I know programmers are supposed to wrap their code in an application object:
object Hello extends App {
println("Hello, World")
}
It is required in Eclipse, if I ever want to get any output. However, when I tried to write some code (very casually) in Emacs, I write like this:
class Pair[+T](val first: T, val second: T)
trait Friend[-T] {
def befriend(someone: T)
}
def makeFriendWith(s: Student, f: Friend[Student]) {
f.befriend(s)
}
It seems like there is no universal object or class that wraps over the function makeFriendWith. Is Scala like JavaScript, everything is attached to a global object? If not, what is this function attached to?
Also why can this work in console (I complied it with scala command and it worked) but does not work in Eclipse? What's the use of the Application object?
Scala doesn't have top-level defs, but your script can be run by either the REPL or the scala script runner.
The precise behavior of your script depends on which way you run it.
The REPL can run scripts line-by-line or whole hog. (Compare :paste and :paste -raw versus :load or -i init.script and the future option -I init.script.)
There is an issue about sensitive scripting. The script runner should realize if you're trying to run an App.
There is another effort to make scripting a compiler phase that is easily customized. Scroll to Scripter.scala for code comments about its current heuristics.
In short, your defs must be wrapped in a top-level entity, but exactly how that happens is context-dependent.
There was a recent effort to make an alternative baked-in wrapping scheme available for the REPL.
None of this is mandated by the language spec, any more than special rules pertaining to sbt build files are defined by the language.
You can define methods like this only in the console, which (behind the scenes) automatically wraps them in an anonymous class for you.
Outside of the console, there's no such luxury.
As a JVM language, Scala cannot truly create any top-level entities other than classes and interfaces.
It does, however, have the notion of a "package object" which creates the illusion of value entites (val, var and def) not enclosed in a class or trait.
See http://www.scala-lang.org/docu/files/packageobjects/packageobjects.html for information on package objects.
You can run code like this directly in Eclipse: use Scala worksheet. IntelliJ IDEA Scala plugin supports it as well.
Related
Is it possible to generate the with... type method with IntelliJ for Scala?
Example:
case class Person(name: String, age: Int)
I would like to find the tool to auto-generate the method of type:
def withName(name: String): Person = this.copy(name=name)
def withAge(age: Int): Person = this.copy(age=age)
is it possible?
Thank you.
There is no such thing out-of-the-box, but you can create a scala template of your own:
Select Settings/Preferences | Editor | Live Templates.
From options on the right, open the list of Scala templates.
Click + to add a new template.
You can see an example here
I you want to auto-generate these methods rather than writing them explicitly (even with an IntelliJ template), you can do that with an annotation macro that will run at compile-time.
In particular, you can check the scalameta project for informations about this. Note however that macros are an experimental feature that is likely to change in trivial ways when Scala 3 is released. In my opinion, you should think hard about whether writing withName(name) rather than copy(name=name) is worth the trouble of defining all these methods (whether its manually, through IntelliJ snippets, or using macros), and only go for macros if it will save you a lot of trouble down the line.
I have a package object defined in both main and the test code tree as shown below. When I execute the program with sbt run the one in the main code tree takes effect. Whereas when I run the test cases (sbt test) the package object defined in the test code tree takes effect. For eg
src/main/scala/com/example/package.scala
package object core {
val foo = "Hello World"
}
src/test/scala/com/example/package.scala
package object core {
val foo = "Goodbye World"
}
on sbt run the value of com.example.core.foo is Hello World. on sbt test the value of com.example.core.foo is Goodbye World
Is this just a quirk of SBT or is it a well defined scala/sbt trait?. I currently use this behaviour for dependency injection by defining my module bindings for production and test in their corresponding package objects. This is an advisable approach?
Scala looks for package objects in your current path, so it's a well defined behavior. Since your code in test and main resides in different places it finds different val foos.
The way you are using this mechanism is very similar to using implicits. General advice with implicits and implicit resolution is not to abuse it. I think in this case it's not the best way of providing dependencies.
You always have to consider what scope you are in - if you are using a class defined in main in test scope how do you use foo from main, and how do you use foo from test - whenever you need one or the other. You have to think already about how it will work and consider various scenarios. What if your test class is in a different package, which foo would you get, does it depend on where your tested class is declared?
Make dependency injection more explicit and don't spend mental cycles on it, or run a chance to get someone confused.
What is the difference between a scala script and scala application? Please provide an example
The book I am reading says that a script must always end in a result expression whereas the application ends in a definition. Unfortunately no clear example is shown.
Please help clarify this for me
I think that what the author means is that a regular scala file needs to define a class or an object in order to work/be useful, you can't use top-level expressions (because the entry-points to a compiled file are pre-defined). For example:
println("foo")
object Bar {
// Some code
}
The println statement is invalid in the top-level of a .scala file, because the only logical interpretation would be to run it at compile time, which doesn't really make sense.
Scala scripts in contrast can contain expressions on the top-level, because those are executed when the script is run, which makes sense again. If a Scala script file only contains definitions on the other hand, it would be useless as well, because the script wouldn't know what to do with the definitions. If you'd use the definitions in some way, however, that'd be okay again, e.g.:
object Foo {
def bar = "test"
}
println(Foo.bar)
The latter is valid as a scala script, because the last statement is an expression using the previous definition, but not a definition itself.
Comparison
Features of scripts:
Like applications, scripts get compiled before running. Actually, the compiler translates scripts to applications before compiling, as shown below.
No need to run the compiler yourself - scala does it for you when you run your script.
Feeling is very similar to script languages like bash, python, or ruby - you directly see the results of your edits, and get a very quick debug cycle.
You don't need to provide a main method, as the compiler will add one for you.
Scala scripts tend to be useful for smaller tasks that can be implemented in a single file.
Scala applications on the other hand, are much better suited when your projects start to grow more complex. They allow to split tasks into different files and namespaces, which is important for maintaining clarity.
Example
If you write the following script:
#!/usr/bin/env scala
println("foo")
Scala 2.11.1 compiler will pretend (source on github) you had written:
object Main {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit =
new AnyRef {
println("foo")
}
}
Well, I always thought this is a Scala script:
$ cat script
#!/usr/bin/scala
!#
println("Hello, World!")
Running with simple:
$ ./script
An application on the other hand has to be compiled to .class and executed explicitly using java runtime.
Is it possible to use Scala's import without specifying a main function in an object, and without using the package keyword in the source file with the code you wish to import?
Some explanation: In Python, I can define some functions in some file "Lib.py", write
from Lib import *
in some other file "Run.py" in the same directory, use the functions from Lib in Run, and then run Run with the command python Run.py. This workflow is ideal for small scripts that I might write in an hour.
In Scala, it appears that if I want to include functions from another file, I need to start wrapping things in superfluous objects. I would rather not do this.
Writing Python in Scala is unlikely to yield satisfactory results. Objects are not "superfluous" -- it's your program that is not written in an object oriented way.
First, methods must be inside objects. You can place them inside a package object, and they'll then be visible to anything else that is inside the package of the same name.
Second, if one considers solely objects and classes, then all package-less objects and classes whose class files are present in the classpath, or whose scala files are compiled together, will be visible to each other.
This is as minimal as I could get it:
[$]> cat foo.scala
object Foo {
def foo(): Boolean = {
return true
}
}
// vim: set ts=4 sw=4 et:
[$]> cat bar.scala
object Bar extends App {
import Foo._
println(foo)
}
// vim: set ts=4 sw=4 et:
[$]> fsc foo.scala bar.scala
[$]> export CLASSPATH=.:$CLASSPATH # Or else it can't find Bar.
[$]> scala Bar
true
When you just write simple scripts, use Scala's REPL. There, you can define functions and call them without having any enclosing object or package, and without a main method.
Objects/classes don't have to be in packages, though it's highly recommended. That said, you can also treat singleton objects like packages, i.e., as namespaces for standalone functions, and import their contents as if they were packages.
If you define your application as an object that extends App, then you don't have to define a main method. Just write your code in the body of the object, and the App trait (which extends thespecial DelayedInit trait) will provide a main method that will execute your code.
If just want to write a script, you can forgo the object altogether and just write code without any container, then pass your source file to the interpreter (REPL) in non-interactive mode.
I almost always have a Scala REPL session or two open, which makes it very easy to give Java or Scala classes a quick test. But if I change a class and recompile it, the REPL continues with the old one loaded. Is there a way to get it to reload the class, rather than having to restart the REPL?
Just to give a concrete example, suppose we have the file Test.scala:
object Test { def hello = "Hello World" }
We compile it and start the REPL:
~/pkg/scala-2.8.0.Beta1-prerelease$ bin/scala
Welcome to Scala version 2.8.0.Beta1-prerelease
(Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM, Java 1.6.0_16).
Type in expressions to have them evaluated.
Type :help for more information.
scala> Test.hello
res0: java.lang.String = Hello World
Then we change the source file to
object Test {
def hello = "Hello World"
def goodbye = "Goodbye, Cruel World"
}
but we can't use it:
scala> Test.goodbye
<console>:5: error: value goodbye is not a member of object Test
Test.goodbye
^
scala> import Test;
<console>:1: error: '.' expected but ';' found.
import Test;
There is an alternative to reloading the class if the goal is to not have to repeat previous commands. The REPL has the command
:replay
which restarts the REPL environment and plays back all previous valid commands. (The invalid ones are skipped, so if it was wrong before, it won't suddenly work.) When the REPL is reset, it does reload classes, so new commands can use the contents of recompiled classes (in fact, the old commands will also use those recompiled classes).
This is not a general solution, but is a useful shortcut to extend an individual session with re-computable state.
Note: this applies to the bare Scala REPL. If you run it from SBT or some other environment, it may or may not work depending on how SBT or the other environment packages up classes--if you don't update what is on the actual classpath being used, of course it won't work!
Class reloading is not an easy problem. In fact, it's something that the JVM makes very difficult. You do have a couple options though:
Start the Scala REPL in debug mode. The JVM debugger has some built-in reloading which works on the method level. It won't help you with the case you gave, but it would handle something simple like changing a method implementation.
Use JRebel (http://www.zeroturnaround.com/jrebel). JRebel is basically a super-charged class reloading solution for the
JVM. It can handle
member addition/removal, new/removed classes, definition changes, etc. Just about the only thing it can't handle is changes in class hierarchy (adding a super-interface, for
example). It's not a free tool, but they do offer a complementary license which is limited to Scala compilation units.
Unfortunately, both of these are limited by the Scala REPL's implementation details. I use JRebel, and it usually does the trick, but there are still cases where the REPL will not reflect the reloaded class(es). Still, it's better than nothing.
There is an command meet you requirement
:load path/to/file.scala
which will reload the scala source file and recompiled to classes , then you can replay you code
This works for me....
If your new source file Test.scala looks something like this...
package com.tests
object Test {
def hello = "Hello World"
def goodbye = "Goodbye, Cruel World"
}
You first have to load the new changes into Scala console (REPL).
:load src/main/scala/com/tests/examples/Test.scala
Then re-import the package so you can reference the new code in Scala console.
import com.tests.Test
Now enjoy your new code without restarting your session :)
scala> Test.goodbye
res0: String = Goodbye, Cruel World
If the .scala file is in the directory where you start the REPL you can ommit the full path, just put :load myfile.scala, and then import.