This question is not about the recommended practices for notation in method chaining, its about understanding this particular case.
I am learning Scala and Play for about 2 weeks now. I have prior one month learning experience in scala sometime in 2011.
I am having trouble understanding why this line is not working
List(1,2,3) map {x=>x*2}.filter((x:Int)=>x==2)
But this one is working
List(1,2,3).map{x=>x*2}.filter((x:Int)=>x==2)
One reason that I can think of is that the filter is being called upon the function value rather than the resulting collection.
Why is it still not working when Space and Dot notation are mixed? If I keep pure Space or Dot notation then it works otherwise not.
I would have not got confused if I only saw pure notation everywhere. I have seen mixed notation especially in the Play codebase. What am I missing?
It works as expected.
This line:
List(1,2,3) map {x=>x*2}.filter((x:Int)=>x==2)
means
List(1,2,3) map ( {x=>x*2}.filter((x:Int)=>x==2) )
It is definitely a error, but you could use it like this:
val f1 = (x: Int) => x * 2
val f2 = (x: Int) => x + 2
List(1,2,3) map f1.andThen(f2) // List(1,2,3).map( f1.andThen(f2) )
//List[Int] = List(4, 6, 8)
This code creates new function as composition of 2 functions: {(x: Int)=>x*2}.andThen((x:Int)=> x + 2) and then applies map method to it.
You could mix Space or Dot notations, but you should know that "priority" of dot is higher.
Related
Here is a minimal example, I can define a function that gives my the next integer via
def nextInteger(input: Int): Int = input+1
I can then define a lazy stream of integers as
lazy val integers: Stream[Int] = 1 #:: integers map(x=>nextInteger(x))
To my surprise, taking the first element of this stream is 2 and not 1
scala> integers
res21: Stream[Int] = Stream(2, ?)
In this simple example I can achieve my desired result using 0 instead of 1 in the definition of integers, but how can one in general set up a stream such that the initial value isn't lost? In my case I am setting up an iterative algorithm and will want to know the initial value.
EDIT:
Furthermore, I've never understood the design choice which makes the following syntax fail:
scala> (integers take 10 toList) last
res27: Int = 11
scala> integers take 10 toList last
<console>:24: error: not found: value last
integers take 10 toList last
^
I find wrapping things in brackets cumbersome, is there a shorthand I am not aware of?
You're probably thinking that 1 #:: integers map(x=>nextInteger(x)) is parsed as 1 #:: (integers map(x=>nextInteger(x))) while it is actually parsed as (1 #:: integers).map(x=>nextInteger(x)). Adding parens fixes your problem:
val integers: Stream[Int] = 1 #:: (integers map nextInteger)
(Notice that since nextInteger is just a function, you don't need to make a lambda for it, and since Stream is already lazy, making integers lazy is unnecessary)
As to your edit, check out this excellent answer on the matter. In short: no there is no easy way. The thing is that unless you already know the arity of the functions involved, having something like what you suggest work would be hell for the next person reading your code... For example,
myList foo bar baz
Might be be myList.foo.bar.baz as well as myList.foo(bar).baz and you wouldn't know without checking the definitions of foo, bar, and baz. Scala decides to eliminate this ambiguity - it is always the latter.
I am new to Scala and studying a book about it (Programming in Scala). I am really lost, what is the author trying to explain with the code below. Can anyone explain it in more detail ?
{ val x = a; b.:::(x) }
::: is a method that prepends list given as argument to the list it is called on
you could look at this as
val a = List(1, 2)
val b = List(3, 4)
val x = a
b.prependList(x)
but actually for single argument methods if it's not ambiguous scala allows to skip parenthesis and the dot and this is how this method is supposed to be used to not look ugly
x ::: b
it will just join these two lists, but there is some trick here
if method name ends with : it will be bound the other way
so typing x ::: b works as if this type of thing was done (x):::.b. You obviously can't type it like this in scala, won't compile, but this is what happens. Thanks to this x is on the left side of the operator and it's elements will be on the left side (beginning) of the list that is result of this call.
Oh well, now I found maybe some more explanation for you and also the very same piece of code you posted, in answer to this question: What good are right-associative methods in Scala?
Assuming a and b are lists: It assigns a to x, then returns the list b prepended with the list x.
For example, if val a = List(1,2,3) and val b = List(4,5,6) then it returns List(1,2,3,4,5,6).
I was advertising Scala to a friend (who uses Java most of the time) and he asked me a challenge: what's the way to write an array {1, 2, 4, 8, 16} in Scala.
I don't know functional programming that well, but I really like Scala. However, this is a iterative array formed by (n*(n-1)), but how to keep track of the previous step? Is there a way to do it easily in Scala or do I have to write more than one line of code to achieve this?
Array.iterate(1, 5)(2 * _)
or
Array.iterate(1, 5)(n => 2 * n)
Elaborating on this as asked for in comment. Don't know what you want me to elaborate on, hope you will find what you need.
This is the function iterate(start,len)(f) on object Array (scaladoc). That would be a static in java.
The point is to fill an array of len elements, from first value start and always computing the next element by passing the previous one to function f.
A basic implementation would be
import scala.reflect.ClassTag
def iterate[A: ClassTag](start: A, len: Int)(f: A => A): Array[A] = {
val result = new Array[A](len)
if (len > 0) {
var current = start
result(0) = current
for (i <- 1 until len) {
current = f(current)
result(i) = current
}
}
result
}
(the actual implementation, not much different can be found here. It is a little different mostly because the same code is used for different data structures, e.g List.iterate)
Beside that, the implementation is very straightforward . The syntax may need some explanations :
def iterate[A](...) : Array[A] makes it a generic methods, usable for any type A. That would be public <A> A[] iterate(...) in java.
ClassTag is just a technicality, in scala as in java, you normally cannot create an array of a generic type (java new E[]), and the : ClassTag asks the compiler to add some magic which is very similar to adding at method declaration, and passing at call site, a class<A> clazz parameter in java, which can then be used to create the array by reflection. If you do e.g List.iterate rather than Array.iterate, it is not needed.
Maybe more surprising, the two parameters lists, one with start and len, and then in a separate parentheses, the one with f. Scala allows a method to have severals parameters lists. Here the reason is the peculiar way scala does type inference : Looking at the first parameter list, it will determine what is A, based on the type of start. Only afterwards, it will look at the second list, and then it knows what type A is. Otherwise, it would need to be told, so if there had been only one parameter list, def iterate[A: ClassTag](start: A, len: Int, f: A => A),
then the call should be either
Array.iterate(1, 5, n : Int => 2 * n)
Array.iterate[Int](1, 5, n => 2 * n)
Array.iterate(1, 5, 2 * (_: int))
Array.iterate[Int](1, 5, 2 * _)
making Int explicit one way or another. So it is common in scala to put function arguments in a separate argument list. The type might be much longer to write than just 'Int'.
A => A is just syntactic sugar for type Function1[A,A]. Obviously a functional language has functions as (first class) values, and a typed functional language has types for functions.
In the call, iterate(1, 5)(n => 2 * n), n => 2 * n is the value of the function. A more complete declaration would be {n: Int => 2 * n}, but one may dispense with Int for the reason stated above. Scala syntax is rather flexible, one may also dispense with either the parentheses or the brackets. So it could be iterate(1, 5){n => 2 * n}. The curlies allow a full block with several instruction, not needed here.
As for immutability, Array is basically mutable, there is no way to put a value in an array except to change the array at some point. My implementation (and the one in the library) also use a mutable var (current) and a side-effecting for, which is not strictly necessary, a (tail-)recursive implementation would be only a little longer to write, and just as efficient. But a mutable local does not hurt much, and we are already dealing with a mutable array anyway.
always more than one way to do it in Scala:
scala> (0 until 5).map(1<<_).toArray
res48: Array[Int] = Array(1, 2, 4, 8, 16)
or
scala> (for (i <- 0 to 4) yield 1<<i).toArray
res49: Array[Int] = Array(1, 2, 4, 8, 16)
or even
scala> List.fill(4)(1).scanLeft(1)(2*_+0*_).toArray
res61: Array[Int] = Array(1, 2, 4, 8, 16)
The other answers are fine if you happen to know in advance how many entries will be in the resulting list. But if you want to take all of the entries up to some limit, you should create an Iterator, use takeWhile to get the prefix you want, and create an array from that, like so:
scala> Iterator.iterate(1)(2*_).takeWhile(_<=16).toArray
res21: Array[Int] = Array(1, 2, 4, 8, 16)
It all boils down to whether what you really want is more correctly stated as
the first 5 powers of 2 starting at 1, or
the powers of 2 from 1 to 16
For non-trivial functions you almost always want to specify the end condition and let the program figure out how many entries there are. Of course your example was simple, and in fact the real easiest way to create that simple array is just to write it out literally:
scala> Array(1,2,4,8,16)
res22: Array[Int] = Array(1, 2, 4, 8, 16)
But presumably you were asking for a general technique you could use for arbitrarily complex problems. For that, Iterator and takeWhile are generally the tools you need.
You don't have to keep track of the previous step. Also, each element is not formed by n * (n - 1). You probably meant f(n) = f(n - 1) * 2.
Anyway, to answer your question, here's how you do it:
(0 until 5).map(math.pow(2, _).toInt).toArray
I'm looking at someone else's source code (Scala), where I see the operator :+= being called on a variable of type IndexedSeq. I am looking all over the scaladocs page for that class to figure out what that operator does, but I do not see it. I'm thinking that either it's defined in a class outside of IndexedSeq's inheritance hierarchy, or else the javascript on the scaladocs page is hiding it somewhere I can't see it. (Actually it's neither; see answer below.)
I've hit every button on the scaladocs page trying to unhide everything. I've looked in the web-page's HTML code. There has got to be a way to look up an operator from the documentation of a class to which it can be applied. Hasn't there?
(N.B.: I looked up that operator using symbolhound, so I know what that operator means now. This question is about scala documentation in general, not that particular operator.)
All operators in Scala are normal methods.
You cannot find it because it is compiler magic for re-assignement, it is not an operator. Or to say it another way: it looks like an operator of its own, but it is actually "an operator followed by the = character".
The compiler will magically turn that into a assignment if the operator (here :+) returns the proper type, and the original value was a var, obviously.
Since it is not provided by any implicit nor explicit method on Seq[T] or whatever, it does not appear anywhere in the generated scaladoc.
So to answer the general question:
It is a language construct, so the only place where it is documented is the specification, sadly,
but, if you find some "<?>=" unknown operator somewhere, look for the definition of "<?>", that one is sure to be documented.
Edit: I finally found where this is defined in the SLS:
§6.12.4:
An assignment operator is an operator symbol (syntax category op in (§1.1)) that
ends in an equals character “=”, with the exception of operators for which one of the
following conditions holds:
(1) the operator also starts with an equals character, or
(2) the operator is one of (<=), (>=), (!=).
It also says later on that it only happens when all other options have been tried (including potential implicits).
Is this value assigned to a variable? If it's the case I think this syntax sugar:
scala> var x = IndexedSeq(1,2,3)
x: IndexedSeq[Int] = Vector(1, 2, 3)
scala> x :+= 10
scala> x
res59: IndexedSeq[Int] = Vector(1, 2, 3, 10)
scala> val y = IndexedSeq(1,2,3)
y: IndexedSeq[Int] = Vector(1, 2, 3)
scala> y :+= 10
<console>:16: error: value :+= is not a member of IndexedSeq[Int]
y :+= 10
^
It is syntax sugar for "operation and assignment", like +=:
scala> var x = 10
x: Int = 10
scala> x += 1
scala> x
res63: Int = 11
Which de-sugars to x = x + 1.
Say I have a function, for example the old favourite
def factorial(n:Int) = (BigInt(1) /: (1 to n)) (_*_)
Now I want to find the biggest value of n for which factorial(n) fits in a Long. I could do
(1 to 100) takeWhile (factorial(_) <= Long.MaxValue) last
This works, but the 100 is an arbitrary large number; what I really want on the left hand side is an infinite stream that keeps generating higher numbers until the takeWhile condition is met.
I've come up with
val s = Stream.continually(1).zipWithIndex.map(p => p._1 + p._2)
but is there a better way?
(I'm also aware I could get a solution recursively but that's not what I'm looking for.)
Stream.from(1)
creates a stream starting from 1 and incrementing by 1. It's all in the API docs.
A Solution Using Iterators
You can also use an Iterator instead of a Stream. The Stream keeps references of all computed values. So if you plan to visit each value only once, an iterator is a more efficient approach. The downside of the iterator is its mutability, though.
There are some nice convenience methods for creating Iterators defined on its companion object.
Edit
Unfortunately there's no short (library supported) way I know of to achieve something like
Stream.from(1) takeWhile (factorial(_) <= Long.MaxValue) last
The approach I take to advance an Iterator for a certain number of elements is drop(n: Int) or dropWhile:
Iterator.from(1).dropWhile( factorial(_) <= Long.MaxValue).next - 1
The - 1 works for this special purpose but is not a general solution. But it should be no problem to implement a last method on an Iterator using pimp my library. The problem is taking the last element of an infinite Iterator could be problematic. So it should be implemented as method like lastWith integrating the takeWhile.
An ugly workaround can be done using sliding, which is implemented for Iterator:
scala> Iterator.from(1).sliding(2).dropWhile(_.tail.head < 10).next.head
res12: Int = 9
as #ziggystar pointed out, Streams keeps the list of previously computed values in memory, so using Iterator is a great improvment.
to further improve the answer, I would argue that "infinite streams", are usually computed (or can be computed) based on pre-computed values. if this is the case (and in your factorial stream it definately is), I would suggest using Iterator.iterate instead.
would look roughly like this:
scala> val it = Iterator.iterate((1,BigInt(1))){case (i,f) => (i+1,f*(i+1))}
it: Iterator[(Int, scala.math.BigInt)] = non-empty iterator
then, you could do something like:
scala> it.find(_._2 >= Long.MaxValue).map(_._1).get - 1
res0: Int = 22
or use #ziggystar sliding solution...
another easy example that comes to mind, would be fibonacci numbers:
scala> val it = Iterator.iterate((1,1)){case (a,b) => (b,a+b)}.map(_._1)
it: Iterator[Int] = non-empty iterator
in these cases, your'e not computing your new element from scratch every time, but rather do an O(1) work for every new element, which would improve your running time even more.
The original "factorial" function is not optimal, since factorials are computed from scratch every time. The simplest/immutable implementation using memoization is like this:
val f : Stream[BigInt] = 1 #:: (Stream.from(1) zip f).map { case (x,y) => x * y }
And now, the answer can be computed like this:
println( "count: " + (f takeWhile (_<Long.MaxValue)).length )
The following variant does not test the current, but the next integer, in order to find and return the last valid number:
Iterator.from(1).find(i => factorial(i+1) > Long.MaxValue).get
Using .get here is acceptable, since find on an infinite sequence will never return None.