _ => {} //do nothing
}
Related
In scalaz 7.2.6, I want to implement sequence on Disjunction, such that if there is one or more lefts, it returns a list of those, instead of taking only the first one (as in Disjunction.sequenceU):
import scalaz._, Scalaz._
List(1.right, 2.right, 3.right).sequence
res1: \/-(List(1, 2, 3))
List(1.right, "error2".left, "error3".left).sequence
res2: -\/(List(error2, error3))
I've implemented it as follows and it works, but it looks ugly. Is there a getRight method (such as in scala Either class, Right[String, Int](3).right.get)? And how to improve this code?
implicit class RichSequence[L, R](val l: List[\/[L, R]]) {
def getLeft(v: \/[L, R]):L = v match { case -\/(x) => x }
def getRight(v: \/[L, R]):R = v match { case \/-(x) => x }
def sequence: \/[List[L], List[R]] =
if (l.forall(_.isRight)) {
l.map(e => getRight(e)).right
} else {
l.filter(_.isLeft).map(e => getLeft(e)).left
}
}
Playing around I've implemented a recursive function for that, but the best option would be to use separate:
implicit class RichSequence[L, R](val l: List[\/[L, R]]) {
def sequence: \/[List[L], List[R]] = {
def seqLoop(left: List[L], right: List[R], list: List[\/[L, R]]): \/[List[L], List[R]] =
list match {
case (h :: t) =>
h match {
case -\/(e) => seqLoop(left :+ e, right, t)
case \/-(s) => seqLoop(left, right :+ s, t)
}
case Nil =>
if(left.isEmpty) \/-(right)
else -\/(left)
}
seqLoop(List(), List(), l)
}
def sequenceSeparate: \/[List[L], List[R]] = {
val (left, right) = l.separate[\/[L, R], L, R]
if(left.isEmpty) \/-(right)
else -\/(left)
}
}
The first one just collects results and at the end decide what to do with those, the second its basically the same with the exception that the recursive function is much simpler, I didn't think about performance here, I've used :+, if you care use prepend or some other collection.
You may also want to take a look at Validation and ValidationNEL which unlike Disjunction accumulate failures.
I am writing a Hive UDF in Scala (because I want to learn scala). To do this, I have to override three functions: evaluate, initialize and getDisplayString.
In the initialize function I have to:
Receive an array of ObjectInspector and return an ObjectInspector
Check if the array is null
Check if the array has the correct size
Check if the array contains the object of the correct type
To do this, I am using pattern matching and came up with the following function:
override def initialize(genericInspectors: Array[ObjectInspector]): ObjectInspector = genericInspectors match {
case null => throw new UDFArgumentException(functionNameString + ": ObjectInspector is null!")
case _ if genericInspectors.length != 1 => throw new UDFArgumentException(functionNameString + ": requires exactly one argument.")
case _ => {
listInspector = genericInspectors(0) match {
case concreteInspector: ListObjectInspector => concreteInspector
case _ => throw new UDFArgumentException(functionNameString + ": requires an input array.")
}
PrimitiveObjectInspectorFactory.getPrimitiveWritableObjectInspector(listInspector.getListElementObjectInspector.asInstanceOf[PrimitiveObjectInspector].getPrimitiveCategory)
}
}
Nevertheless, I have the impression that the function could be made more legible and, in general, prettier since I don't like to have code with too many levels of indentation.
Is there an idiomatic Scala way to improve the code above?
It's typical for patterns to include other patterns. The type of x here is String.
scala> val xs: Array[Any] = Array("x")
xs: Array[Any] = Array(x)
scala> xs match {
| case null => ???
| case Array(x: String) => x
| case _ => ???
| }
res0: String = x
The idiom for "any number of args" is "sequence pattern", which matches arbitrary args:
scala> val xs: Array[Any] = Array("x")
xs: Array[Any] = Array(x)
scala> xs match { case Array(x: String) => x case Array(_*) => ??? }
res2: String = x
scala> val xs: Array[Any] = Array(42)
xs: Array[Any] = Array(42)
scala> xs match { case Array(x: String) => x case Array(_*) => ??? }
scala.NotImplementedError: an implementation is missing
at scala.Predef$.$qmark$qmark$qmark(Predef.scala:230)
... 32 elided
scala> Array("x","y") match { case Array(x: String) => x case Array(_*) => ??? }
scala.NotImplementedError: an implementation is missing
at scala.Predef$.$qmark$qmark$qmark(Predef.scala:230)
... 32 elided
This answer should not be construed as advocating matching your way back to type safety.
I have a match statement like this:
val x = y match {
case array: Array[Float] => call z
case array: Array[Double] => call z
case array: Array[BigDecimal] => call z
case array: Array[_] => show error
}
How do I simplify this to use only two case statements, since first three case statements do same thing, instead of four.
Type erasure does not really gives you opportunity to understand how array was typed. What you should do instead is to extract head ( first element) of array and check it's type. For example following code works for me:
List(1,2,3) match {
case (a:Int) :: tail => println("yep")
}
This work, although not very nice:
def x(y: Array[_]) = y match {
case a if a.isInstanceOf[Array[Double]] ||
a.isInstanceOf[Array[Float]] ||
a.isInstanceOf[Array[BigDecimal]] => "call z"
case _ => "show error"
}
Would have thought that pattern matching with "|" as below would do the trick. However, this gives pattern type is incompatible with expected type on Array[Float] and Array[BigDecimal]. It might be that matching of generic on this single case where it could work has not been given so much attention:
def x(y: Array[_ <: Any]) = y match {
case a # (_:Array[Double] | _:Array[Float] | _:Array[BigDecimal]) => "call z"
case a: Array[_] => "show error"
}
May be it helps a bit:
import reflect.runtime.universe._
object Tester {
def test[T: TypeTag](y: Array[T]) = y match {
case c: Array[_] if typeOf[T] <:< typeOf[AnyVal] => "hi"
case c: Array[_] => "oh"
}
}
scala> Tester.test(Array(1,2,3))
res0: String = hi
scala> Tester.test(Array(1.0,2.0,3.0))
res1: String = hi
scala> Tester.test(Array("a", "b", "c"))
res2: String = oh
You can obtain the class of array elements as follows (it will be null for non-array types): c.getClass.getComponentType. So you can write:
if (Set(classOf[Float], classOf[Double], classOf[BigDecimal]).contains(c.getClass.getComponentType)) {
// call z
} else {
// show error
}
Not particularly Scala'ish, though; I think #thoredge's answer is the best for that.
You could also check whether the Array is empty first and then if not, just pattern match on Array.head...something like:
def x(y: Array[_]) = {
y.isEmpty match {
case true => "error"
case false => y.head match {
case a:Double | a:BigInt => do whatever
case _ => "error"
}
}
}
I have a function that as a parameter takes an object and if it is of the correct type I need to access the last element in an Option[List[Int]]. I have a working solution but it seems clumsy. In the case that there are not any items in obj.listOfThings I will need to have i have the value 0. Is there a better way to achieve this?
val i = foo match {
case obj: Bar =>
obj.listOfInts match {
case Some(ints) =>
ints.last
case _ =>
0
}
case _ =>
0
}
Technically it could return an Option[Int]. I'm still pretty new to Scala and would like to learn better approaches to this sort of problems.
In your case initially it seems that what Ende Neu suggested is the right way to go:
val i = foo match {
case obj: Bar =>
obj.listOfInts.map(_.last /* This throws an exception when the list is empty*/).getOrElse(0)
case _ =>
0
}
But if you look into it you'll see that you have a bug in your code, in the case that that obj.listOfInts is Some(Nil), because in that case you get a NoSuchElementException for trying to call last on an empty List.
Try this code with foo = Bar(Some(Nil)) and see for yourself.
When you use Option[List] think very carefully if this is what you want.
Usually after some thinking you will scrap the Option and just stay with a List because the Option serves no purpose.
I worked with many developers who misuse Option[List] because of not understanding the similarities between Nil and None and usually the 'None' case ends up playing the same role as Some(Nil)
So you end up having to do this:
optionalList match {
case None => // do something
case Some(list) =>
list match {
case Nil => // do the same thing
case head::tail => // do other stuff
}
}
As you can see the None case and the Some(Nil) case are basically the same.
To fix your bug you should do:
case class Bar(listOfInts: Option[List[Int]])
val i = foo match {
case Bar(Some(list)) if list != Nil => list.last
case _ => 0
}
You probably want to use flatMap and lastOption here:
obj.listOfInts.flatMap(_.lastOption)
In case listOfInts is None, or it is Some(Nil), this will return None. Otherwise it will return the last element. If you want to return 0 instead of None, just use getOrElse:
obj.listOfInts.flatMap(_.lastOption).getOrElse(0)
If you wanted to use a match, you could do:
obj.listOfInts match {
case Some(list#(hd::tl)) => list.last
case _ => 0
}
Here, the hd::tl guarantees that list is not empty. Another option is use a conditional match:
obj.listOfInts match {
case Some(list) if list.nonEmpty => list.last
case _ => 0
}
Or to match the None and Some(Nil) cases first:
obj.listOfInts match {
case None | Some(Nil) => 0
case Some(list) => list.last
}
As suggested in the comments, I think the best way to go is:
val i = foo match {
case obj: Bar => obj.listOfInts.map(_.last).getOrElse(0)
case _ => 0
}
More concise way including the instanceof:
scala> case class B(is: Option[List[Int]])
defined class B
scala> def f(x: Any) = Option(x) collect { case b: B => b.is flatMap (_.lastOption) } flatten
f: (x: Any)Option[Int]
scala> f(B(Option(5 to 7 toList)))
res0: Option[Int] = Some(7)
or
scala> import PartialFunction.{ condOpt => when }
import PartialFunction.{condOpt=>when}
scala> def g(x: Any) = when(x) { case b: B => b.is flatMap (_.lastOption) } flatten
g: (x: Any)Option[Int]
scala> g(B(Option(5 to 7 toList)))
res1: Option[Int] = Some(7)
It's probably worth asking why you lost static type info, that you need to pattern match.
If you have a pattern matching (case) in Scala, for example:
foo match {
case a: String => doSomething(a)
case f: Float => doSomethingElse(f)
case _ => ? // How does one determine what this was?
}
Is there a way to determine what type was actually caught in the catch-all?
case x => println(x.getClass)
Too easy :-)
Basically, you just need to bind the value in your catch-all statement to a name (x in this case), then you can use the standard getClass method to determine the type.
If you're trying to perform specific logic based on the type, you're probably doing it wrong. You could compose your match statements as partial functions if you need some 'default' cases that you don't want to define inline there. For instance:
scala> val defaultHandler: PartialFunction[Any, Unit] = {
| case x: String => println("String: " + x)
| }
defaultHandler: PartialFunction[Any,Unit] = <function1>
scala> val customHandler: PartialFunction[Any, Unit] = {
| case x: Int => println("Int: " + x)
| }
customHandler: PartialFunction[Any,Unit] = <function1>
scala> (customHandler orElse defaultHandler)("hey there")
String: hey there
foo match {
case a: String => doSomething(a)
case f: Float => doSomethingElse(f)
case x => println(x.getClass)
}