In the following example:
def maybeTwice2(b: Boolean, i: => Int) = {
lazy val j = i
if (b) j+j else 0
}
Why is hi not printed twice when I call it like:
maybeTwice2(true, { println("hi"); 1+41 })
This example is actually from the book "Functional Programming in Scala" and the reason given as why "hi" not getting printed twice is not convincing enough for me. So just thought of asking this here!
So i is a function that gives an integer right? When you call the method you pass b as true and the if statement's first branch is executed.
What happens is that j is set to i and the first time it is later used in a computation it executes the function, printing "hi" and caching the resulting value 1 + 41 = 42. The second time it is used the resulting value is already computed and hence the function returns 84, without needing to compute the function twice because of the lazy val j.
This SO answer explores how a lazy val is internally implemented. In j + j, j is a lazy val, which amounts to a function which executes the code you provide for the definition of the lazy val, returns an integer and caches it for further calls. So it prints hi and returns 1+41 = 42. Then the second j gets evaluated, and calls the same function. Except this time, instead of running your code, it fetches the value (42) from the cache. The two integers are then added (returning 84).
Related
I have a function called collatz and I need to find how many times it calls itself, but I'm not allowed to use any vars.
The function works perfectly with vars but i have to use vals.
In case sinanspd's answer does not answer your question, here is some example code.
Let us say your function collatz has a signature as follows:
def collatz(input: Type1): Type2 = ???
The way to count how many times it is called is to either modify collatz itself, or else to use some wrapper function.
def counter(oldCount: Int, fun: Type1 => Type2, input: Type1): (Int, Type2) = {
val output = fun(input)
(oldCount + 1, output)
}
The first time you call counter, call it with oldCount set to 0. Every time you call counter, pass in the old version of count. The first value of your output tuple will be the new count.
I am trying to build a list in scala that given input (length,and a function) the output would be a list from 0 up to that length-1.
for example:
listMaker(3,f) = List(0,1,2)
so far I have created a helper class that takes 2 int and returns a list in that range.
the listMaker function is as follows:
def listMaker[A](length:Int, f:Int =>A):List[A] = length match{
case 0 => List()
case _ => listMaker(length,f)
}
my f function just takes a variable x and returns that:
def f(x:Int)=x
the comment below makes sense, but it still gets me errors. I think the edited code is an easier way to get where I would like to
However, now I get an infinite loop. What part of the logic am I missing?
A recursive function typically has to gradually "bite off" pieces of the input data until there is nothing left - otherwise it can never terminate.
What this means in your particular case is that length must decrease on each recursive call until it reaches zero.
def listMaker[A](length:Int, f:Int =>A):List[A] = length match{
case 0 => List()
case _ => listMaker(length,f)
}
But you are not reducing length - you are passing it unchanged to the next recursive call, so, your function cannot terminate.
(There are other problems too - you need to build up your result list as you recurse, but your current code simply returns an empty list. I assume this is a learning exercise, so I'm not supplying working code...).
I have two questions. The first one: is code a pure expression?
lazy val code: Unit = {
// block of code
var s = "abc"
for (i <- 0 until 10) println(i)
s += s concat "def"
println(s)
}
And the second one: What does a pure expression mean? Is this a some code which does not return anything?
A pure expression is a computation that serves only to produce a resulting value - it has no side effects. In the case of your field code above, you make calls to print stuff to the console (println), which is considered a side effect, so it is not a pure expression. An example of a pure expression would be something like:
lazy val foo = 2 + 3
It does nothing apart from generate the final value for foo, and could safely be replaced by the result of the computation (5) without changing the outcome of the program in any way. If you made such a replacement in your code above:
lazy val code: Unit = ()
you would change the program - it no longer prints anything to the console.
Have a look here, for example, for more information about pure functions and pure expressions, and their significance in functional programming.
I have the following code, but I can't get it to work. As soon as I place a while loop inside the case, it's returning a unit, no matter what I change within the brackets.
case While(c, body) =>
while (true) {
eval(Num(1))
}
}
How can I make this while loop return a non-Unit type?
I tried adding brackets around my while condition, but still it doesn't do what it's supposed to.
Any pointers?
Update
A little more background information since I didn't really explain what the code should do, which seems to be handy if I want to receive some help;
I have defined a eval(exp : Exp). This will evaluate a function.
Exp is an abstract class. Extended by several classes like Plus, Minus (few more basic operations) and a IfThenElse(cond : Exp, then : Exp, else : Exp). Last but not least, there's the While(cond: Exp, body: Exp).
Example of how it should be used;
eval(Plus(Num(1),Num(4)) would result in NumValue(5). (Evaluation of Num(v : Value) results in NumValue(v). NumValue extends Value, which is another abstract class).
eval(While(Lt(Num(1),Var("n")), Plus(Num(1), Var("n"))))
Lt(a : Exp, b : Exp) returns NumValue(1) if a < b.
It's probably clear from the other answer that Scala while loops always return Unit. What's nice about Scala is that if it doesn't do what you want, you can always extend it.
Here is the definition of a while-like construct that returns the result of the last iteration (it will throw an exception if the loop is never entered):
def whiley[T](cond : =>Boolean)(body : =>T) : T = {
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def loop(previous : T) : T = if(cond) loop(body) else previous
if(cond) loop(body) else throw new Exception("Loop must be entered at least once.")
}
...and you can then use it as a while. (In fact, the #tailrec annotation will make it compile into the exact same thing as a while loop.)
var x = 10
val atExit = whiley(x > 0) {
val squared = x * x
println(x)
x -= 1
squared
}
println("The last time x was printed, its square was : " + atExit)
(Note that I'm not claiming the construct is useful.)
Which iteration would you expect this loop to return? If you want a Seq of the results of all iterations, use a for expression (also called for comprehension). If you want just the last one, create a var outside the loop, set its value on each iteration, and return that var after the loop. (Also look into other looping constructs that are implemented as functions on different types of collections, like foldLeft and foldRight, which have their own interesting behaviors as far as return value goes.) The Scala while loop returns Unit because there's no sensible one size fits all answer to this question.
(By the way, there's no way for the compiler to know this, but the loop you wrote will never return. If the compiler could theoretically be smart enough to figure out that while(true) never terminates, then the expected return type would be Nothing.)
The only purpose of a while loop is to execute a side-effect. Or put another way, it will always evaluate to Unit.
If you want something meaningful back, why don't you consider using an if-else-expression or a for-expression?
As everyone else and their mothers said, while loops do not return values in Scala. What no one seems to have mentioned is that there's a reason for that: performance.
Returning a value has an impact on performance, so the compiler would have to be smart about when you do need that return value, and when you don't. There are cases where that can be trivially done, but there are complex cases as well. The compiler would have to be smarter, which means it would be slower and more complex. The cost was deemed not worth the benefit.
Now, there are two looping constructs in Scala (all the others are based on these two): while loops and recursion. Scala can optimize tail recursion, and the result is often faster than while loops. Or, otherwise, you can use while loops and get the result back through side effects.
Found the following snippet on the Closure page on wikipedia
//# Return a list of all books with at least 'threshold' copies sold.
def bestSellingBooks(threshold: Int) = bookList.filter(book => book.sales >= threshold)
//# or
def bestSellingBooks(threshold: Int) = bookList.filter(_.sales >= threshold)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't a closure? It is a function literal, an anynomous function, a lambda function, but not a closure?
Well... if you want to be technical, this is a function literal which is translated at runtime into a closure, closing the open terms (binding them to a val/var in the scope of the function literal). Also, in the context of this function literal (_.sales >= threshold), threshold is a free variable, as the function literal itself doesn't give it any meaning. By itself, _.sales >= threshold is an open term At runtime, it is bound to the local variable of the function, each time the function is called.
Take this function for example, generating closures:
def makeIncrementer(inc: Int): (Int => Int) = (x: Int) => x + inc
At runtime, the following code produces 3 closures. It's also interesting to note that b and c are not the same closure (b == c gives false).
val a = makeIncrementer(10)
val b = makeIncrementer(20)
val c = makeIncrementer(20)
I still think the example given on wikipedia is a good one, albeit not quite covering the whole story. It's quite hard giving an example of actual closures by the strictest definition without actually a memory dump of a program running. It's the same with the class-object relation. You usually give an example of an object by defining a class Foo { ... and then instantiating it with val f = new Foo, saying that f is the object.
-- Flaviu Cipcigan
Notes:
Reference: Programming in Scala, Martin Odersky, Lex Spoon, Bill Venners
Code compiled with Scala version 2.7.5.final running on Java 1.6.0_14.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think you're right. Doesn't a closure require state (I guess free variables...)?
Or maybe the bookList is the free variable?
As far as I understand, this is a closure that contains a formal parameter, threshold and context variable, bookList, from the enclosing scope. So the return value(List[Any]) of the function may change while applying the filter predicate function. It is varying based on the elements of List(bookList) variable from the context.