I was playing with Scala 2.11's new macro features. I wanted to see if I could do the following rewrite:
forRange(0 to 10) { i => println(i) }
// into
val iter = (0 to 10).iterator
while (iter.hasNext) {
val i = iter.next
println(i)
}
I think I got fairly close with this macro:
def _forRange[A](c: BlackboxContext)(range: c.Expr[Range])(func: c.Expr[Int => A]): c.Expr[Unit] = {
import c.universe._
val tree = func.tree match {
case q"($i: $t) => $body" => q"""
val iter = ${range}.iterator
while (iter.hasNext) {
val $i = iter.next
$body
}
"""
case _ => q""
}
c.Expr(tree)
}
This produces the following output when called as forRange(0 to 10) { i => println(i) } (at least, it's what the show function gives me on the resultant tree):
{
val iter = scala.this.Predef.intWrapper(0).to(10).iterator;
while$1(){
if (iter.hasNext)
{
{
val i = iter.next;
scala.this.Predef.println(i)
};
while$1()
}
else
()
}
}
That looks like it should work, but there's a conflict between my manually defined val i and the i referenced in the spliced-in function body. I get the following error:
ReplGlobal.abort: symbol value i does not exist in$line38.$read$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw.
error: symbol value i does not exist in
scala.reflect.internal.FatalError: symbol value i does not exist in $line38.$read$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw$$iw.
And then a rather large stack trace, resulting in an "Abandoned crashed session" notification.
I can't tell if this is a problem with my logic (you simply can't splice in a function body that references a closed-over variable), or if it's a bug with the new implementation. The error reporting certainly could be better. It may be exacerbated by the fact that I'm running this on the Repl.
Is it possible to pull apart a function, separating the body from the closed-over terms, and rewrite it in order to splice the logic directly into a resulting tree?
When in doubt, resetAllAttrs:
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.BlackboxContext
def _forRange[A](c: BlackboxContext)(range: c.Expr[Range])(
func: c.Expr[Int => A]
): c.Expr[Unit] = {
import c.universe._
val tree = func.tree match {
case q"($i: $t) => $body" => q"""
val iter = ${range}.iterator
while (iter.hasNext) {
val $i = iter.next
${c.resetAllAttrs(body)} // The only line I've changed.
}
"""
case _ => q""
}
c.Expr(tree)
}
And then:
scala> def forRange[A](range: Range)(func: Int => A) = macro _forRange[A]
defined term macro forRange: [A](range: Range)(func: Int => A)Unit
scala> forRange(0 to 10) { i => println(i) }
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
In general, when you're grabbing a tree from one place and plopping it somewhere else, it's likely going to be necessary to use resetAllAttrs to get all the symbols right.
Oscar Boykin pointed out on Twitter that my previous answer no longer works, and it wasn't a very complete answer anyway—it addresses the problem pointed out by the OP on Scala 2.10, but it's not careful about hygiene—if you wrote iter => println(iter) you'd get a compile-time failure, for example.
A better implementation for 2.11 would use a Transformer to rewrite the tree after un-typechecking it:
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.blackbox.Context
def _forRange[A](c: Context)(r: c.Expr[Range])(f: c.Expr[Int => A]): c.Tree = {
import c.universe._
f.tree match {
case q"($i: $_) => $body" =>
val newName = TermName(c.freshName())
val transformer = new Transformer {
override def transform(tree: Tree): Tree = tree match {
case Ident(`i`) => Ident(newName)
case other => super.transform(other)
}
}
q"""
val iter = ${r.tree}.iterator
while (iter.hasNext) {
val $newName = iter.next
${ transformer.transform(c.untypecheck(body)) }
}
"""
}
}
def forRange[A](r: Range)(f: Int => A): Unit = macro _forRange[A]
Which works like this:
scala> forRange(0 to 10)((i: Int) => println(i))
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Now it doesn't matter what variable name we use in our function literal, since it'll just be replaced with a fresh variable anyway.
Related
My task is to print out type information in Java-like notation (using <, > for type arguments notation). In scala 2 I have this small method using scala.reflect.Manifest as a source for type symbol and it's parameters:
def typeOf[T](implicit manifest: Manifest[T]): String = {
def loop[T0](m: Manifest[T0]): String =
if (m.typeArguments.isEmpty) m.runtimeClass.getSimpleName
else {
val typeArguments = m.typeArguments.map(loop(_)).mkString(",")
raw"""${m.runtimeClass.getSimpleName}<$typeArguments>"""
}
loop(manifest)
}
Unfortunately in Scala 3 Manifests are not available. Is there a Scala 3 native way to rewrite this? I'm open to some inline macro stuff. What I have tried so far is
inline def typeOf[T]: String = ${typeOfImpl}
private def typeOfImpl[T: Type](using Quotes): Expr[String] =
import quotes.reflect.*
val tree = TypeTree.of[T]
tree.show
// ^^ call is parameterized with Printer but AFAIK there's no way
// to provide your own implementation for it. You can to chose
// from predefined ones. So how do I proceed from here?
I know that Scala types can't be all represented as Java types. I aim to cover only simple ones that the original method was able to cover. No wildcards or existentials, only fully resolved types like:
List[String] res: List<String>
List[Option[String]] res: List<Option<String>>
Map[String,Option[Int]] res: Map<String,Option<Int>>
I post this answer even though it's not a definitive solution and there's probably a better way but hopefully it can give you some ideas.
I think a good start is using TypeRepr:
val tpr: TypeRepr = TypeRepr.of[T]
val typeParams: List[TypeRepr] = tpr match {
case a: AppliedType => a.args
case _ => Nil
}
Then with a recursive method you should be able to work something out.
Copied from Inspired from https://github.com/gaeljw/typetrees/blob/main/src/main/scala/io/github/gaeljw/typetrees/TypeTreeTagMacros.scala#L12:
private def getTypeString[T](using Type[T], Quotes): Expr[String] = {
import quotes.reflect._
def getTypeStringRec(tpr: TypeRepr)(using Quotes): Expr[String] = {
tpr.asType match {
case '[t] => getTypeString[t]
}
}
val tpr: TypeRepr = TypeRepr.of[T]
val typeParams: List[TypeRepr] = tpr match {
case a: AppliedType => a.args
case _ => Nil
}
val selfTag: Expr[ClassTag[T]] = getClassTag[T]
val argsStrings: Expr[List[String]] =
Expr.ofList(typeParams.map(getTypeStringRec))
'{ /* Compute something using selfTag and argsStrings */ }
}
private def getClassTag[T](using Type[T], Quotes): Expr[ClassTag[T]] = {
import quotes.reflect._
Expr.summon[ClassTag[T]] match {
case Some(ct) =>
ct
case None =>
report.error(
s"Unable to find a ClassTag for type ${Type.show[T]}",
Position.ofMacroExpansion
)
throw new Exception("Error when applying macro")
}
}
The final working solution I came up with was:
def typeOfImpl[T: Type](using Quotes): Expr[String] = {
import quotes.reflect.*
TypeRepr.of[T] match {
case AppliedType(tpr, args) =>
val typeName = Expr(tpr.show)
val typeArguments = Expr.ofList(args.map {
_.asType match {
case '[t] => typeOfImpl[t]
}
})
'{
val tpeName = ${ typeName }
val typeArgs = ${ typeArguments }
typeArgs.mkString(tpeName + "<", ", ", ">")
}
case tpr: TypeRef => Expr(tpr.show)
case other =>
report.errorAndAbort(s"unsupported type: ${other.show}", Position.ofMacroExpansion)
}
}
I have an array of objects of type Either[A, B]. If I know for a particular element whether it is an A or a B, how do I call a method on it that only exists on one of the 2 types. For example:
import scala.util.Random
object EitherTest extends App {
def newObj(x: Int): Either[A,B] = {
if (x == 0)
Left(new A())
else
Right(new B())
}
val random = new Random()
val randomArray = (0 until 10).map(_ => random.nextInt(2))
val eitherArray = randomArray.map(newObj)
(0 until 10).foreach(x => randomArray(x) match {
case 0 => eitherArray(x).aMethod()
case 1 => eitherArray(x).bMethod()
case _ => println("Error!")
})
}
class A {
def aMethod() = println("A")
}
class B {
def bMethod() = println("B")
}
When I compile this code, the lines
case 0 => eitherArray(x).aMethod()
case 1 => eitherArray(x).bMethod()
both have the error "value aMethod is not a member of Either[A,B]". How can I solve this?
I don't know why fold doesn't get the respect it deserves. It can be so useful.
eitherArray.foreach(_.fold(_.aMethod(), _.bMethod()))
Well, you can do it if you exctract the logic to another method, and do some pattern matching over the value Either, then check if it is Right or Left, and that's it!
object HelloWorld {
import scala.util.Random
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val random = new Random()
val randomArray = (0 until 10).map(_ => random.nextInt(2))
val eitherArray = randomArray.map(EitherTest.newObj)
(0 until 10).foreach(x => randomArray(x) match {
case 0 => EitherTest.callmethod(eitherArray(x))
case 1 => EitherTest.callmethod(eitherArray(x))
case _ => println("Error!")
})
println("Hello, world!")
}
}
class EitherTest
object EitherTest {
def callmethod(ei : Either[A,B]) = {
ei match {
case Left(a) => a.aMethod()
case Right(b) => b.bMethod()
}
}
def newObj(x: Int): Either[A,B] = {
if (x == 0)
Left(new A())
else
Right(new B())
}
}
class A {
def aMethod() = println("A")
}
class B {
def bMethod() = println("B")
}
Will print for you, for one random example:
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
Hello, world!
Basically, the way you do with Either is projections: Either.left gives you the projection of the left type, and Either.right gives you that of the right.
The projections are somewhat similar to options, in that they can be empty (if your Either is a Right, then the left projection is empty and vice versa), and you can use the usual monadic transformations with them, like map, flatMap, foreach, getOrElse etc.
Your example, could look like this:
randomArray.foreach { either =>
either.left.foreach(_.aMethod)
either.right.foreach(_.bMethod)
}
You could also use pattern-matching instead, that's less general, but, perhaps looks a bit clearer in this case:
randomArray.foreach {
case Left(a) => a.aMethod
case Right(b) => b.bMethod
}
I am trying to write a proxy macro using scala macros. I want to be able to proxy a trait X and return instances of X that invoke a function for all methods of X.
Here is what I did so far. Say we want to proxy the trait TheTrait (which is defined below), we can run ProxyMacro.proxy passing a function that will be called for all invocations of the proxy methods.
trait TheTrait
{
def myMethod(x: String)(y: Int): String
}
val proxy = ProxyMacro.proxy[TheTrait] {
case ("myMethod", args) =>
"ok"
}
println(proxy.myMethod("hello")(5))
The implementation so far is this:
package macrotests
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.whitebox.Context
object ProxyMacro
{
type Implementor = (String, Any) => Any
def proxy[T](implementor: Implementor): T = macro impl[T]
def impl[T: c.WeakTypeTag](c: Context)(implementor: c.Expr[Implementor]): c.Expr[T] = {
import c.universe._
val tpe = weakTypeOf[T]
val decls = tpe.decls.map { decl =>
val termName = decl.name.toTermName
val method = decl.asMethod
val params = method.paramLists.map(_.map(s => internal.valDef(s)))
val paramVars = method.paramLists.flatMap(_.map { s =>
internal.captureVariable(s)
internal.referenceCapturedVariable(s)
})
q""" def $termName (...$params) = {
$implementor (${termName.toString}, List(..${paramVars}) ).asInstanceOf[${method.returnType}]
}"""
}
c.Expr[T] {
q"""
new $tpe {
..$decls
}
"""
}
}
}
But there is a problem. This doesn't compile due to List(..${paramVars}). This should just create a list with all the values of the method arguments.
But I get a compilation issue (not worth pasting it) on that line.
How can I convert the list of method arguments to their values?
showInfo is useful when you debug macro
def showInfo(s: String) =
c.info(c.enclosingPosition, s.split("\n").mkString("\n |---macro info---\n |", "\n |", ""), true)
change
val paramVars = method.paramLists.flatMap(_.map { s =>
internal.captureVariable(s)
internal.referenceCapturedVariable(s)
})(this result is List(x0$1, x1$1))
to
val paramVars = method.paramLists.flatMap(_.map { s =>
s.name
})(this result is List(x, y))
When programming in java, I always log input parameter and return value of a method, but in scala, the last line of a method is the return value. so I have to do something like:
def myFunc() = {
val rs = calcSomeResult()
logger.info("result is:" + rs)
rs
}
in order to make it easy, I write a utility:
class LogUtil(val f: (String) => Unit) {
def logWithValue[T](msg: String, value: T): T = { f(msg); value }
}
object LogUtil {
def withValue[T](f: String => Unit): ((String, T) => T) = new LogUtil(f).logWithValue _
}
Then I used it as:
val rs = calcSomeResult()
withValue(logger.info)("result is:" + rs, rs)
it will log the value and return it. it works for me,but seems wierd. as I am a old java programmer, but new to scala, I don't know whether there is a more idiomatic way to do this in scala.
thanks for your help, now I create a better util using Kestrel combinator metioned by romusz
object LogUtil {
def kestrel[A](x: A)(f: A => Unit): A = { f(x); x }
def logV[A](f: String => Unit)(s: String, x: A) = kestrel(x) { y => f(s + ": " + y)}
}
I add f parameter so that I can pass it a logger from slf4j, and the test case is:
class LogUtilSpec extends FlatSpec with ShouldMatchers {
val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass())
import LogUtil._
"LogUtil" should "print log info and keep the value, and the calc for value should only be called once" in {
def calcValue = { println("calcValue"); 100 } // to confirm it's called only once
val v = logV(logger.info)("result is", calcValue)
v should be === 100
}
}
What you're looking for is called Kestrel combinator (K combinator): Kxy = x. You can do all kinds of side-effect operations (not only logging) while returning the value passed to it. Read https://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-10-29/kestrel.markdown#readme
In Scala the simplest way to implement it is:
def kestrel[A](x: A)(f: A => Unit): A = { f(x); x }
Then you can define your printing/logging function as:
def logging[A](x: A) = kestrel(x)(println)
def logging[A](s: String, x: A) = kestrel(x){ y => println(s + ": " + y) }
And use it like:
logging(1 + 2) + logging(3 + 4)
your example function becomes a one-liner:
def myFunc() = logging("result is", calcSomeResult())
If you prefer OO notation you can use implicits as shown in other answers, but the problem with such approach is that you'll create a new object every time you want to log something, which may cause performance degradation if you do it often enough. But for completeness, it looks like this:
implicit def anyToLogging[A](a: A) = new {
def log = logging(a)
def log(msg: String) = logging(msg, a)
}
Use it like:
def myFunc() = calcSomeResult().log("result is")
You have the basic idea right--you just need to tidy it up a little bit to make it maximally convenient.
class GenericLogger[A](a: A) {
def log(logger: String => Unit)(str: A => String): A = { logger(str(a)); a }
}
implicit def anything_can_log[A](a: A) = new GenericLogger(a)
Now you can
scala> (47+92).log(println)("The answer is " + _)
The answer is 139
res0: Int = 139
This way you don't need to repeat yourself (e.g. no rs twice).
If you like a more generic approach better, you could define
implicit def idToSideEffect[A](a: A) = new {
def withSideEffect(fun: A => Unit): A = { fun(a); a }
def |!>(fun: A => Unit): A = withSideEffect(fun) // forward pipe-like
def tap(fun: A => Unit): A = withSideEffect(fun) // public demand & ruby standard
}
and use it like
calcSomeResult() |!> { rs => logger.info("result is:" + rs) }
calcSomeResult() tap println
Starting Scala 2.13, the chaining operation tap can be used to apply a side effect (in this case some logging) on any value while returning the original value:
def tap[U](f: (A) => U): A
For instance:
scala> val a = 42.tap(println)
42
a: Int = 42
or in our case:
import scala.util.chaining._
def myFunc() = calcSomeResult().tap(x => logger.info(s"result is: $x"))
Let's say you already have a base class for all you loggers:
abstract class Logger {
def info(msg:String):Unit
}
Then you could extend String with the ## logging method:
object ExpressionLog {
// default logger
implicit val logger = new Logger {
def info(s:String) {println(s)}
}
// adding ## method to all String objects
implicit def stringToLog (msg: String) (implicit logger: Logger) = new {
def ## [T] (exp: T) = {
logger.info(msg + " = " + exp)
exp
}
}
}
To use the logging you'd have to import members of ExpressionLog object and then you could easily log expressions using the following notation:
import ExpressionLog._
def sum (a:Int, b:Int) = "sum result" ## (a+b)
val c = sum("a" ## 1, "b" ##2)
Will print:
a = 1
b = 2
sum result = 3
This works because every time when you call a ## method on a String compiler realises that String doesn't have the method and silently converts it into an object with anonymous type that has the ## method defined (see stringToLog). As part of the conversion compiler picks the desired logger as an implicit parameter, this way you don't have to keep passing on the logger to the ## every time yet you retain full control over which logger needs to be used every time.
As far as precedence goes when ## method is used in infix notation it has the highest priority making it easier to reason about what will be logged.
So what if you wanted to use a different logger in one of your methods? This is very simple:
import ExpressionLog.{logger=>_,_} // import everything but default logger
// define specific local logger
// this can be as simple as: implicit val logger = new MyLogger
implicit val logger = new Logger {
var lineno = 1
def info(s:String) {
println("%03d".format(lineno) + ": " + s)
lineno+=1
}
}
// start logging
def sum (a:Int, b:Int) = a+b
val c = "sum result" ## sum("a" ## 1, "b" ##2)
Will output:
001: a = 1
002: b = 2
003: sum result = 3
Compiling all the answers, pros and cons, I came up with this (context is a Play application):
import play.api.LoggerLike
object LogUtils {
implicit class LogAny2[T](val value : T) extends AnyVal {
def ##(str : String)(implicit logger : LoggerLike) : T = {
logger.debug(str);
value
}
def ##(f : T => String)(implicit logger : LoggerLike) : T = {
logger.debug(f(value))
value
}
}
As you can see, LogAny is an AnyVal so there shouldn't be any overhead of new object creation.
You can use it like this:
scala> import utils.LogUtils._
scala> val a = 5
scala> val b = 7
scala> implicit val logger = play.api.Logger
scala> val c = a + b ## { c => s"result of $a + $b = $c" }
c: Int = 12
Or if you don't need a reference to the result, just use:
scala> val c = a + b ## "Finished this very complex calculation"
c: Int = 12
Any downsides to this implementation?
Edit:
I've made this available with some improvements in a gist here
When programming in java, I always log input parameter and return value of a method, but in scala, the last line of a method is the return value. so I have to do something like:
def myFunc() = {
val rs = calcSomeResult()
logger.info("result is:" + rs)
rs
}
in order to make it easy, I write a utility:
class LogUtil(val f: (String) => Unit) {
def logWithValue[T](msg: String, value: T): T = { f(msg); value }
}
object LogUtil {
def withValue[T](f: String => Unit): ((String, T) => T) = new LogUtil(f).logWithValue _
}
Then I used it as:
val rs = calcSomeResult()
withValue(logger.info)("result is:" + rs, rs)
it will log the value and return it. it works for me,but seems wierd. as I am a old java programmer, but new to scala, I don't know whether there is a more idiomatic way to do this in scala.
thanks for your help, now I create a better util using Kestrel combinator metioned by romusz
object LogUtil {
def kestrel[A](x: A)(f: A => Unit): A = { f(x); x }
def logV[A](f: String => Unit)(s: String, x: A) = kestrel(x) { y => f(s + ": " + y)}
}
I add f parameter so that I can pass it a logger from slf4j, and the test case is:
class LogUtilSpec extends FlatSpec with ShouldMatchers {
val logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass())
import LogUtil._
"LogUtil" should "print log info and keep the value, and the calc for value should only be called once" in {
def calcValue = { println("calcValue"); 100 } // to confirm it's called only once
val v = logV(logger.info)("result is", calcValue)
v should be === 100
}
}
What you're looking for is called Kestrel combinator (K combinator): Kxy = x. You can do all kinds of side-effect operations (not only logging) while returning the value passed to it. Read https://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-10-29/kestrel.markdown#readme
In Scala the simplest way to implement it is:
def kestrel[A](x: A)(f: A => Unit): A = { f(x); x }
Then you can define your printing/logging function as:
def logging[A](x: A) = kestrel(x)(println)
def logging[A](s: String, x: A) = kestrel(x){ y => println(s + ": " + y) }
And use it like:
logging(1 + 2) + logging(3 + 4)
your example function becomes a one-liner:
def myFunc() = logging("result is", calcSomeResult())
If you prefer OO notation you can use implicits as shown in other answers, but the problem with such approach is that you'll create a new object every time you want to log something, which may cause performance degradation if you do it often enough. But for completeness, it looks like this:
implicit def anyToLogging[A](a: A) = new {
def log = logging(a)
def log(msg: String) = logging(msg, a)
}
Use it like:
def myFunc() = calcSomeResult().log("result is")
You have the basic idea right--you just need to tidy it up a little bit to make it maximally convenient.
class GenericLogger[A](a: A) {
def log(logger: String => Unit)(str: A => String): A = { logger(str(a)); a }
}
implicit def anything_can_log[A](a: A) = new GenericLogger(a)
Now you can
scala> (47+92).log(println)("The answer is " + _)
The answer is 139
res0: Int = 139
This way you don't need to repeat yourself (e.g. no rs twice).
If you like a more generic approach better, you could define
implicit def idToSideEffect[A](a: A) = new {
def withSideEffect(fun: A => Unit): A = { fun(a); a }
def |!>(fun: A => Unit): A = withSideEffect(fun) // forward pipe-like
def tap(fun: A => Unit): A = withSideEffect(fun) // public demand & ruby standard
}
and use it like
calcSomeResult() |!> { rs => logger.info("result is:" + rs) }
calcSomeResult() tap println
Starting Scala 2.13, the chaining operation tap can be used to apply a side effect (in this case some logging) on any value while returning the original value:
def tap[U](f: (A) => U): A
For instance:
scala> val a = 42.tap(println)
42
a: Int = 42
or in our case:
import scala.util.chaining._
def myFunc() = calcSomeResult().tap(x => logger.info(s"result is: $x"))
Let's say you already have a base class for all you loggers:
abstract class Logger {
def info(msg:String):Unit
}
Then you could extend String with the ## logging method:
object ExpressionLog {
// default logger
implicit val logger = new Logger {
def info(s:String) {println(s)}
}
// adding ## method to all String objects
implicit def stringToLog (msg: String) (implicit logger: Logger) = new {
def ## [T] (exp: T) = {
logger.info(msg + " = " + exp)
exp
}
}
}
To use the logging you'd have to import members of ExpressionLog object and then you could easily log expressions using the following notation:
import ExpressionLog._
def sum (a:Int, b:Int) = "sum result" ## (a+b)
val c = sum("a" ## 1, "b" ##2)
Will print:
a = 1
b = 2
sum result = 3
This works because every time when you call a ## method on a String compiler realises that String doesn't have the method and silently converts it into an object with anonymous type that has the ## method defined (see stringToLog). As part of the conversion compiler picks the desired logger as an implicit parameter, this way you don't have to keep passing on the logger to the ## every time yet you retain full control over which logger needs to be used every time.
As far as precedence goes when ## method is used in infix notation it has the highest priority making it easier to reason about what will be logged.
So what if you wanted to use a different logger in one of your methods? This is very simple:
import ExpressionLog.{logger=>_,_} // import everything but default logger
// define specific local logger
// this can be as simple as: implicit val logger = new MyLogger
implicit val logger = new Logger {
var lineno = 1
def info(s:String) {
println("%03d".format(lineno) + ": " + s)
lineno+=1
}
}
// start logging
def sum (a:Int, b:Int) = a+b
val c = "sum result" ## sum("a" ## 1, "b" ##2)
Will output:
001: a = 1
002: b = 2
003: sum result = 3
Compiling all the answers, pros and cons, I came up with this (context is a Play application):
import play.api.LoggerLike
object LogUtils {
implicit class LogAny2[T](val value : T) extends AnyVal {
def ##(str : String)(implicit logger : LoggerLike) : T = {
logger.debug(str);
value
}
def ##(f : T => String)(implicit logger : LoggerLike) : T = {
logger.debug(f(value))
value
}
}
As you can see, LogAny is an AnyVal so there shouldn't be any overhead of new object creation.
You can use it like this:
scala> import utils.LogUtils._
scala> val a = 5
scala> val b = 7
scala> implicit val logger = play.api.Logger
scala> val c = a + b ## { c => s"result of $a + $b = $c" }
c: Int = 12
Or if you don't need a reference to the result, just use:
scala> val c = a + b ## "Finished this very complex calculation"
c: Int = 12
Any downsides to this implementation?
Edit:
I've made this available with some improvements in a gist here