Consider
val b = ParArray("a","b","c")
However, on pattern matching b for instance as follows,
b match {
case ParArray(_,"b",_) => 2
case _ => -1
}
<console>:11: error: object ParArray is not a case class,
nor does it have an unapply/unapplySeq member
case ParArray(_,"b",_) => 2
Thus how to pattern match ParArray ?
Thanks in Advance.
ParArray is a parallel structure. Its main usecase is to operate on the elements concurrently (see docs). That's done (roughly speaking) by concurrently applying operations on arbitratry segments of the ParArray.
For the sake of a counter example, imagine that you could unapply on ParArray. How would the match look like:
Given val b = ParArray("a","b","c","d")
b match {
case ParArray(_,"b",_) => 2
case _ => -1
}
Could be arbitrarily converted into:
//Parallel split & join:
"a","b" match {
case ParArray(_,"b",_) => 2
case _ => -1
}
"c","d" match {
case ParArray(_,"b",_) => 2
case _ => -1
}
Which of course, doesn't make sense.
For the specific case on your question, you could use direct addressing:
if (b.size == 3 && b(1)=="b") 2 else -1
In a more generic sense, a good way of reasoning is thinking of how your operation could be applied to all elements at the same time.
If you need to match on structure, you could obtain an array with the parArray.toArray method. You should also question why is a ParArray being used.
Related
I want to compute something if exactly one of two options is non-empty. Obviously this could be done by a pattern match, but is there some better way?
(o1, o2) match {
case (Some(o), None) => Some(compute(o))
case (None, Some(o)) => Some(compute(o))
case _ => None
}
You could do something like this:
if (o1.isEmpty ^ o2.isEmpty)
List(o1,o2).flatMap(_.map(x=>Some(compute(x)))).head
else
None
But pattern matching is probably the better way to go.
Thanks to helpful comments from #Suma, I came up with another solutions in addition to the current ones:
Since the inputs are always in the form of Option(x):
Iterator(Seq(o1,o2).filter(_!=None))
.takeWhile(_.length==1)
.map( x => compute(x.head.get))
.toSeq.headOption
Using iterator also allows for a sequence of values to be passed to the input. The final mapping will be done if and only if one value in the sequence is defined.
Inspired by now deleted answer of pedrofurla, which was attempting to use o1 orElse o2 map { compute }, one possibility is to define xorElse, the rest is easy with it:
implicit class XorElse[T](o1: Option[T]) {
def xorElse[A >: T](o2: Option[A]): Option[A] = {
if (o1.isDefined != o2.isDefined) o1 orElse o2
else None
}
}
(o1 xorElse o2).map(compute)
Another possibility I have found is using a pattern match, but using Seq concatenation so that both cases are handled with the same code. The advantage of this approach is it can be extended to any number of options, it will always evaluate when there is exactly one:
o1.toSeq ++ o2 match {
case Seq(one) => Some(compute(one))
case _ => None
}
Just initialize a sequence and then flatten
Seq(o1, o2).flatten match {
case Seq(o) => Some(compute(o))
case _ => None
}
When compare two numbers, we can use if-else or pattern matching:
If-else
if (guess < secretNum) println("Too small!\n")
else if (guess > secretNum) println("Too big!\n")
else {
println("You win!\n")
continueLooping = false
}
Pattern matching
guess match {
case x if x < secretNum => println("Too small!\n")
case x if x > secretNum => println("Too big!\n")
case _ => {
println("You win!\n")
continueLooping = false
}
}
Are there any clearer way to write this? and which is encouraged?
Edit
Here is the Rust way:
match guess.cmp(&secret_number) {
Ordering::Less => println!("Too small!"),
Ordering::Greater => println!("Too big!"),
Ordering::Equal => { println!("You win!"); break;
}
If you have access to the Scalaz library you can match Rust for style and clarity:
import scalaz._
import Scalaz._
guess ?|? secretNum
match {
case Ordering.LT => println("Too small!")
case Ordering.GT => println("Too big!")
case Ordering.EQ => println("You win!")
}
In terms of preference, it depends. If performance is critical then the if-else beats the pattern matching idiom. If readability is paramount, then pattern matching with the facilities Scalaz provides leads to more readable code in my opinion; It avoids the use of equational guards as you did in your example.
The if-else way. The pattern matching seems weird since you're not actually trying to match any patterns, so you end up just having more syntactic noise.
Consider method signum available in Double, Float, Long and Int classes, which maps the sign of the numerical value onto -1 (for negative), 0 (for zero) or 1 (for positive),
(gess - secretNum).signum match {
case -1 => "Too small"
case 1 => "Too big"
case _ => "You win"
}
I have several conditions that I want to stack in a scala match statement. In another language I could just omit the 'break' between the cases of a switch statement.
I know I can combine raw alternatives separated by a pipe character, but can't seem to find how to combine guarded cases, e.g.:
val isAdmin = true
myval match {
case 1 if isAdmin => ...
case 2 if isAdmin => ...
case 1 | 2 => // this is fine but doesn't apply the guard, so no use
case 1 | 2 if isAdmin => // doesn't apply the guard to '1'
case 1 if isAdmin | 2 if isAdmin => // invalid syntax
}
Is it possible to combine the first two cases somehow?
The guard statement applies to everything, for good or for ill. This means that your example
case 1 | 2 if isAdmin => ...
actually does what you want and what you say it does not, but it also means that
Option("Hi") match {
case Some(x) | None if x == "Hi" => 1
case _ => 0
}
does not work. (In fact, it doesn't even compile.)
Fortunately, Scala lets you drop a def in practically anywhere.
def caseNice = 1
Option("Hi") match {
case Some(x) if x.length < 3 => caseNice
case None => caseNice
case _ => 0
}
which is how you should deal with common functionality that is difficult invoke from a single case statement.
I have a configuration value that matches to one of the values in a map and depending on to which it matches i take an action. Here is some sample code of what i am trying to do
val x = 1 // or 2 or 3
val config = Map("c1"-> 1, "c2"-> 2, "c3"-> 3)
x match {
case config("c1") =>
println("1")
case config("c2") =>
println("2")
case config("c3") =>
println("3")
}
Now this should print 1 because config("c1") evaluates to 1 but it gives error
error: value config is not a case class, nor does it have an unapply/unapplySeq member
case config("c1") =>
Similarly for the other 2 cases. Why should i have an unapply here? Any pointers?
An expression like that looks like an extractor, hence the message about unapply/unapplySeq methods. If you don't want to use an extractor but just want to match against a plain value, you need to store that value in a stable identifier - you can't use an arbitrary expression as a match case:
val case1 = config("c1")
x match {
case case1 => println("1")
...
}
To the best of my knowledge, in Scala, x match {case config("c1") gets translated to config.unapply(x) with the branching dependent on the result of the unapply method. As Imm already mentioned in his answer, this isn't the case for stable identifiers (literals and val), and I'd encourage you to use his solution.
Nevertheless, to show you how you could solve the problem using extractors, I'd like to post a different solution:
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
object config {
val configData = Map("c1" -> 1, "c2" -> 2, "c3" -> 3)
def unapply(value: Int): Option[String] = configData find (_._2 == value) map (_._1)
}
1 to 4 foreach {
case config("c1") => println("1")
case config("c2") => println("2")
case config("c3") => println("3")
case _ => println("no match")
}
}
I changed the match for a foreach to show the different results, but this has no effect on the implementation. This would print:
1
2
3
no match
As you can see, case config("c1") now calls the unapply method and checks whether the result is Some("c1"). Note that this is inverse to how you'd use a map: The key is searched according to the value. However, this makes sense: If in the map, "c1" and "c2" both map to 1, then 1 matches both, the same way _ matches everything, in our case even 4 which is not configured.
Here's also a very brief tutorial on extractors. I don't find it particularly good, because both, the returned type and the argument type are Int, but it might help you understand what's going on.
As others have stated, with x match { case config("c1") => ..., scala looks for an extractor by the name of config (something with an unapply method that takes a single value and returns an Optional value); Making pattern matching work this way seems like an abuse of the pattern, and I would not use an extractor for this.
Personally, I would recommend one of the following:
if (x == config("c1"))
println("1")
else if (x == config("c2"))
println("2")
else ...
Or, if you're set on using a match statement, you can use conditionals like this:
x match {
case _ if x == config("c1") =>
println("1")
case _ if x == config("c2") =>
println("2")
case _ if x == config("c3") =>
println("3")
}
Not as clean; unfortunately, there isn't a way to invoke a method call literally where the extractor goes. You can use back-ticks to tell scala "match against the value of this variable" (rather than default behavior, which would yield the value named as that variable):
val (c1,c2,c3) = (config("c1"), config("c2"), config("c3"))
x match {
case `c1` =>
println("1")
case `c2` =>
println("2")
case `c3` =>
println("3")
}
Finally, if your goal is to reverse-apply a map, maybe try this instead?
scala> Map("a" -> 1).map { case (k,v) => (v,k) }
res0: scala.collection.immutable.Map[Int,String] = Map(1 -> a)
I found myself writing something like this quite often:
a match {
case `b` => // do stuff
case _ => // do nothing
}
Is there a shorter way to check if some value matches a pattern? I mean, in this case I could just write if (a == b) // do stuff, but what if the pattern is more complex? Like when matching against a list or any pattern of arbitrary complexity. I'd like to be able to write something like this:
if (a matches b) // do stuff
I'm relatively new to Scala, so please pardon, if I'm missing something big :)
This is exactly why I wrote these functions, which are apparently impressively obscure since nobody has mentioned them.
scala> import PartialFunction._
import PartialFunction._
scala> cond("abc") { case "def" => true }
res0: Boolean = false
scala> condOpt("abc") { case x if x.length == 3 => x + x }
res1: Option[java.lang.String] = Some(abcabc)
scala> condOpt("abc") { case x if x.length == 4 => x + x }
res2: Option[java.lang.String] = None
The match operator in Scala is most powerful when used in functional style. This means, rather than "doing something" in the case statements, you would return a useful value. Here is an example for an imperative style:
var value:Int = 23
val command:String = ... // we get this from somewhere
command match {
case "duplicate" => value = value * 2
case "negate" => value = -value
case "increment" => value = value + 1
// etc.
case _ => // do nothing
}
println("Result: " + value)
It is very understandable that the "do nothing" above hurts a little, because it seems superflous. However, this is due to the fact that the above is written in imperative style. While constructs like these may sometimes be necessary, in many cases you can refactor your code to functional style:
val value:Int = 23
val command:String = ... // we get this from somewhere
val result:Int = command match {
case "duplicate" => value * 2
case "negate" => -value
case "increment" => value + 1
// etc.
case _ => value
}
println("Result: " + result)
In this case, you use the whole match statement as a value that you can, for example, assign to a variable. And it is also much more obvious that the match statement must return a value in any case; if the last case would be missing, the compiler could not just make something up.
It is a question of taste, but some developers consider this style to be more transparent and easier to handle in more real-world examples. I would bet that the inventors of the Scala programming language had a more functional use in mind for match, and indeed the if statement makes more sense if you only need to decide whether or not a certain action needs to be taken. (On the other hand, you can also use if in the functional way, because it also has a return value...)
This might help:
class Matches(m: Any) {
def matches[R](f: PartialFunction[Any, R]) { if (f.isDefinedAt(m)) f(m) }
}
implicit def any2matches(m: Any) = new Matches(m)
scala> 'c' matches { case x: Int => println("Int") }
scala> 2 matches { case x: Int => println("Int") }
Int
Now, some explanation on the general nature of the problem.
Where may a match happen?
There are three places where pattern matching might happen: val, case and for. The rules for them are:
// throws an exception if it fails
val pattern = value
// filters for pattern, but pattern cannot be "identifier: Type",
// though that can be replaced by "id1 # (id2: Type)" for the same effect
for (pattern <- object providing map/flatMap/filter/withFilter/foreach) ...
// throws an exception if none of the cases match
value match { case ... => ... }
There is, however, another situation where case might appear, which is function and partial function literals. For example:
val f: Any => Unit = { case i: Int => println(i) }
val pf: PartialFunction[Any, Unit] = { case i: Int => println(i) }
Both functions and partial functions will throw an exception if called with an argument that doesn't match any of the case statements. However, partial functions also provide a method called isDefinedAt which can test whether a match can be made or not, as well as a method called lift, which will turn a PartialFunction[T, R] into a Function[T, Option[R]], which means non-matching values will result in None instead of throwing an exception.
What is a match?
A match is a combination of many different tests:
// assign anything to x
case x
// only accepts values of type X
case x: X
// only accepts values matches by pattern
case x # pattern
// only accepts a value equal to the value X (upper case here makes a difference)
case X
// only accepts a value equal to the value of x
case `x`
// only accept a tuple of the same arity
case (x, y, ..., z)
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns true of Some(Seq()) (some empty sequence)
case extractor()
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns Some something
case extractor(x)
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns Some Seq or Tuple of the same arity
case extractor(x, y, ..., z)
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns Some Tuple2 or Some Seq with arity 2
case x extractor y
// accepts if any of the patterns is accepted (patterns may not contain assignable identifiers)
case x | y | ... | z
Now, extractors are the methods unapply or unapplySeq, the first returning Boolean or Option[T], and the second returning Option[Seq[T]], where None means no match is made, and Some(result) will try to match result as described above.
So there are all kinds of syntactic alternatives here, which just aren't possible without the use of one of the three constructions where pattern matches may happen. You may able to emulate some of the features, like value equality and extractors, but not all of them.
Patterns can also be used in for expressions. Your code sample
a match {
case b => // do stuff
case _ => // do nothing
}
can then be expressed as
for(b <- Some(a)) //do stuff
The trick is to wrap a to make it a valid enumerator. E.g. List(a) would also work, but I think Some(a) is closest to your intended meaning.
The best I can come up with is this:
def matches[A](a:A)(f:PartialFunction[A, Unit]) = f.isDefinedAt(a)
if (matches(a){case ... =>}) {
//do stuff
}
This won't win you any style points though.
Kim's answer can be “improved” to better match your requirement:
class AnyWrapper[A](wrapped: A) {
def matches(f: PartialFunction[A, Unit]) = f.isDefinedAt(wrapped)
}
implicit def any2wrapper[A](wrapped: A) = new AnyWrapper(wrapped)
then:
val a = "a" :: Nil
if (a matches { case "a" :: Nil => }) {
println("match")
}
I wouldn't do it, however. The => }) { sequence is really ugly here, and the whole code looks much less clear than a normal match. Plus, you get the compile-time overhead of looking up the implicit conversion, and the run-time overhead of wrapping the match in a PartialFunction (not counting the conflicts you could get with other, already defined matches methods, like the one in String).
To look a little bit better (and be less verbose), you could add this def to AnyWrapper:
def ifMatch(f: PartialFunction[A, Unit]): Unit = if (f.isDefinedAt(wrapped)) f(wrapped)
and use it like this:
a ifMatch { case "a" :: Nil => println("match") }
which saves you your case _ => line, but requires double braces if you want a block instead of a single statement... Not so nice.
Note that this construct is not really in the spirit of functional programming, as it can only be used to execute something that has side effects. We can't easily use it to return a value (therefore the Unit return value), as the function is partial — we'd need a default value, or we could return an Option instance. But here again, we would probably unwrap it with a match, so we'd gain nothing.
Frankly, you're better off getting used to seeing and using those match frequently, and moving away from this kind of imperative-style constructs (following Madoc's nice explanation).