I like the use of require, assert, assume, and ensuring to document pre-conditions and post-conditions of a given function, but I have also come to use scalaz.Validation mostly to perform checks that require used to do. But, lately, I have been most interested in using PartialFunction, possibly with Validation, to document a pre-condition. Something like:
case class Summary(user: String, at: DateTime, ....)
val restricted_add: PartialFunction[(Summary, Summary), Summary] = {
case (s1: Summary, s2: Summary) if s1.user != s2.user && s1.at == s2.at =>
}
with a utility function for capturing and converting a match error into a validation failure (e.g. restricted_add.lift(_).toSucess("Cannot add.")). Somehow the case clause above seems less noisy than a For with scalaz.Validation. But I feel like I am going against the language. I'm not using def's natural syntax for defining parameters, every client of such a function would have to use a utility function when invoking it, I would be capturing exceptions and converting them into validations, instead of working only with validations or only with exceptions.
What seems like the least noisy, most functional way of documenting these pre-conditions through code? Validation returning functions, require statements, PartialFunction, other...?
As #RandallSchulz already stated, implicitly documenting preconditions in code only serves for your private/interal methods, never for your public API. If you're writing public methods, you should also document the preconditions in the methods docs and maybe the usage examples, if they're counter-intuitive.
That being said, in my opinion the least noisy and the most functional way are not the same in Scala. This is because require cannot be considered functional, since it throws an exception if the condition is not met, which would be catched somewhere, changing the control flow and thus being a side effect.
Nonetheless, I think that require is by far the least noisy way to specify a preconditions:
def non_func(x:Int, y:Int):Int = {
require(x >= 0 && y >= 0)
x + y
}
I'm not entirely sure about the most functional way to check preconditions, but I think that using pattern matching and returning an Option could be considered functional, but noisier than require:
def func(x:Int, y:Int):Option[Int] = (x,y) match {
case (x, y) if x >= 0 && y >= 0 => Some(x + y)
case _ => None
}
The advantage of using an Option is that you can flatMap that shit (scnr):
val xs = List((1,2), (0,0), (-1,0), (-1,-1), (3,4))
xs.flatMap(x => func(x._1, x._2)) # => List(3, 0, 7)
The alone is probably a good enough reason to add just a little more noise compared to require since it enables you to use a lot of the standard Scala library more concisely.
Regarding partial functions, you are basically answering your own question, since you say that its more cumbersome to use and to define. I don't have any experience with Scalaz though, so I can't really compare the "pure scala" approach to anything one might do with Scalaz.
Related
First of all, I'm very new to Scala and don't have any experience writing production code with it, so I lack understanding of what is considered a good/best practice among community. I stumbled upon these resources:
https://github.com/alexandru/scala-best-practices
https://nrinaudo.github.io/scala-best-practices/
It is mentioned there that throwing exceptions is not very good practice, which made me think what would be a good way to define preconditions for function then, because
A function that throws is a bit of a lie: its type implies it’s total function when it’s not.
After a bit of research, it seems that using Option/Either/Try/Or(scalactic) is a better approach, since you can use something like T Or IllegalArgumentException as return type to clearly indicate that function is actually partial, using exception as a way to store message that can be wrapped in other exceptions.
However lacking Scala experience I don't quite understand if this is actually viable approach for a real project or using Predef.require is a way to go. I would appreciate if someone explained how things are usually done in Scala community and why.
I've also seen Functional assertion in Scala, but while the idea itself looks interesting, I think PartialFunction is not very suitable for the purpose as it is, because often more than one argument is passed and tuples look like a hack in this case.
Option or Either is definitely the way to go for functional programming.
With Option it is important to document why None might be returned.
With Either, the left side is the unsuccessful value (the "error"), while the right side is the successful value. The left side does not necessarily have to be an Exception (or a subtype of it), it can be a simple error message String (type aliases are your friend here) or a custom data type that is suitable for you application.
As an example, I usually use the following pattern when error handling with Either:
// Somewhere in a package.scala
type Error = String // Or choose something more advanced
type EitherE[T] = Either[Error, T]
// Somewhere in the program
def fooMaybe(...): EitherE[Foo] = ...
Try should only be used for wrapping unsafe (most of the time, plain Java) code, giving you the ability to pattern-match on the result:
Try(fooDangerous()) match {
case Success(value) => ...
case Failure(value) => ...
}
But I would suggest only using Try locally and then go with the above mentioned data types from there.
Some advanced datatypes like cats.effect.IO or monix.reactive.Observable contain error handling natively.
I would also suggest looking into cats.data.EitherT for typeclass-based error handling. Read the documentation, it's definitely worth it.
As a sidenote, for everyone coming from Java, Scala treats all Exceptions as Java treats RuntimeExceptions. That means, even when an unsafe piece of code from one of your dependencies throws a (checked) IOException, Scala will never require you to catch or otherwise handle the exception. So as a rule of thumb, when using Java - dependencies, almost always wrap them in a Try (or an IO if they execute side effects or block the thread).
I think your reasoning is correct. If you have a simple total (opposite of partial) function with arguments that can have invalid types then the most common and simple solution is to return some optional result like Option, etc.
It's usually not advisable to throw exceptions as they break FP laws. You can use any library that can return a more advanced type than Option like Scalaz Validation if you need to compose results in ways that are awkward with Option.
Another two alternatives I could offer is to use:
Type constrained arguments that enforce preconditions. Example: val i: Int Refined Positive = 5 based on https://github.com/fthomas/refined. You can also write your own types which wrap primitive types and assert some properties. The problem here is if you have arguments that have multiple interdependent valid values which are mutually exclusive per argument. For instance x > 1 and y < 1 or x < 1 and y > 1. In such case you can return an optional value instead of using this approach.
Partial functions, which in the essence resemble optional return types: case i: Int if i > 0 => .... Docs: https://www.scala-lang.org/api/2.12.1/scala/PartialFunction.html.
For example:
PF's def lift: (A) ⇒ Option[B] converts PF to your regular function.
Turns this partial function into a plain function returning an Option
result.
Which is similar to returning an option. The problem with partial functions that they are a bit awkward to use and not fully FP friendly.
I think Predef.require belongs to very rare cases where you don't want to allow any invalid data to be constructed and is more of a stop-everything-if-this-happens kind of measure. Example would be that you get arguments you never supposed to get.
You use the return type of the function to indicate the type of the result.
If you want to describe a function that can fail for whatever reason, of the types you mentioned you would probably return Try or Either: I am going to "try" to give your a result, or I am going to return "either" a success or an failure.
Now you can specify a custom exception
case class ConditionException(message: String) extends RuntimeException(message)
that you would return if your condition is not satisfied, e.g
import scala.util._
def myfunction(a: String, minLength: Int): Try[String] = {
if(a.size < minLength) {
Failure(ConditionException(s"string $a is too short")
} else {
Success(a)
}
}
and with Either you would get
import scala.util._
def myfunction(a: String, minLength: Int): Either[ConditionException,String] = {
if(a.size < minLength) {
Left(ConditionException(s"string $a is too short")
} else {
Right(a)
}
}
Not that the Either solution clearly indicates the error your function might return
Can there be any reason to prefer filter+map:
list.filter (i => aCondition(i)).map(i => fun(i))
over collect? :
list.collect(case i if aCondition(i) => fun(i))
The one with collect (single look) looks faster and cleaner to me. So I would always go for collect.
Most of Scala's collections eagerly apply operations and (unless you're using a macro library that does this for you) will not fuse operations. So filter followed by map will usually create two collections (and even if you use Iterator or somesuch, the intermediate form will be transiently created, albeit only an element at a time), whereas collect will not.
On the other hand, collect uses a partial function to implement the joint test, and partial functions are slower than predicates (A => Boolean) at testing whether something is in the collection.
Additionally, there can be cases where it is simply clearer to read one than the other and you don't care about performance or memory usage differences of a factor of 2 or so. In that case, use whichever is clearer. Generally if you already have the functions named, it's clearer to read
xs.filter(p).map(f)
xs.collect{ case x if p(x) => f(x) }
but if you are supplying the closures inline, collect generally looks cleaner
xs.filter(x < foo(x, x)).map(x => bar(x, x))
xs.collect{ case x if foo(x, x) => bar(x, x) }
even though it's not necessarily shorter, because you only refer to the variable once.
Now, how big is the difference in performance? That varies, but if we consider a a collection like this:
val v = Vector.tabulate(10000)(i => ((i%100).toString, (i%7).toString))
and you want to pick out the second entry based on filtering the first (so the filter and map operations are both really easy), then we get the following table.
Note: one can get lazy views into collections and gather operations there. You don't always get your original type back, but you can always use to get the right collection type. So xs.view.filter(p).map(f).toVector would, because of the view, not create an intermediate. That is tested below also. It has also been suggested that one can xs.flatMap(x => if (p(x)) Some(f(x)) else None) and that this is efficient. That is not so. It's also tested below. And one can avoid the partial function by explicitly creating a builder: val vb = Vector.newBuilder[String]; xs.foreach(x => if (p(x)) vb += f(x)); vb.result, and the results for that are also listed below.
In the table below, three conditions have been tested: filter out nothing, filter out half, filter out everything. The times have been normalized to filter/map (100% = same time as filter/map, lower is better). Error bounds are around +- 3%.
Performance of different filter/map alternatives
====================== Vector ========================
filter/map collect view filt/map flatMap builder
100% 44% 64% 440% 30% filter out none
100% 60% 76% 605% 42% filter out half
100% 112% 103% 1300% 74% filter out all
Thus, filter/map and collect are generally pretty close (with collect winning when you keep a lot), flatMap is far slower under all situations, and creating a builder always wins. (This is true specifically for Vector. Other collections may have somewhat different characteristics, but the trends for most will be similar because the differences in operations are similar.) Views in this test tend to be a win, but they don't always work seamlessly (and they aren't really better than collect except for the empty case).
So, bottom line: prefer filter then map if it aids clarity when speed doesn't matter, or prefer it for speed when you're filtering out almost everything but still want to keep things functional (so don't want to use a builder); and otherwise use collect.
I guess this is rather opinion based, but given the following definitions:
scala> val l = List(1,2,3,4)
l: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3, 4)
scala> def f(x: Int) = 2*x
f: (x: Int)Int
scala> def p(x: Int) = x%2 == 0
p: (x: Int)Boolean
Which of the two do you find nicer to read:
l.filter(p).map(f)
or
l.collect{ case i if p(i) => f(i) }
(Note that I had to fix your syntax above, as you need the bracket and case to add the if condition).
I personally find the filter+map much nicer to read and understand. It's all a matter of the exact syntax that you use, but given p and f, you don't have to write anonymous functions when using filter or map, while you do need them when using collect.
You also have the possibility to use flatMap:
l.flatMap(i => if(p(i)) Some(f(i)) else None)
Which is likely to be the most efficient among the 3 solutions, but I find it less nice than map and filter.
Overall, it's very difficult to say which one would be faster, as it depends a lot of which optimizations end up being performed by scalac and then the JVM. All 3 should be pretty close, and definitely not a factor in deciding which one to use.
One case where filter/map looks cleaner is when you want to flatten the result of filter
def getList(x: Int) = {
List.range(x, 0, -1)
}
val xs = List(1,2,3,4)
//Using filter and flatMap
xs.filter(_ % 2 == 0).flatMap(getList)
//Using collect and flatten
xs.collect{ case x if x % 2 == 0 => getList(x)}.flatten
Suppose I have some type with an associative binary operation that feels a lot like append except that the operation may fail. For example, here's a wrapper for List[Int] that only allows us to "add" lists with the same length:
case class Foo(xs: List[Int]) {
def append(other: Foo): Option[Foo] =
if (xs.size != other.xs.size) None else Some(
Foo(xs.zip(other.xs).map { case (a, b) => a + b })
)
}
This is a toy example, but one of the things it has in common with my real use case is that we could in principle use the type system to make the operation total—in this case by tracking the length of the lists with something like Shapeless's Sized, so that adding lists of unequal lengths would be a compile-time error instead of a runtime failure. That's not too bad, but in my real use case managing the constraints in the type system would require a lot more work and isn't really practical.
(In my use case I have a sensible identity, unlike in this toy example, but we can ignore that for now.)
Is there some principled way to do this kind of thing? Searching for a -> a -> m a or a -> a -> Maybe a on Hoogle doesn't turn up anything interesting. I know I can write an ad-hoc append method that just returns its result wrapped in whatever type I'm using to model failure, but it'd be nice to have something more general that would give me foldMap1, etc. for free—especially since this isn't the first time I've found myself wanting this kind of thing.
So in reading this question it was pointed out that instead of the procedural code:
def expand(exp: String, replacements: Traversable[(String, String)]): String = {
var result = exp
for ((oldS, newS) <- replacements)
result = result.replace(oldS, newS)
result
}
You could write the following functional code:
def expand(exp: String, replacements: Traversable[(String, String)]): String = {
replacements.foldLeft(exp){
case (result, (oldS, newS)) => result.replace(oldS, newS)
}
}
I would almost certainly write the first version because coders familiar with either procedural or functional styles can easily read and understand it, while only coders familiar with functional style can easily read and understand the second version.
But setting readability aside for the moment, is there something that makes foldLeft a better choice than the procedural version? I might have thought it would be more efficient, but it turns out that the implementation of foldLeft is actually just the procedural code above. So is it just a style choice, or is there a good reason to use one version or the other?
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not asking about other functions, just foldLeft. I'm perfectly happy with the use of foreach, map, filter, etc. which all map nicely onto for-comprehensions.
Answer: There are really two good answers here (provided by delnan and Dave Griffith) even though I could only accept one:
Use foldLeft because there are additional optimizations, e.g. using a while loop which will be faster than a for loop.
Use fold if it ever gets added to regular collections, because that will make the transition to parallel collections trivial.
It's shorter and clearer - yes, you need to know what a fold is to understand it, but when you're programming in a language that's 50% functional, you should know these basic building blocks anyway. A fold is exactly what the procedural code does (repeatedly applying an operation), but it's given a name and generalized. And while it's only a small wheel you're reinventing, but it's still a wheel reinvention.
And in case the implementation of foldLeft should ever get some special perk - say, extra optimizations - you get that for free, without updating countless methods.
Other than a distaste for mutable variable (even mutable locals), the basic reason to use fold in this case is clarity, with occasional brevity. Most of the wordiness of the fold version is because you have to use an explicit function definition with a destructuring bind. If each element in the list is used precisely once in the fold operation (a common case), this can be simplified to use the short form. Thus the classic definition of the sum of a collection of numbers
collection.foldLeft(0)(_+_)
is much simpler and shorter than any equivalent imperative construct.
One additional meta-reason to use functional collection operations, although not directly applicable in this case, is to enable a move to using parallel collection operations if needed for performance. Fold can't be parallelized, but often fold operations can be turned into commutative-associative reduce operations, and those can be parallelized. With Scala 2.9, changing something from non-parallel functional to parallel functional utilizing multiple processing cores can sometimes be as easy as dropping a .par onto the collection you want to execute parallel operations on.
One word I haven't seen mentioned here yet is declarative:
Declarative programming is often defined as any style of programming that is not imperative. A number of other common definitions exist that attempt to give the term a definition other than simply contrasting it with imperative programming. For example:
A program that describes what computation should be performed and not how to compute it
Any programming language that lacks side effects (or more specifically, is referentially transparent)
A language with a clear correspondence to mathematical logic.
These definitions overlap substantially.
Higher-order functions (HOFs) are a key enabler of declarativity, since we only specify the what (e.g. "using this collection of values, multiply each value by 2, sum the result") and not the how (e.g. initialize an accumulator, iterate with a for loop, extract values from the collection, add to the accumulator...).
Compare the following:
// Sugar-free Scala (Still better than Java<5)
def sumDoubled1(xs: List[Int]) = {
var sum = 0 // Initialized correctly?
for (i <- 0 until xs.size) { // Fenceposts?
sum = sum + (xs(i) * 2) // Correct value being extracted?
// Value extraction and +/* smashed together
}
sum // Correct value returned?
}
// Iteration sugar (similar to Java 5)
def sumDoubled2(xs: List[Int]) = {
var sum = 0
for (x <- xs) // We don't need to worry about fenceposts or
sum = sum + (x * 2) // value extraction anymore; that's progress
sum
}
// Verbose Scala
def sumDoubled3(xs: List[Int]) = xs.map((x: Int) => x*2). // the doubling
reduceLeft((x: Int, y: Int) => x+y) // the addition
// Idiomatic Scala
def sumDoubled4(xs: List[Int]) = xs.map(_*2).reduceLeft(_+_)
// ^ the doubling ^
// \ the addition
Note that our first example, sumDoubled1, is already more declarative than (most would say superior to) C/C++/Java<5 for loops, because we haven't had to micromanage the iteration state and termination logic, but we're still vulnerable to off-by-one errors.
Next, in sumDoubled2, we're basically at the level of Java>=5. There are still a couple things that can go wrong, but we're getting pretty good at reading this code-shape, so errors are quite unlikely. However, don't forget that a pattern that's trivial in a toy example isn't always so readable when scaled up to production code!
With sumDoubled3, desugared for didactic purposes, and sumDoubled4, the idiomatic Scala version, the iteration, initialization, value extraction and choice of return value are all gone.
Sure, it takes time to learn to read the functional versions, but we've drastically foreclosed our options for making mistakes. The "business logic" is clearly marked, and the plumbing is chosen from the same menu that everyone else is reading from.
It is worth pointing out that there is another way of calling foldLeft which takes advantages of:
The ability to use (almost) any Unicode symbol in an identifier
The feature that if a method name ends with a colon :, and is called infix, then the target and parameter are switched
For me this version is much clearer, because I can see that I am folding the expr value into the replacements collection
def expand(expr: String, replacements: Traversable[(String, String)]): String = {
(expr /: replacements) { case (r, (o, n)) => r.replace(o, n) }
}
I'm pretty new to Scala and most of the time before I've used Java. Right now I have warnings all over my code saying that i should "Avoid mutable local variables" and I have a simple question - why?
Suppose I have small problem - determine max int out of four. My first approach was:
def max4(a: Int, b: Int,c: Int, d: Int): Int = {
var subMax1 = a
if (b > a) subMax1 = b
var subMax2 = c
if (d > c) subMax2 = d
if (subMax1 > subMax2) subMax1
else subMax2
}
After taking into account this warning message I found another solution:
def max4(a: Int, b: Int,c: Int, d: Int): Int = {
max(max(a, b), max(c, d))
}
def max(a: Int, b: Int): Int = {
if (a > b) a
else b
}
It looks more pretty, but what is ideology behind this?
Whenever I approach a problem I'm thinking about it like: "Ok, we start from this and then we incrementally change things and get the answer". I understand that the problem is that I try to change some initial state to get an answer and do not understand why changing things at least locally is bad? How to iterate over collection then in functional languages like Scala?
Like an example: Suppose we have a list of ints, how to write a function that returns sublist of ints which are divisible by 6? Can't think of solution without local mutable variable.
In your particular case there is another solution:
def max4(a: Int, b: Int,c: Int, d: Int): Int = {
val submax1 = if (a > b) a else b
val submax2 = if (c > d) c else d
if (submax1 > submax2) submax1 else submax2
}
Isn't it easier to follow? Of course I am a bit biased but I tend to think it is, BUT don't follow that rule blindly. If you see that some code might be written more readably and concisely in mutable style, do it this way -- the great strength of scala is that you don't need to commit to neither immutable nor mutable approaches, you can swing between them (btw same applies to return keyword usage).
Like an example: Suppose we have a list of ints, how to write a
function that returns the sublist of ints which are divisible by 6?
Can't think of solution without local mutable variable.
It is certainly possible to write such function using recursion, but, again, if mutable solution looks and works good, why not?
It's not so related with Scala as with the functional programming methodology in general. The idea is the following: if you have constant variables (final in Java), you can use them without any fear that they are going to change. In the same way, you can parallelize your code without worrying about race conditions or thread-unsafe code.
In your example is not so important, however imagine the following example:
val variable = ...
new Future { function1(variable) }
new Future { function2(variable) }
Using final variables you can be sure that there will not be any problem. Otherwise, you would have to check the main thread and both function1 and function2.
Of course, it's possible to obtain the same result with mutable variables if you do not ever change them. But using inmutable ones you can be sure that this will be the case.
Edit to answer your edit:
Local mutables are not bad, that's the reason you can use them. However, if you try to think approaches without them, you can arrive to solutions as the one you posted, which is cleaner and can be parallelized very easily.
How to iterate over collection then in functional languages like Scala?
You can always iterate over a inmutable collection, while you do not change anything. For example:
val list = Seq(1,2,3)
for (n <- list)
println n
With respect to the second thing that you said: you have to stop thinking in a traditional way. In functional programming the usage of Map, Filter, Reduce, etc. is normal; as well as pattern matching and other concepts that are not typical in OOP. For the example you give:
Like an example: Suppose we have a list of ints, how to write a function that returns sublist of ints which are divisible by 6?
val list = Seq(1,6,10,12,18,20)
val result = list.filter(_ % 6 == 0)
Firstly you could rewrite your example like this:
def max(first: Int, others: Int*): Int = {
val curMax = Math.max(first, others(0))
if (others.size == 1) curMax else max(curMax, others.tail : _*)
}
This uses varargs and tail recursion to find the largest number. Of course there are many other ways of doing the same thing.
To answer your queston - It's a good question and one that I thought about myself when I first started to use scala. Personally I think the whole immutable/functional programming approach is somewhat over hyped. But for what it's worth here are the main arguments in favour of it:
Immutable code is easier to read (subjective)
Immutable code is more robust - it's certainly true that changing mutable state can lead to bugs. Take this for example:
for (int i=0; i<100; i++) {
for (int j=0; j<100; i++) {
System.out.println("i is " + i = " and j is " + j);
}
}
This is an over simplified example but it's still easy to miss the bug and the compiler won't help you
Mutable code is generally not thread safe. Even trivial and seemingly atomic operations are not safe. Take for example i++ this looks like an atomic operation but it's actually equivalent to:
int i = 0;
int tempI = i + 0;
i = tempI;
Immutable data structures won't allow you to do something like this so you would need to explicitly think about how to handle it. Of course as you point out local variables are generally threadsafe, but there is no guarantee. It's possible to pass a ListBuffer instance variable as a parameter to a method for example
However there are downsides to immutable and functional programming styles:
Performance. It is generally slower in both compilation and runtime. The compiler must enforce the immutability and the JVM must allocate more objects than would be required with mutable data structures. This is especially true of collections.
Most scala examples show something like val numbers = List(1,2,3) but in the real world hard coded values are rare. We generally build collections dynamically (from a database query etc). Whilst scala can reassign the values in a colection it must still create a new collection object every time you modify it. If you want to add 1000 elements to a scala List (immutable) the JVM will need to allocate (and then GC) 1000 objects
Hard to maintain. Functional code can be very hard to read, it's not uncommon to see code like this:
val data = numbers.foreach(_.map(a => doStuff(a).flatMap(somethingElse)).foldleft("", (a : Int,b: Int) => a + b))
I don't know about you but I find this sort of code really hard to follow!
Hard to debug. Functional code can also be hard to debug. Try putting a breakpoint halfway into my (terrible) example above
My advice would be to use a functional/immutable style where it genuinely makes sense and you and your colleagues feel comfortable doing it. Don't use immutable structures because they're cool or it's "clever". Complex and challenging solutions will get you bonus points at Uni but in the commercial world we want simple solutions to complex problems! :)
Your two main questions:
Why warn against local state changes?
How can you iterate over collections without mutable state?
I'll answer both.
Warnings
The compiler warns against the use of mutable local variables because they are often a cause of error. That doesn't mean this is always the case. However, your sample code is pretty much a classic example of where mutable local state is used entirely unnecessarily, in a way that not only makes it more error prone and less clear but also less efficient.
Your first code example is more inefficient than your second, functional solution. Why potentially make two assignments to submax1 when you only ever need to assign one? You ask which of the two inputs is larger anyway, so why not ask that first and then make one assignment? Why was your first approach to temporarily store partial state only halfway through the process of asking such a simple question?
Your first code example is also inefficient because of unnecessary code duplication. You're repeatedly asking "which is the biggest of two values?" Why write out the code for that 3 times independently? Needlessly repeating code is a known bad habit in OOP every bit as much as FP and for precisely the same reasons. Each time you needlessly repeat code, you open a potential source of error. Adding mutable local state (especially when so unnecessary) only adds to the fragility and to the potential for hard to spot errors, even in short code. You just have to type submax1 instead of submax2 in one place and you may not notice the error for a while.
Your second, FP solution removes the code duplication, dramatically reducing the chance of error, and shows that there was simply no need for mutable local state. It's also, as you yourself say, cleaner and clearer - and better than the alternative solution in om-nom-nom's answer.
(By the way, the idiomatic Scala way to write such a simple function is
def max(a: Int, b: Int) = if (a > b) a else b
which terser style emphasises its simplicity and makes the code less verbose)
Your first solution was inefficient and fragile, but it was your first instinct. The warning caused you to find a better solution. The warning proved its value. Scala was designed to be accessible to Java developers and is taken up by many with a long experience of imperative style and little or no knowledge of FP. Their first instinct is almost always the same as yours. You have demonstrated how that warning can help improve code.
There are cases where using mutable local state can be faster but the advice of Scala experts in general (not just the pure FP true believers) is to prefer immutability and to reach for mutability only where there is a clear case for its use. This is so against the instincts of many developers that the warning is useful even if annoying to experienced Scala devs.
It's funny how often some kind of max function comes up in "new to FP/Scala" questions. The questioner is very often tripping up on errors caused by their use of local state... which link both demonstrates the often obtuse addiction to mutable state among some devs while also leading me on to your other question.
Functional Iteration over Collections
There are three functional ways to iterate over collections in Scala
For Comprehensions
Explicit Recursion
Folds and other Higher Order Functions
For Comprehensions
Your question:
Suppose we have a list of ints, how to write a function that returns sublist of ints which are divisible by 6? Can't think of solution without local mutable variable
Answer: assuming xs is a list (or some other sequence) of integers, then
for (x <- xs; if x % 6 == 0) yield x
will give you a sequence (of the same type as xs) containing only those items which are divisible by 6, if any. No mutable state required. Scala just iterates over the sequence for you and returns anything matching your criteria.
If you haven't yet learned the power of for comprehensions (also known as sequence comprehensions) you really should. Its a very expressive and powerful part of Scala syntax. You can even use them with side effects and mutable state if you want (look at the final example on the tutorial I just linked to). That said, there can be unexpected performance penalties and they are overused by some developers.
Explicit Recursion
In the question I linked to at the end of the first section, I give in my answer a very simple, explicitly recursive solution to returning the largest Int from a list.
def max(xs: List[Int]): Option[Int] = xs match {
case Nil => None
case List(x: Int) => Some(x)
case x :: y :: rest => max( (if (x > y) x else y) :: rest )
}
I'm not going to explain how the pattern matching and explicit recursion work (read my other answer or this one). I'm just showing you the technique. Most Scala collections can be iterated over recursively, without any need for mutable state. If you need to keep track of what you've been up to along the way, you pass along an accumulator. (In my example code, I stick the accumulator at the front of the list to keep the code smaller but look at the other answers to those questions for more conventional use of accumulators).
But here is a (naive) explicitly recursive way of finding those integers divisible by 6
def divisibleByN(n: Int, xs: List[Int]): List[Int] = xs match {
case Nil => Nil
case x :: rest if x % n == 0 => x :: divisibleByN(n, rest)
case _ :: rest => divisibleByN(n, rest)
}
I call it naive because it isn't tail recursive and so could blow your stack. A safer version can be written using an accumulator list and an inner helper function but I leave that exercise to you. The result will be less pretty code than the naive version, no matter how you try, but the effort is educational.
Recursion is a very important technique to learn. That said, once you have learned to do it, the next important thing to learn is that you can usually avoid using it explicitly yourself...
Folds and other Higher Order Functions
Did you notice how similar my two explicit recursion examples are? That's because most recursions over a list have the same basic structure. If you write a lot of such functions, you'll repeat that structure many times. Which makes it boilerplate; a waste of your time and a potential source of error.
Now, there are any number of sophisticated ways to explain folds but one simple concept is that they take the boilerplate out of recursion. They take care of the recursion and the management of accumulator values for you. All they ask is that you provide a seed value for the accumulator and the function to apply at each iteration.
For example, here is one way to use fold to extract the highest Int from the list xs
xs.tail.foldRight(xs.head) {(a, b) => if (a > b) a else b}
I know you aren't familiar with folds, so this may seem gibberish to you but surely you recognise the lambda (anonymous function) I'm passing in on the right. What I'm doing there is taking the first item in the list (xs.head) and using it as the seed value for the accumulator. Then I'm telling the rest of the list (xs.tail) to iterate over itself, comparing each item in turn to the accumulator value.
This kind of thing is a common case, so the Collections api designers have provided a shorthand version:
xs.reduce {(a, b) => if (a > b) a else b}
(If you look at the source code, you'll see they have implemented it using a fold).
Anything you might want to do iteratively to a Scala collection can be done using a fold. Often, the api designers will have provided a simpler higher-order function which is implemented, under the hood, using a fold. Want to find those divisible-by-six Ints again?
xs.foldRight(Nil: List[Int]) {(x, acc) => if (x % 6 == 0) x :: acc else acc}
That starts with an empty list as the accumulator, iterates over every item, only adding those divisible by 6 to the accumulator. Again, a simpler fold-based HoF has been provided for you:
xs filter { _ % 6 == 0 }
Folds and related higher-order functions are harder to understand than for comprehensions or explicit recursion, but very powerful and expressive (to anybody else who understands them). They eliminate boilerplate, removing a potential source of error. Because they are implemented by the core language developers, they can be more efficient (and that implementation can change, as the language progresses, without breaking your code). Experienced Scala developers use them in preference to for comprehensions or explicit recursion.
tl;dr
Learn For comprehensions
Learn explicit recursion
Don't use them if a higher-order function will do the job.
It is always nicer to use immutable variables since they make your code easier to read. Writing a recursive code can help solve your problem.
def max(x: List[Int]): Int = {
if (x.isEmpty == true) {
0
}
else {
Math.max(x.head, max(x.tail))
}
}
val a_list = List(a,b,c,d)
max_value = max(a_list)