This question already has an answer here:
Eta-expansion between methods and functions with overloaded methods in Scala
(1 answer)
Closed 7 years ago.
I can find a document specifying the Scala rule about coercion of functions passed to higher-order function (... the method decorator.layout is coerced automatically to a value of type Int => String).
If I defined the following.
object Foo {
def bar[T1, R](f: T1 => R): T1 => R = f
}
def fn1(s: String): Int = 1
Then in the REPL I can do:
scala> Foo.bar({ s: String => 1 })
res: String => Int = <function1>
scala> Foo.bar(fn1)
res: String => Int = <function1>
Everything is fine and clear up to there, but if I update Foo:
object Foo {
def bar[T1, R](f: T1 => R): T1 => R = f
// NEW
def bar[T1, T2, R](f: Function2[T1, T2, R]): Tuple2[T1, T2] => R = { case (c1, c2) => f(c1, c2) }
}
Then in the REPL:
scala> Foo.bar({ s: String => 1 })
res: String => Int = <function1>
scala> Foo.bar(fn1)
<console>:12: error: missing arguments for method fn1;
follow this method with `_' if you want to treat it as a partially applied function
Foo.bar(fn1)
Some this call bar(fn1) which was working with the first version of Foo need to be updated in the following way.
scala> Foo.bar(fn1 _)
res: String => Int = <function1>
That's fine but I would like to make sure which rules the Scala compiler follows about that, when the syntax higherFn(fn) can be used and when it cannot (and that syntax higherFn(fn _) is required).
I guess the polymorphism of the higher-order function has something to do with that...
Shortly saying, higherFn(fn1) can be used when compiler knows what type is expected from fn, like T1 => R in the first case. When overloading occurs compiler should choose appropriate method first, so the expected type is unknown at the time.
P.S. IMHO, compiler could be smarter here, but it seems to be more complex to implement/describe for now.
Related
I have a function in a context, (in a Maybe / Option) and I want to pass it a value and get back the return value, directly out of the context.
Let's take an example in Scala :
scala> Some((x:Int) => x * x)
res0: Some[Int => Int] = Some(<function1>)
Of course, I can do
res0.map(_(5))
to execute the function, but the result is wrapped in the context.
Ok, I could do :
res0.map(_(5)).getOrElse(...)
but I'm copy/pasting this everywhere in my code (I have a lot of functions wrapped in Option, or worst, in Either...).
I need a better form, something like :
res0.applyOrElse(5, ...)
Does this concept of 'applying a function in a concept to a value and immediatly returning the result out of the context' exists in FP with a specific name (I'm lost in all those Functor, Monad and Applicatives...) ?
You can use andThen to move the default from the place where you call the function to the place where you define it:
val foo: String => Option[Int] = s => Some(s.size)
val bar: String => Int = foo.andThen(_.getOrElse(100))
This only works for Function1, but if you want a more generic version, Scalaz provides functor instances for FunctionN:
import scalaz._, Scalaz._
val foo: (String, Int) => Option[Int] = (s, i) => Some(s.size + i)
val bar: (String, Int) => Int = foo.map(_.getOrElse(100))
This also works for Function1—just replace andThen above with map.
More generally, as I mention above, this looks a little like unliftId on Kleisli, which takes a wrapped function A => F[B] and collapses the F using a comonad instance for F. If you wanted something that worked generically for Option, Either[E, ?], etc., you could write something similar that would take a Optional instance for F and a default value.
You could write something like applyOrElse using Option.fold.
fold[B](ifEmpty: ⇒ B)(f: (A) ⇒ B): B
val squared = Some((x:Int) => x * x)
squared.fold {
// or else = ifEmpty
math.pow(5, 2).toInt
}{
// execute function
_(5)
}
Using Travis Browns recent answer on another question, I was able to puzzle together the following applyOrElse function. It depends on Shapeless and you need to pass the arguments as an HList so it might not be exactly what you want.
def applyOrElse[F, I <: HList, O](
optionFun: Option[F],
input: I,
orElse: => O
)(implicit
ftp: FnToProduct.Aux[F, I => O]
): O = optionFun.fold(orElse)(f => ftp(f)(input))
Which can be used as :
val squared = Some((x:Int) => x * x)
applyOrElse(squared, 2 :: HNil, 10)
// res0: Int = 4
applyOrElse(None, 2 :: HNil, 10)
// res1: Int = 10
val concat = Some((a: String, b: String) => s"$a $b")
applyOrElse(concat, "hello" :: "world" :: HNil, "not" + "executed")
// res2: String = hello world
The getOrElse is most logical way to do it. In regards to copy/pasting it all over the place - you might not be dividing your logic up on the best way. Generally, you want to defer resolving your Options (or Futures/etc) in your code until the point you need to have it unwrapped. In this case, it seems more sensible that your function takes in an an Int and returns an Int, and you map your option where you need the result of that function.
I'm trying to figure out the difference between def and var/val when declaring a function in Scala.
Say we have a function:
scala> def f(x: Int) = { x * 2 }
f: (x: Int)Int
And another function g:
scala> var g = (x:Int) => x*2
g: Int => Int = <function1>
Apparently they are the same in the following way:
scala> f(2)
res0: Int = 4
scala> g(2)
res1: Int = 4
However, I could do
g = f
g: Int => Int = <function1>
but not
scala> f = g
<console>:13: error: missing arguments for method f;
follow this method with `_' if you want to treat it as a partially applied function
val $ires6 = f
^
<console>:10: error: reassignment to val
f = g
^
Question 1: why does this happen? I'm guessing that def maps to val.
Question 2: if I use val instead of var in declare g, are they equivalent? If not, what is the difference then?
I then try:
scala> def three( timetwo:(Int) => Int ) = { timetwo(3) }
three: (timetwo: Int => Int)Int
scala> three(g)
res47: Int = 6
scala> three(f)
res48: Int = 6
Question 3: does it mean (x: Int)Int is the same as Int => Int = <function1>? If so, is there some situation that we should favor one over the other?
Things is getting wired with the _ (underscore),
scala> three(f _)
res49: Int = 6
scala> three(g _)
<console>:11: error: type mismatch;
found : () => Int => Int
required: Int => Int
three(g _)
^
Question 4: why does this happen? What's the usage of _(underline) in Scala?
why does this happen? I'm guessing that def maps to val.
def is a method (in JVM terms) so it doesn't make sense to assign it.
The parser is then confused and it ultimately tries to save the day by interpreting the assignment f = g as
val $ires6 = f
f = g
Both statements are illegal, so you get two errors:
you can't assign a method to a val without an explicit type annotation or a _ expansion - see below)
you can't reassign a val (in case you are wondering, $ires6 is a fresh val introduced by the REPL)
if I use val instead of var in declare g, are they equivalent? If not, what is the difference then?
The difference is that val cannot be reassigned (i.e. it's a constant reference), whereas var can (i.e. it's a mutable reference).
More on the subject here: What is the difference between a var and val definition in Scala?
does it mean (x: Int)Int is the same as Int => Int = ? If so, is there some situation that we should favor one over the other?
Methods and functions are not the same, although the compiler does its best to make you believe they are, through a transformation called eta-expansion. In some cases such transformation can be performed automatically, in some others you need to be explicit and trigger it with a trailing _.
In your specific example (passing a method where a function is expected) the expansion can been performed automatically.
You can read this Q/A for a more in-depth discussion about which style to prefer.
why does this happen? What's the usage of _(underline) in Scala?
The underscore (_) has many uses in scala, one of which is the one I mentioned before, i.e. triggering the eta expansion of a method into a function.
That's a special syntax for methods, so you simply can't apply it to a function, as it would make no sense.
That's why you can do f _ (which will turn the f method into a function), but you can't do g _ (since g it's already a function).
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/
Suppose I have a list of functions as so:
val funcList = List(func1: A => T, func2: B => T, func2: C => T)
(where func1, et al. are defined elsewhere)
I want to write a method that will take a value and match it to the right function based on exact type (match a: A with func1: A => T) or throw an exception if there is no matching function.
Is there a simple way to do this?
This is similar to what a PartialFunction does, but I am not able to change the list of functions in funcList to PartialFunctions. I am thinking I have to do some kind of implicit conversion of the functions to a special class that knows the types it can handle and is able to pattern match against it (basically promoting those functions to a specialized PartialFunction). However, I can't figure out how to identify the "domain" of each function.
Thank you.
You cannot identify the domain of each function, because they are erased at runtime. Look up erasure if you want more information, but the short of it is that the information you want does not exist.
There are ways around type erasure, and you'll find plenty discussions on Stack Overflow itself. Some of them come down to storing the type information somewhere as a value, so that you can match on that.
Another possible solution is to simply forsake the use of parameterized types (generics in Java parlance) for your own customized types. That is, doing something like:
abstract class F1 extends (A => T)
object F1 {
def apply(f: A => T): F1 = new F1 {
def apply(n: A): T = f(n)
}
}
And so on. Since F1 doesn't have type parameters, you can match on it, and you can create functions of this type easily. Say both A and T are Int, then you could do this, for example:
F1(_ * 2)
The usual answer to work around type erasure is to use the help of manifests. In your case, you can do the following:
abstract class TypedFunc[-A:Manifest,+R:Manifest] extends (A => R) {
val retType: Manifest[_] = manifest[R]
val argType: Manifest[_] = manifest[A]
}
object TypedFunc {
implicit def apply[A:Manifest, R:Manifest]( f: A => R ): TypedFunc[A, R] = {
f match {
case tf: TypedFunc[A, R] => tf
case _ => new TypedFunc[A, R] { final def apply( arg: A ): R = f( arg ) }
}
}
}
def applyFunc[A, R, T >: A : Manifest]( funcs: Traversable[TypedFunc[A,R]] )( arg: T ): R = {
funcs.find{ f => f.argType <:< manifest[T] } match {
case Some( f ) => f( arg.asInstanceOf[A] )
case _ => sys.error("Could not find function with argument matching type " + manifest[T])
}
}
val func1 = { s: String => s.length }
val func2 = { l: Long => l.toInt }
val func3 = { s: Symbol => s.name.length }
val funcList = List(func1: TypedFunc[String,Int], func2: TypedFunc[Long, Int], func3: TypedFunc[Symbol, Int])
Testing in the REPL:
scala> applyFunc( funcList )( 'hello )
res22: Int = 5
scala> applyFunc( funcList )( "azerty" )
res23: Int = 6
scala> applyFunc( funcList )( 123L )
res24: Int = 123
scala> applyFunc( funcList )( 123 )
java.lang.RuntimeException: Could not find function with argument matching type Int
at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:27)
at .applyFunc(<console>:27)
at .<init>(<console>:14)
...
I think you're misunderstanding how a List is typed. List takes a single type parameter, which is the type of all the elements of the list. When you write
val funcList = List(func1: A => T, func2: B => T, func2: C => T)
the compiler will infer a type like funcList : List[A with B with C => T].
This means that each function in funcList takes a parameter that is a member of all of A, B, and C.
Apart from this, you can't (directly) match on function types due to type erasure.
What you could instead do is match on a itself, and call the appropriate function for the type:
a match {
case x : A => func1(x)
case x : B => func2(x)
case x : C => func3(x)
case _ => throw new Exception
}
(Of course, A, B, and C must remain distinct after type-erasure.)
If you need it to be dynamic, you're basically using reflection. Unfortunately Scala's reflection facilities are in flux, with version 2.10 released a few weeks ago, so there's less documentation for the current way of doing it; see How do the new Scala TypeTags improve the (deprecated) Manifests?.
I'm starting to learn Scala and I've come across a snippet from the Programming in Scala textbook which I don't quite understand. Was hoping some one could help me?
This is from Listing 9.1 from Programming in Scala, 2nd Edition.
object FileMatcher {
private def filesHere = (new java.io.File(".")).listFiles
}
private def filesMatching(matcher: String => Boolean) =
for (file <- filesHere; if matcher(file.getName)) yield file
def filesEnding(query: String) =
filesMatching(_.endsWith(query)) // ???
def filesContaining(query: String) =
filesMatching(_.contains(query)) // ???
def filesRegex(query: String) =
filesMatching(_.matches(query)) // ???
I'm a little confused with the lines that have // ???. Does the use of the _ somehow create an anonymous function that is passed to filesMatching? Or does the _ have nothing to do with this, and instead the compiler sees that filesMatching requires a function and therefore doesn't execute _.endsWith(query) as an expression but instead makes the expression a function?
extended definition
Anonymous function are defined, in their more verbose and complete form, as
(a: A, b: B, ...) => function body //using a, b, ...
E.g.
(a: String, b: String) => a ++ b // concatenates 2 Strings
inferred types
if the context provides the needed information (as when a higher order function expects a specific signature for its function arguments), you can omit the parameters' types, as
(a, b, ...) => function body //using a, b, ...
E.g.
val l = List(1, 2, 3)
//you can omit the type because filter on List[Int] expects a (Int => Boolean)
l.filter(i => i < 3)
placeholder syntax
Finally you can use a shorter form still, if your parameters are used once each and in the same order that you declare them, by the function body, as
_ ++ _ // which is equivalent to (a, b) => a ++ b
Each _ is a placeholder for the function's arguments
E.g.
filesMatching's argument is a function of type String => Boolean so you can use
_.endsWith(query) // equivalent to (s: String) => s.endsWith(query)
_.contains(query) // equivalent to (s: String) => s.contains(query)
_.matches(query) // equivalent to (s: String) => s.matches(query)
The _ as used here is shorthand for a function argument. Thus filesMatching(_.endsWith(query)) is equivalent to filesMatching(f => f.endsWith(query)). As filesMatching has as argument a function of String => Boolean, the compiler can infer that f is expected to be a String here. So you are right that this expression is an anonymous function.
This kind of operation is best done by defining function types. I found an excellent demonstration here. Combined with this post, the demonstration should clarify best practices for passing functions as arguments