Say I have the following list of type Any:
val list = List("foo", 1, "bar", 2)
I would now like to write a function that counts only the number of Ints in a list using a fold. In the case of the list above, the result should be "2".
I know counting the number of all elements using fold would look something like this:
def count(list: List[Any]): Int =
list.foldLeft(0)((sum,_) => sum + 1)
How can I tweak this to only count occurrences of Int?
Another version:
list.count(_.isInstanceOf[Int])
And, if you insist on the foldLeft version, here is one:
def count(list: List[Any]): Int =
list.foldLeft(0)((sum, x) => x match {
case _: Int => sum + 1
case _ => sum
})
Filtering list by Int and taking the size gives you what you want and is fairly straightforward.
scala> list.filter(_.isInstanceOf[Int]).size
res0: Int = 2
Related
Given 2 Lists and using the Filter method, i am required to write a function that will take these 2 lists, filter through them and then compare if the value in one index on one list matches the value in the same index on the other list
Example VVV
scala> val list1 = List(1,2,3,10)
scala> val list2 = List(3,2,1,10)
scala> val mn = matchedNumbers(list1, list2)
List(2,10)
The method is called "matchedNumbers"
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
The solution is almost the same as of #talex, only using collect:
def matchedNumbers(list1: List[Int], list2: List[Int]) =
list1.zip(list2).collect{case (x, y) if x == y => x}
You can use this
def matchedNumbers(list1: List[Int], list2: List[Int]) = {
list1.zip(list2).filter { case (x, y) => x == y }.map(_._1)
}
I need to perform comparison operation (like greater than or less than) on two columns which is list with n number of values (values are nothing but timestamp) and my result should also be in list.
How can I do this operation?
Input:
Date1 Date2
["2016-11-24 12:06:47"] ["2017-10-04 03:30:23"]
["null"] []
["2017-01-25 10:07:25","2018-01-25 10:07:25"] ["2017-09-15 03:30:16","2017-09-15 03:30:16"]
Output should be:
Result
["Less"]
["Not Okay"]
["Less","Great"]
I need to perform comparison operation
It seems you are looking for the .compareTo operator:
scala> "a".compareTo("b")
res: Int = -1
scala> "a".compareTo("a")
res: Int = 0
scala> "b".compareTo("a")
res: Int = 1
Using the first example mentioned:
val date1 = "2016-11-24 12:06:47"
val date2 = "2017-10-04 03:30:23"
scala> date1.compareTo(date2)
res: Int = -1
If we ignore for a moment the "Not Okay" case, we could implement the "Less" or "Great" cases with a function like:
def compareLexicographically(s1: String, s2: String): String = s1.compareTo(s2) match {
case -1 => "Less"
case _ => "Great"
}
Looking at your example, I am assuming the rows are tuples of list of Strings:
val rows: List[(List[String], List[String])] =
List((
List("2016-11-24 12:06:47"),
List("2017-10-04 03:30:23")
),
(
List("2017-01-25 10:07:25", "2018-01-25 10:07:25"),
List("2017-09-15 03:30:16", "2017-09-15 03:30:16")
))
I would first zip the elements from the columns to get List[(String, String)]
rows.flatMap(r => r._1.zip(r._2))
Then simple map with compareLexicographically:
scala> rows.flatMap(r => r._1.zip(r._2)).map((compareLexicographically _).tupled)
res: List[String] = List(Less, Great, Great)
I'd like to find the indices (coordinates) of the first element whose value is 4, in a nested Vector of Int, in a functional way.
val a = Vector(Vector(1,2,3), Vector(4,5), Vector(3,8,4))
a.map(_.zipWithIndex).zipWithIndex.collect{
case (col, i) =>
col.collectFirst {
case (num, index) if num == 4 =>
(i, index)
}
}.collectFirst {
case Some(x) ⇒ x
}
It returns:
Some((0, 1))
the coordinate of the first 4 occurrence.
This solution is quite simple, but it has a performance penalty, because the nested col.collect is performed for all the elements of the top Vector, when we are only interested in the 1st match.
One possible solution is to write a guard in the pattern matching. But I don't know how to write a guard based in a slow condition, and return something that has already been calculated in the guard.
Can it be done better?
Recursive maybe?
If you insist on using Vectors, something like this will work (for a non-indexed seq, you'd need a different approach):
#tailrec
findit(
what: Int,
lists: IndexedSeq[IndexedSeq[Int]],
i: Int = 0,
j: Int = 0
): Option[(Int, Int)] =
if(i >= lists.length) None
else if(j >= lists(i).length) findit(what, lists, i+1, 0)
else if(lists(i)(j) == what) Some((i,j))
else findit(what, lists, i, j+1)
A simple thing you can to without changing the algorithm is to use Scala streams to be able to exit as soon as you find the match. Streams are lazily evaluated as opposed to sequences.
Just make a change similar to this
a.map(_.zipWithIndex.toStream).zipWithIndex.toStream.collect{ ...
In terms of algorithmic changes, if you can somehow have your data sorted (even before you start to search) then you can use Binary search instead of looking at each element.
import scala.collection.Searching._
val dummy = 123
implicit val anOrdering = new Ordering[(Int, Int, Int)]{
override def compare(x: (Int, Int, Int), y: (Int, Int, Int)): Int = Integer.compare(x._1, y._1)
}
val seqOfIntsWithPosition = a.zipWithIndex.flatMap(vectorWithIndex => vectorWithIndex._1.zipWithIndex.map(intWithIndex => (intWithIndex._1, vectorWithIndex._2, intWithIndex._2)))
val sorted: IndexedSeq[(Int, Int, Int)] = seqOfIntsWithPosition.sortBy(_._1)
val element = sorted.search((4, dummy, dummy))
This code is not very pretty or readable, I just quickly wanted to show an example of how it could be done.
I know that you can do matching on lists in a way like
val list = List(1,2,3)
list match {
case head::tail => head
case _ => //whatever
}
so I started to wonder how this works. If I understand correctly, :: is just an operator, so what's to stop me from doing something like
4 match {
case x + 2 => x //I would expect x=2 here
}
If there is a way to create this kind of functionality, how is it done; if not, then why?
Pattern matching takes the input and decomposes it with an unapply function. So in your case, unapply(4) would have to return the two numbers that sum to 4. However, there are many pairs that sum to 4, so the function wouldn't know what to do.
What you need is for the 2 to be accessible to the unapply function somehow. A special case class that stores the 2 would work for this:
case class Sum(addto: Int) {
def unapply(i: Int) = Some(i - addto)
}
val Sum2 = Sum(2)
val Sum2(x) = 5 // x = 3
(It would be nice to be able to do something like val Sum(2)(y) = 5 for compactness, but Scala doesn't allow parameterized extractors; see here.)
[EDIT: This is a little silly, but you could actually do the following too:
val `2 +` = Sum(2)
val `2 +`(y) = 5 // y = 3
]
EDIT: The reason the head::tail thing works is that there is exactly one way to split the head from the tail of a list.
There's nothing inherently special about :: versus +: you could use + if you had a predetermined idea of how you wanted it to break a number. For example, if you wanted + to mean "split in half", then you could do something like:
object + {
def unapply(i: Int) = Some(i-i/2, i/2)
}
and use it like:
scala> val a + b = 4
a: Int = 2
b: Int = 2
scala> val c + d = 5
c: Int = 3
d: Int = 2
EDIT: Finally, this explains that, when pattern matching, A op B means the same thing as op(A,B), which makes the syntax look nice.
Matching with case head :: tail uses an infix operation pattern of the form p1 op p2 which gets translated to op(p1, p2) before doing the actual matching. (See API for ::)
The problem with + is the following:
While it is easy to add an
object + {
def unapply(value: Int): Option[(Int, Int)] = // ...
}
object which would do the matching, you may only supply one result per value. E.g.
object + {
def unapply(value: Int): Option[(Int, Int)] = value match {
case 0 => Some(0, 0)
case 4 => Some(3, 1)
case _ => None
}
Now this works:
0 match { case x + 0 => x } // returns 0
also this
4 match { case x + 1 => x } // returns 3
But this won’t and you cannot change it:
4 match { case x + 2 => x } // does not match
No problem for ::, though, because it is always defined what is head and what is tail of a list.
There are two ::s (pronounced "cons") in Scala. One is the operator on Lists and the other is a class, which represents a non empty list characterized by a head and a tail. So head :: tail is a constructor pattern, which has nothing to do with the operator.
As far as I understand, the Scala for-comprehension notation relies on the first generator to define how elements are to be combined. Namely, for (i <- list) yield i returns a list and for (i <- set) yield i returns a set.
I was wondering if there was a way to specify how elements are combined independently of the properties of the first generator. For instance, I would like to get "the set of all elements from a given list", or "the sum of all elements from a given set". The only way I have found is to first build a list or a set as prescribed by the for-comprehension notation, then apply a transformation function to it - building a useless data structure in the process.
What I have in mind is a general "algebraic" comprehension notation as it exists for instance in Ateji PX:
`+ { i | int i : set } // the sum of all elements from a given set
set() { i | int i : list } // the set of all elements from a given list
concat(",") { s | String s : list } // string concatenation with a separator symbol
Here the first element (`+, set(), concat(",")) is a so-called "monoid" that defines how elements are combined, independently of the structure of the first generator (there can be multiple generators and filters, I just tried to keep the examples concise).
Any idea about how to achieve a similar result in Scala while keeping a nice and concise notation ? As far as I understand, the for-comprehension notation is hard-wired in the compiler and cannot be upgraded.
Thanks for your feedback.
About the for comprehension
The for comprehension in scala is syntactic sugar for calls to flatMap, filter, map and foreach. In exactly the same way as calls to those methods, the type of the target collection leads to the type of the returned collection. That is:
list map f //is a List
vector map f // is a Vector
This property is one of the underlying design goals of the scala collections library and would be seen as desirable in most situations.
Answering the question
You do not need to construct any intermediate collection of course:
(list.view map (_.prop)).toSet //uses list.view
(list.iterator map (_.prop)).toSet //uses iterator
(for { l <- list.view} yield l.prop).toSet //uses view
(Set.empty[Prop] /: coll) { _ + _.prop } //uses foldLeft
Will all yield Sets without generating unnecessary collections. My personal preference is for the first. In terms of idiomatic scala collection manipulation, each "collection" comes with these methods:
//Conversions
toSeq
toSet
toArray
toList
toIndexedSeq
iterator
toStream
//Strings
mkString
//accumulation
sum
The last is used where the element type of a collection has an implicit Numeric instance in scope; such as:
Set(1, 2, 3, 4).sum //10
Set('a, 'b).sum //does not compile
Note that the String concatenation example in scala looks like:
list.mkString(",")
And in the scalaz FP library might look something like (which uses Monoid to sum Strings):
list.intercalate(",").asMA.sum
Your suggestions do not look anything like Scala; I'm not sure whether they are inspired by another language.
foldLeft? That's what you're describing.
The sum of all elements from a given set:
(0 /: Set(1,2,3))(_ + _)
the set of all elements from a given list
(Set[Int]() /: List(1,2,3,2,1))((acc,x) => acc + x)
String concatenation with a separator symbol:
("" /: List("a", "b"))(_ + _) // (edit - ok concat a bit more verbose:
("" /: List("a", "b"))((acc,x) => acc + (if (acc == "") "" else ",") + x)
You can also force the result type of the for comprehension by explicitly supplying the implicit CanBuildFrom parameter as scala.collection.breakout and specifying the result type.
Consider this REPL session:
scala> val list = List(1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3)
list: List[Int] = List(1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3)
scala> val res = for(i <- list) yield i
res: List[Int] = List(1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3)
scala> val res: Set[Int] = (for(i <- list) yield i)(collection.breakOut)
res: Set[Int] = Set(1, 2, 3)
It results in a type error when not specifying the CanBuildFrom explicitly:
scala> val res: Set[Int] = for(i <- list) yield i
<console>:8: error: type mismatch;
found : List[Int]
required: Set[Int]
val res: Set[Int] = for(i <- list) yield i
^
For a deeper understanding of this I suggest the following read:
http://www.scala-lang.org/docu/files/collections-api/collections-impl.html
If you want to use for comprehensions and still be able to combine your values in some result value you could do the following.
case class WithCollector[B, A](init: B)(p: (B, A) => B) {
var x: B = init
val collect = { (y: A) => { x = p(x, y) } }
def apply(pr: (A => Unit) => Unit) = {
pr(collect)
x
}
}
// Some examples
object Test {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
// It's still functional
val r1 = WithCollector[Int, Int](0)(_ + _) { collect =>
for (i <- 1 to 10; if i % 2 == 0; j <- 1 to 3) collect(i + j)
}
println(r1) // 120
import collection.mutable.Set
val r2 = WithCollector[Set[Int], Int](Set[Int]())(_ += _) { collect =>
for (i <- 1 to 10; if i % 2 == 0; j <- 1 to 3) collect(i + j)
}
println(r2) // Set(9, 10, 11, 6, 13, 4, 12, 3, 7, 8, 5)
}
}