Is there a more elegant way of doing the following?
data match {
case e: SomeType => doSomethingWith(e)
case _ =>
}
Looking for something like:
data.ifInstanceOf[SomeType](doSomethingWith)
Do you want an expression or just perform a side-effect? If just a side-effect via "PimpMyLibrary" approach + refection:
import scala.reflect.ClassTag
implicit class AnyOps(data : Any) {
def ifInstanceOf[A : ClassTag](f: A => Unit) : Unit = {
val clzz = implicitly[ClassTag[A]].runtimeClass
if (clzz.isInstance(data)) f(data.asInstanceOf[A])
}
}
You can then try
"abc".ifInstanceOf[String](println)
"def".ifInstanceOf[Integer](println)
1.ifInstanceOf[Integer](println)
2.ifInstanceOf[String](println)
If you want an expression I think the best way to go is to add an additional type Parameter B and return Either[B, Anyref].
I think a collect might work for this. The method takes a partial function, and filters out elements that did not match any case statements:
Option(data) collect {
case element: SomeType => mappingFunction(element)
}
Of course, mappingFunction here could have side effects and return Unit, thereby mimicking a foreach.
If you want to make a new named method, you could make a new method on Any:
implicit class AnyOps(data: Any) {
def forMatch[A](pf: PartialFunction[Any, A]) = pf.lift(data)
}
For some reason, this didn't come up:
import PartialFunction._
condOpt("abc": Any) { case s: String => s.length } // = Some(3)
condOpt((): Any) { case s: String => s.length } // = None
I usually rename it or its sibling cond to when.
You can use asInstanceOf to get your goal:
Option(data)
.filter(_.isInstanceOf[SomeType])
.map(_.asInstanceOf[SomeType])
.map(doSomethingWith)
but I guess it's too verbose.
I think you'll find it difficult to find anything shorter or more precise than "good old"...
if (data.isInstanceOf[SomeType]) doSomething(data)
... unless your case is more complicated than you're showing
Related
I'm writing a simple interpreter in Scala.
This interpreter stores what is essentially a List[List[(Symbol, Value)]] environment:
case class Env(frames: List[Frame]) {
def lookup(s: LSymbol): Option[Value] = ??? // help
}
case class Frame(associations: List[(LSymbol, Value)]){
def find(s: LSymbol): Option[Value] = {
this.associations.collectFirst {case (s1, v) if s1 == s => v}
}
}
I'd essentially like to search each frame for a matching symbol in turn. Although it's simple enough to write a small tail recursive search function for this, it feels like something which could be done more efficiently and generally and with a collectFirst one-liner, like so:
def lookup(s: LSymbol): Option[Value] =
this.frames.collectFirst{
case frame if frame.find(s).nonEmpty => frame.find(s).get
}
However, this is redundantly doing work in the second frame.find(s). Is there a way to somehow do this lookup concisely in a non-wasteful way?
You can define a special purpose extractor to extract frame.find(s) value. This way you will also get rid of nonEmpty / get calls, because pattern matching already does that for you:
def lookup(s: LSymbol): Option[Value] = {
object FindS {
def unapply(frame: Frame): Option[Value] = frame.find(s)
}
this.frames.collectFirst {
case FindS(value) => value
}
}
If you do something like this often, you might even want to define a helper class to make extractor construction easier:
class Extractor[T, X](f: T => Option[X]) {
def unapply(arg: T): Option[X] = f(arg)
}
def lookup(s: LSymbol): Option[Value] = {
object FindS extends Extractor((frame: Frame) => frame.find(s))
this.frames.collectFirst {
case FindS(value) => value
}
}
Using a view should make the evaluation lazy and then you can use map and filter like this:
def lookup(s: LSymbol): Option[Value] =
this.frames.view.map(_.find(s)).filter(_.nonEmpty).head
This is a one-liner, but perhaps not as concise as you might like...
Is it possible to run multiple extractors in one match statement?
object CoolStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[SomeInfo] = ...
}
object NeatStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[OtherInfo] = ...
}
// is there some syntax similar to this?
thing match {
case t # CoolStuff(someInfo) # NeatStuff(otherInfo) => process(someInfo, otherInfo)
case _ => // neither Cool nor Neat
}
The intent here being that there are two extractors, and I don't have to do something like this:
object CoolNeatStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[(SomeInfo, OtherInfo)] = thing match {
case CoolStuff(someInfo) => thing match {
case NeatStuff(otherInfo) => Some(someInfo -> otherInfo)
case _ => None // Cool, but not Neat
case _ => None// neither Cool nor Neat
}
}
Can try
object ~ {
def unapply[T](that: T): Option[(T,T)] = Some(that -> that)
}
def too(t: Thing) = t match {
case CoolStuff(a) ~ NeatStuff(b) => ???
}
I've come up with a very similar solution, but I was a bit too slow, so I didn't post it as an answer. However, since #userunknown asks to explain how it works, I'll dump my similar code here anyway, and add a few comments. Maybe someone finds it a valuable addition to cchantep's minimalistic solution (it looks... calligraphic? for some reason, in a good sense).
So, here is my similar, aesthetically less pleasing proposal:
object && {
def unapply[A](a: A) = Some((a, a))
}
// added some definitions to make your question-code work
type Thing = String
type SomeInfo = String
type OtherInfo = String
object CoolStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[SomeInfo] = Some(thing.toLowerCase)
}
object NeatStuff {
def unapply(thing: Thing): Option[OtherInfo] = Some(thing.toUpperCase)
}
def process(a: SomeInfo, b: OtherInfo) = s"[$a, $b]"
val res = "helloworld" match {
case CoolStuff(someInfo) && NeatStuff(otherInfo) =>
process(someInfo, otherInfo)
case _ =>
}
println(res)
This prints
[helloworld, HELLOWORLD]
The idea is that identifiers (in particular, && and ~ in cchantep's code) can be used as infix operators in patterns. Therefore, the match-case
case CoolStuff(someInfo) && NeatStuff(otherInfo) =>
will be desugared into
case &&(CoolStuff(someInfo), NeatStuff(otherInfo)) =>
and then the unapply method method of && will be invoked which simply duplicates its input.
In my code, the duplication is achieved by a straightforward Some((a, a)). In cchantep's code, it is done with fewer parentheses: Some(t -> t). The arrow -> comes from ArrowAssoc, which in turn is provided as an implicit conversion in Predef. This is just a quick way to create pairs, usually used in maps:
Map("hello" -> 42, "world" -> 58)
Another remark: notice that && can be used multiple times:
case Foo(a) && Bar(b) && Baz(c) => ...
So... I don't know whether it's an answer or an extended comment to cchantep's answer, but maybe someone finds it useful.
For those who might miss the details on how this magic actually works, just want to expand the answer by #cchantep anf #Andrey Tyukin (comment section does not allow me to do that).
Running scalac with -Xprint:parser option will give something along those lines (scalac 2.11.12)
def too(t: String) = t match {
case $tilde(CoolStuff((a # _)), NeatStuff((b # _))) => $qmark$qmark$qmark
}
This basically shows you the initial steps compiler does while parsing source into AST.
Important Note here is that the rules why compiler makes this transformation are described in Infix Operation Patterns and Extractor Patterns. In particular, this allows you to use any object as long as it has unapply method, like for example CoolStuff(a) AndAlso NeatStuff(b). In previous answers && and ~ were picked up as also possible but not the only available valid identifiers.
If running scalac with option -Xprint:patmat which is a special phase for translating pattern matching one can see something similar to this
def too(t: String): Nothing = {
case <synthetic> val x1: String = t;
case9(){
<synthetic> val o13: Option[(String, String)] = main.this.~.unapply[String](x1);
if (o13.isEmpty.unary_!)
{
<synthetic> val p3: String = o13.get._1;
<synthetic> val p4: String = o13.get._2;
{
<synthetic> val o12: Option[String] = main.this.CoolStuff.unapply(p3);
if (o12.isEmpty.unary_!)
{
<synthetic> val o11: Option[String] = main.this.NeatStuff.unapply(p4);
if (o11.isEmpty.unary_!)
matchEnd8(scala.this.Predef.???)
Here ~.unapply will be called on input parameter t which will produce Some((t,t)). The tuple values will be extracted into variables p3 and p4. Then, CoolStuff.unapply(p3) will be called and if the result is not None NeatStuff.unapply(p4) will be called and also checked if it is not empty. If both are not empty then according to Variable Patterns a and b will be bound to returned results inside corresponding Some.
If I have a following method
def getMyList :\/[Throwable,List[\/[Throwable,Int]]] ={
....
}
how to flatten type of getMyList to \/[Throwable,List[Int]]
Just flatMap and sequenceU, it's all in scalaz:
def flatten(e: \/[Throwable,List[\/[Throwable,Int]]]): \/[Throwable,List[Int]] = {
e.flatMap(a => a.sequenceU)
}
If by flatten, you mean remove the left types from List[\/[Throwable,Int]], then you can map the outer disjunction, and collect the right types:
list.map(_.collect{ case \/-(x) => x})
I don't think that some higher order "flatten" exists for /. Looks like Validateion & ValidationNEL will be better choice for this problem. However here is "dirty" solution for /, it will return first fail. If you want to accumulate failures Validation is way to go
val getMyList: \/[Throwable,List[\/[Throwable,Int]]] =
//\/-(List(-\/(new RuntimeException("test")), \/-(1)))
\/-(List(\/-(2), \/-(1)))
val flatten = getMyList.fold(\/.left, _.foldLeft(\/.right[Throwable, List[Int]](List.empty[Int])) {
case (\/-(list), \/-(i)) => \/-(list :+ i)
case (\/-(list), -\/(err)) => -\/(err)
case (-\/(err), _) => -\/(err)
})
println(flatten)
We use the following method, where .sSuccess creates a \/[_, Seq[T]] and .sFail creates a \/[Throwable, _] with all of the throwables' error messages concatenated:
implicit class CondenseEither[T](seq: Seq[\/[Throwable,T]]) = {
def condenseSeq: \/[Throwable, Seq[T]] = {
val errs = seq.filter(_.isLeft).map(_.toEither)
if(errs.isEmpty) seq.map(_.toEither).map(_.right.get).sSuccess
else errs.map(_.left.get.getMessage).mkString(", ")).sFail
}
}
There's probably a way to do this without the toEithers
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! :)
Basically, I would like to be able to build a custom extractor without having to store it in a variable prior to using it.
This isn't a real example of how I would use it, it would more likely be used in the case of a regular expression or some other string pattern like construct, but hopefully it explains what I'm looking for:
def someExtractorBuilder(arg:Boolean) = new {
def unapply(s:String):Option[String] = if(arg) Some(s) else None
}
//I would like to be able to use something like this
val {someExtractorBuilder(true)}(result) = "test"
"test" match {case {someExtractorBuilder(true)}(result) => result }
//instead I would have to do this:
val customExtractor = someExtractorBuilder(true)
val customExtractor(result) = "test"
"test" match {case customExtractor(result) => result}
When just doing a single custom extractor it doesn't make much difference, but if you were building a large list of extractors for a case statement, it could make things more difficult to read by separating all of the extractors from their usage.
I expect that the answer is no you can't do this, but I thought I'd ask around first :D
Parameterising extractors would be cool, but we don't have the resources to implement them right now.
Nope.
8.1.7 Extractor Patterns
An extractor pattern x (p 1 , . . . ,
p n ) where n ≥ 0 is of the same
syntactic form as a constructor
pattern. However, instead of a case
class, the stable identifier x denotes
an object which has a member method
named unapply or unapplySeq that
matches the pattern.
One can customize extractors to certain extent using implicit parameters, like this:
object SomeExtractorBuilder {
def unapply(s: String)(implicit arg: Boolean): Option[String] = if (arg) Some(s) else None
}
implicit val arg: Boolean = true
"x" match {
case SomeExtractorBuilder(result) =>
result
}
Unfortunately this cannot be used when you want to use different variants in one match, as all case statements are in the same scope. Still, it can be useful sometimes.
Late but there is a scalac plugin in one of my lib providing syntax ~(extractorWith(param), bindings):
x match {
case ~(parametrizedExtractor(param)) =>
"no binding"
case ~(parametrizedExtractor(param), (a, b)) =>
s"extracted bindings: $a, $b"
}
https://github.com/cchantep/acolyte/blob/master/scalac-plugin/readme.md
Though what you are asking isn't directly possible,
it is possible to create an extractor returning a contaner that gets evaluated value in the if-part of the case evaluation. In the if part it is possible to provide parameters.
object DateExtractor {
def unapply(in: String): Option[DateExtractor] = Some(new DateExtractor(in));
}
class DateExtractor(input:String){
var value:LocalDate=null;
def apply():LocalDate = value;
def apply(format: String):Boolean={
val formater=DateTimeFormatter.ofPattern(format);
try{
val parsed=formater.parse(input, TemporalQueries.localDate());
value=parsed
true;
} catch {
case e:Throwable=>{
false
}
}
}
}
Usage:
object DateExtractorUsage{
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
"2009-12-31" match {
case DateExtractor(ext) if(ext("dd-MM-yyyy"))=>{
println("Found dd-MM-yyyy date:"+ext())
}
case DateExtractor(ext) if(ext("yyyy-MM-dd"))=>{
println("Found yyyy-MM-dd date:"+ext())
}
case _=>{
println("Unable to parse date")
}
}
}
}
This pattern preserves the PartialFunction nature of the piece of code. I find this useful since I am quite a fan of the collect/collectFirst methods, which take a partial function as a parameter and typically does not leave room for precreating a set of extractors.