In the document "Effective Scala" published by twitter, I see a code example:
class Pool(conns: Seq[Conn]) {
private[this] val waiters = new Broker[Conn]
private[this] val returnConn = new Broker[Conn]
val get: Offer[Conn] = waiters.recv
def put(c: Conn) { returnConn ! c }
private[this] def loop(connq: Queue[Conn]) {
Offer.choose(
if (connq.isEmpty) Offer.never else {
val (head, rest) = connq.dequeue
waiters.send(head) { _ => loop(rest) }
},
returnConn.recv { c => loop(connq enqueue c) }
).sync()
}
loop(Queue.empty ++ conns)
}
The code doesn't appear to be tail recursive, and isn't annotated as such. Since this is a connection pool that would presumably be left running for the life of the program, what would prevent a pool like this from eventually blowing up the stack, and generating a StackOverflowException?
The code is not recursive at all! loop does not call itself. It passes closures { _ => loop(rest) } and { c => loop(connq enqueue c) } to waiters.send and returnConn.recv respectively which call loop again. No recursion hence no stack overflow.
Related
I am aware that Scala has optimizations for tail-recursive functions (i.e. those functions in which the recursive call is the last thing executed by the function). What I am asking here is whether there is a way to optimize tail calls to different functions. Consider the following Scala code:
def doA(): Unit = {
doB()
}
def doB(): Unit = {
doA()
}
If we let this execute long enough it will give a stack overflow error which one can mitigate by allocating more stack space. Nonetheless, it will eventually exceed the allocated space and once again cause a stack overflow error. One way to mitigate this could be:
case class C(f: () => C)
def run(): Unit = {
var c: C = C(() => doA())
while(true){
c = c.f.apply()
}
}
def doA(): C = {
C(() => doB())
}
def doB(): C = {
C(() => doA())
}
However, this proved to be quite slow. Is there a better way to optimize this?
Here's one way achieve an infinite progression of method calls, without consuming stack, where each method decides which method goes next.
def doA(): () => Any = {
doB _
}
def doB(): () => Any = {
doC _
}
def doC(): () => Any = {
if (util.Random.nextBoolean()) doA _
else doB _
}
Iterator.iterate(doA())(_.asInstanceOf[() => () => Any]())
.foreach(identity)
According to the Scala Language Specification (ยง6.19), "An enumerator sequence always starts with a generator". Why?
I sometimes find this restriction to be a hindrance when using for-comprehensions with monads, because it means you can't do things like this:
def getFooValue(): Future[Int] = {
for {
manager = Manager.getManager() // could throw an exception
foo <- manager.makeFoo() // method call returns a Future
value = foo.getValue()
} yield value
}
Indeed, scalac rejects this with the error message '<-' expected but '=' found.
If this was valid syntax in Scala, one advantage would be that any exception thrown by Manager.getManager() would be caught by the Future monad used within the for-comprehension, and would cause it to yield a failed Future, which is what I want. The workaround of moving the call to Manager.getManager() outside the for-comprehension doesn't have this advantage:
def getFooValue(): Future[Int] = {
val manager = Manager.getManager()
for {
foo <- manager.makeFoo()
value = foo.getValue()
} yield value
}
In this case, an exception thrown by foo.getValue() will yield a failed Future (which is what I want), but an exception thrown by Manager.getManager() will be thrown back to the caller of getFooValue() (which is not what I want). Other possible ways of handling the exception are more verbose.
I find this restriction especially puzzling because in Haskell's otherwise similar do notation, there is no requirement that a do block should begin with a statement containing <-. Can anyone explain this difference between Scala and Haskell?
Here's a complete working example showing how exceptions are caught by the Future monad in for-comprehensions:
import scala.concurrent._
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.util.{Try, Success, Failure}
class Foo(val value: Int) {
def getValue(crash: Boolean): Int = {
if (crash) {
throw new Exception("failed to get value")
} else {
value
}
}
}
class Manager {
def makeFoo(crash: Boolean): Future[Foo] = {
if (crash) {
throw new Exception("failed to make Foo")
} else {
Future(new Foo(10))
}
}
}
object Manager {
def getManager(crash: Boolean): Manager = {
if (crash) {
throw new Exception("failed to get manager")
} else {
new Manager()
}
}
}
object Main extends App {
def getFooValue(crashGetManager: Boolean,
crashMakeFoo: Boolean,
crashGetValue: Boolean): Future[Int] = {
for {
manager <- Future(Manager.getManager(crashGetManager))
foo <- manager.makeFoo(crashMakeFoo)
value = foo.getValue(crashGetValue)
} yield value
}
def waitForValue(future: Future[Int]): Unit = {
val result = Try(Await.result(future, Duration("10 seconds")))
result match {
case Success(value) => println(s"Got value: $value")
case Failure(e) => println(s"Got error: $e")
}
}
val future1 = getFooValue(false, false, false)
waitForValue(future1)
val future2 = getFooValue(true, false, false)
waitForValue(future2)
val future3 = getFooValue(false, true, false)
waitForValue(future3)
val future4 = getFooValue(false, false, true)
waitForValue(future4)
}
Here's the output:
Got value: 10
Got error: java.lang.Exception: failed to get manager
Got error: java.lang.Exception: failed to make Foo
Got error: java.lang.Exception: failed to get value
This is a trivial example, but I'm working on a project in which we have a lot of non-trivial code that depends on this behaviour. As far as I understand, this is one of the main advantages of using Future (or Try) as a monad. What I find strange is that I have to write
manager <- Future(Manager.getManager(crashGetManager))
instead of
manager = Manager.getManager(crashGetManager)
(Edited to reflect #RexKerr's point that the monad is doing the work of catching the exceptions.)
for comprehensions do not catch exceptions. Try does, and it has the appropriate methods to participate in for-comprehensions, so you can
for {
manager <- Try { Manager.getManager() }
...
}
But then it's expecting Try all the way down unless you manually or implicitly have a way to switch container types (e.g. something that converts Try to a List).
So I'm not sure your premises are right. Any assignment you made in a for-comprehension can just be made early.
(Also, there is no point doing an assignment inside a for comprehension just to yield that exact value. Just do the computation in the yield block.)
(Also, just to illustrate that multiple types can play a role in for comprehensions so there's not a super-obvious correct answer for how to wrap an early assignment in terms of later types:
// List and Option, via implicit conversion
for {i <- List(1,2,3); j <- Option(i).filter(_ <2)} yield j
// Custom compatible types with map/flatMap
// Use :paste in the REPL to define A and B together
class A[X] { def flatMap[Y](f: X => B[Y]): A[Y] = new A[Y] }
class B[X](x: X) { def map[Y](f: X => Y): B[Y] = new B(f(x)) }
for{ i <- (new A[Int]); j <- (new B(i)) } yield j.toString
Even if you take the first type you still have the problem of whether there is a unique "bind" (way to wrap) and whether to doubly-wrap things that are already the correct type. There could be rules for all these things, but for-comprehensions are already hard enough to learn, no?)
Haskell translates the equivalent of for { manager = Manager.getManager(); ... } to the equivalent of lazy val manager = Manager.getManager(); for { ... }. This seems to work:
scala> lazy val x: Int = throw new Exception("")
x: Int = <lazy>
scala> for { y <- Future(x + 1) } yield y
res8: scala.concurrent.Future[Int] = scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$DefaultPromise#fedb05d
scala> Try(Await.result(res1, Duration("10 seconds")))
res9: scala.util.Try[Int] = Failure(java.lang.Exception: )
I think the reason this can't be done is because for-loops are syntactic sugar for flatMap and map methods (except if you are using a condition in the for-loop, in that case it's desugared with the method withFilter). When you are storing in a immutable variable, you can't use these methods. That's the reason you would be ok using Try as pointed out by Rex Kerr. In that case, you should be able to use map and flatMap methods.
Suppose this API is given and we cannot change it:
object ProviderAPI {
trait Receiver[T] {
def receive(entry: T)
def close()
}
def run(r: Receiver[Int]) {
new Thread() {
override def run() {
(0 to 9).foreach { i =>
r.receive(i)
Thread.sleep(100)
}
r.close()
}
}.start()
}
}
In this example, ProviderAPI.run takes a Receiver, calls receive(i) 10 times and then closes. Typically, ProviderAPI.run would call receive(i) based on a collection which could be infinite.
This API is intended to be used in imperative style, like an external iterator. If our application needs to filter, map and print this input, we need to implement a Receiver which mixes all these operations:
object Main extends App {
class MyReceiver extends ProviderAPI.Receiver[Int] {
def receive(entry: Int) {
if (entry % 2 == 0) {
println("Entry#" + entry)
}
}
def close() {}
}
ProviderAPI.run(new MyReceiver())
}
Now, the question is how to use the ProviderAPI in functional style, internal iterator (without changing the implementation of ProviderAPI, which is given to us). Note that ProviderAPI could also call receive(i) infinite times, so it is not an option to collect everything in a list (also, we should handle each result one by one, instead of collecting all the input first, and processing it afterwards).
I am asking how to implement such a ReceiverToIterator, so that we can use the ProviderAPI in functional style:
object Main extends App {
val iterator = new ReceiverToIterator[Int] // how to implement this?
ProviderAPI.run(iterator)
iterator
.view
.filter(_ % 2 == 0)
.map("Entry#" + _)
.foreach(println)
}
Update
Here are four solutions:
IteratorWithSemaphorSolution: The workaround solution I proposed first attached to the question
QueueIteratorSolution: Using the BlockingQueue[Option[T]] based on the suggestion of nadavwr.
It allows the producer to continue producing up to queueCapacity before being blocked by the consumer.
PublishSubjectSolution: Very simple solution, using PublishSubject from Netflix RxJava-Scala API.
SameThreadReceiverToTraversable: Very simple solution, by relaxing the constraints of the question
Updated: BlockingQueue of 1 entry
What you've implemented here is essentially Java's BlockingQueue, with a queue size of 1.
Main characteristic: uber-blocking. A slow consumer will kill your producer's performance.
Update: #gzm0 mentioned that BlockingQueue doesn't cover EOF. You'll have to use BlockingQueue[Option[T]] for that.
Update: Here's a code fragment. It can be made to fit with your Receiver.
Some of it inspired by Iterator.buffered. Note that peek is a misleading name, as it may block -- and so will hasNext.
// fairness enabled -- you probably want to preserve order...
// alternatively, disable fairness and increase buffer to be 'big enough'
private val queue = new java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue[Option[T]](1, true)
// the following block provides you with a potentially blocking peek operation
// it should `queue.take` when the previous peeked head has been invalidated
// specifically, it will `queue.take` and block when the queue is empty
private var head: Option[T] = _
private var headDefined: Boolean = false
private def invalidateHead() { headDefined = false }
private def peek: Option[T] = {
if (!headDefined) {
head = queue.take()
headDefined = true
}
head
}
def iterator = new Iterator[T] {
// potentially blocking; only false upon taking `None`
def hasNext = peek.isDefined
// peeks and invalidates head; throws NoSuchElementException as appropriate
def next: T = {
val opt = peek; invalidateHead()
if (opt.isEmpty) throw new NoSuchElementException
else opt.get
}
}
Alternative: Iteratees
Iterator-based solutions will generally involve more blocking. Conceptually, you could use continuations on the thread doing the iteration to avoid blocking the thread, but continuations mess with Scala's for-comprehensions, so no joy down that road.
Alternatively, you could consider an iteratee-based solution. Iteratees are different than iterators in that the consumer isn't responsible for advancing the iteration -- the producer is. With iteratees, the consumer basically folds over the entries pushed by the producer over time. Folding each next entry as it becomes available can take place in a thread pool, since the thread is relinquished after each fold completes.
You won't get nice for-syntax for iteration, and the learning curve is a little challenging, but if you feel confident using a foldLeft you'll end up with a non-blocking solution that does look reasonable on the eye.
To read more about iteratees, I suggest taking a peek at PlayFramework 2.X's iteratee reference. The documentation describes their stand-alone iteratee library, which is 100% usable outside the context of Play. Scalaz 7 also has a comprehensive iteratee library.
IteratorWithSemaphorSolution
The first workaround solution that I proposed attached to the question.
I moved it here as an answer.
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore
object Main extends App {
val iterator = new ReceiverToIterator[Int]
ProviderAPI.run(iterator)
iterator
.filter(_ % 2 == 0)
.map("Entry#" + _)
.foreach(println)
}
class ReceiverToIterator[T] extends ProviderAPI.Receiver[T] with Iterator[T] {
var lastEntry: T = _
var waitingToReceive = new Semaphore(1)
var waitingToBeConsumed = new Semaphore(1)
var eof = false
waitingToReceive.acquire()
def receive(entry: T) {
println("ReceiverToIterator.receive(" + entry + "). START.")
waitingToBeConsumed.acquire()
lastEntry = entry
waitingToReceive.release()
println("ReceiverToIterator.receive(" + entry + "). END.")
}
def close() {
println("ReceiverToIterator.close().")
eof = true
waitingToReceive.release()
}
def hasNext = {
println("ReceiverToIterator.hasNext().START.")
waitingToReceive.acquire()
waitingToReceive.release()
println("ReceiverToIterator.hasNext().END.")
!eof
}
def next = {
println("ReceiverToIterator.next().START.")
waitingToReceive.acquire()
if (eof) { throw new NoSuchElementException }
val entryToReturn = lastEntry
waitingToBeConsumed.release()
println("ReceiverToIterator.next().END.")
entryToReturn
}
}
QueueIteratorSolution
The second workaround solution that I proposed attached to the question. I moved it here as an answer.
Solution using the BlockingQueue[Option[T]] based on the suggestion of nadavwr.
It allows the producer to continue producing up to queueCapacity before being blocked by the consumer.
I implement a QueueToIterator that uses a ArrayBlockingQueue with a given capacity.
BlockingQueue has a take() method, but not a peek or hasNext, so I need an OptionNextToIterator as follows:
trait OptionNextToIterator[T] extends Iterator[T] {
def getOptionNext: Option[T] // abstract
def hasNext = { ... }
def next = { ... }
}
Note: I am using the synchronized block inside OptionNextToIterator, and I am not sure it is totally correct
Solution:
import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue
object Main extends App {
val receiverToIterator = new ReceiverToIterator[Int](queueCapacity = 3)
ProviderAPI.run(receiverToIterator)
Thread.sleep(3000) // test that ProviderAPI.run can produce 3 items ahead before being blocked by the consumer
receiverToIterator.filter(_ % 2 == 0).map("Entry#" + _).foreach(println)
}
class ReceiverToIterator[T](val queueCapacity: Int = 1) extends ProviderAPI.Receiver[T] with QueueToIterator[T] {
def receive(entry: T) { queuePut(entry) }
def close() { queueClose() }
}
trait QueueToIterator[T] extends OptionNextToIterator[T] {
val queueCapacity: Int
val queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue[Option[T]](queueCapacity)
var queueClosed = false
def queuePut(entry: T) {
if (queueClosed) { throw new IllegalStateException("The queue has already been closed."); }
queue.put(Some(entry))
}
def queueClose() {
queueClosed = true
queue.put(None)
}
def getOptionNext = queue.take
}
trait OptionNextToIterator[T] extends Iterator[T] {
def getOptionNext: Option[T]
var answerReady: Boolean = false
var eof: Boolean = false
var element: T = _
def hasNext = {
prepareNextAnswerIfNecessary()
!eof
}
def next = {
prepareNextAnswerIfNecessary()
if (eof) { throw new NoSuchElementException }
val retVal = element
answerReady = false
retVal
}
def prepareNextAnswerIfNecessary() {
if (answerReady) {
return
}
synchronized {
getOptionNext match {
case None => eof = true
case Some(e) => element = e
}
answerReady = true
}
}
}
PublishSubjectSolution
A very simple solution using PublishSubject from Netflix RxJava-Scala API:
// libraryDependencies += "com.netflix.rxjava" % "rxjava-scala" % "0.20.7"
import rx.lang.scala.subjects.PublishSubject
class MyReceiver[T] extends ProviderAPI.Receiver[T] {
val channel = PublishSubject[T]()
def receive(entry: T) { channel.onNext(entry) }
def close() { channel.onCompleted() }
}
object Main extends App {
val myReceiver = new MyReceiver[Int]()
ProviderAPI.run(myReceiver)
myReceiver.channel.filter(_ % 2 == 0).map("Entry#" + _).subscribe{n => println(n)}
}
ReceiverToTraversable
This stackoverflow question came when I wanted to list and process a svn repository using the svnkit.com API as follows:
SvnList svnList = new SvnOperationFactory().createList();
svnList.setReceiver(new ISvnObjectReceiver<SVNDirEntry>() {
public void receive(SvnTarget target, SVNDirEntry dirEntry) throws SVNException {
// do something with dirEntry
}
});
svnList.run();
the API used a callback function, and I wanted to use a functional style instead, as follows:
svnList.
.filter(e => "pom.xml".compareToIgnoreCase(e.getName()) == 0)
.map(_.getURL)
.map(getMavenArtifact)
.foreach(insertArtifact)
I thought of having a class ReceiverToIterator[T] extends ProviderAPI.Receiver[T] with Iterator[T],
but this required the svnkit api to run in another thread.
That's why I asked how to solve this problem with a ProviderAPI.run method that run in a new thread. But that was not very wise: if I had explained the real case, someone might have found a better solution before.
Solution
If we tackle the real problem (so, no need of using a thread for the svnkit),
a simpler solution is to implement a scala.collection.Traversable instead of a scala.collection.Iterator.
While Iterator requires a next and hasNext def, Traversable requires a foreach def,
which is very similar to the svnkit callback!
Note that by using view, we make the transformers lazy, so elements are passed one by one through all the chain to foreach(println).
this allows to process an infinite collection.
object ProviderAPI {
trait Receiver[T] {
def receive(entry: T)
def close()
}
// Later I found out that I don't need a thread
def run(r: Receiver[Int]) {
(0 to 9).foreach { i => r.receive(i); Thread.sleep(100) }
}
}
object Main extends App {
new ReceiverToTraversable[Int](r => ProviderAPI.run(r))
.view
.filter(_ % 2 == 0)
.map("Entry#" + _)
.foreach(println)
}
class ReceiverToTraversable[T](val runProducer: (ProviderAPI.Receiver[T] => Unit)) extends Traversable[T] {
override def foreach[U](f: (T) => U) = {
object MyReceiver extends ProviderAPI.Receiver[T] {
def receive(entry: T) = f(entry)
def close() = {}
}
runProducer(MyReceiver)
}
}
I have a Traversable, and I want to make it into a Java Iterator. My problem is that I want everything to be lazily done. If I do .toIterator on the traversable, it eagerly produces the result, copies it into a List, and returns an iterator over the List.
I'm sure I'm missing something simple here...
Here is a small test case that shows what I mean:
class Test extends Traversable[String] {
def foreach[U](f : (String) => U) {
f("1")
f("2")
f("3")
throw new RuntimeException("Not lazy!")
}
}
val a = new Test
val iter = a.toIterator
The reason you can't get lazily get an iterator from a traversable is that you intrinsically can't. Traversable defines foreach, and foreach runs through everything without stopping. No laziness there.
So you have two options, both terrible, for making it lazy.
First, you can iterate through the whole thing each time. (I'm going to use the Scala Iterator, but the Java Iterator is basically the same.)
class Terrible[A](t: Traversable[A]) extends Iterator[A] {
private var i = 0
def hasNext = i < t.size // This could be O(n)!
def next: A = {
val a = t.slice(i,i+1).head // Also could be O(n)!
i += 1
a
}
}
If you happen to have efficient indexed slicing, this will be okay. If not, each "next" will take time linear in the length of the iterator, for O(n^2) time just to traverse it. But this is also not necessarily lazy; if you insist that it must be you have to enforce O(n^2) in all cases and do
class Terrible[A](t: Traversable[A]) extends Iterator[A] {
private var i = 0
def hasNext: Boolean = {
var j = 0
t.foreach { a =>
j += 1
if (j>i) return true
}
false
}
def next: A = {
var j = 0
t.foreach{ a =>
j += 1
if (j>i) { i += 1; return a }
}
throw new NoSuchElementException("Terribly empty")
}
}
This is clearly a terrible idea for general code.
The other way to go is to use a thread and block the traversal of foreach as it's going. That's right, you have to do inter-thread communication on every single element access! Let's see how that works--I'm going to use Java threads here since Scala is in the middle of a switch to Akka-style actors (though any of the old actors or the Akka actors or the Scalaz actors or the Lift actors or (etc.) will work)
class Horrible[A](t: Traversable[A]) extends Iterator[A] {
private val item = new java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue[Option[A]]()
private class Loader extends Thread {
override def run() { t.foreach{ a => item.put(Some(a)) }; item.put(None) }
}
private val loader = new Loader
loader.start
private var got: Option[A] = null
def hasNext: Boolean = {
if (got==null) { got = item.poll; hasNext }
else got.isDefined
}
def next = {
if (got==null) got = item.poll
val ans = got.get
got = null
ans
}
}
This avoids the O(n^2) disaster, but ties up a thread and has desperately slow element-by-element access. I get about two million accesses per second on my machine, as compared to >100M for a typical traversable. This is clearly a horrible idea for general code.
So there you have it. Traversable is not lazy in general, and there is no good way to make it lazy without compromising performance tremendously.
I've run into this problem before and as far as I can tell, no one's particularly interested in making it easier to get an Iterator when all you've defined is foreach.
But as you've noted, toStream is the problem, so you could just override that:
class Test extends Traversable[String] {
def foreach[U](f: (String) => U) {
f("1")
f("2")
f("3")
throw new RuntimeException("Not lazy!")
}
override def toStream: Stream[String] = {
"1" #::
"2" #::
"3" #::
Stream[String](throw new RuntimeException("Not lazy!"))
}
}
Another alternative would be to define an Iterable instead of a Traversable, and then you'd get the iterator method directly. Could you explain a bit more what your Traversable is doing in your real use case?
How might one implement C# yield return using Scala continuations? I'd like to be able to write Scala Iterators in the same style. A stab is in the comments on this Scala news post, but it doesn't work (tried using the Scala 2.8.0 beta). Answers in a related question suggest this is possible, but although I've been playing with delimited continuations for a while, I can't seem to exactly wrap my head around how to do this.
Before we introduce continuations we need to build some infrastructure.
Below is a trampoline that operates on Iteration objects.
An iteration is a computation that can either Yield a new value or it can be Done.
sealed trait Iteration[+R]
case class Yield[+R](result: R, next: () => Iteration[R]) extends Iteration[R]
case object Done extends Iteration[Nothing]
def trampoline[R](body: => Iteration[R]): Iterator[R] = {
def loop(thunk: () => Iteration[R]): Stream[R] = {
thunk.apply match {
case Yield(result, next) => Stream.cons(result, loop(next))
case Done => Stream.empty
}
}
loop(() => body).iterator
}
The trampoline uses an internal loop that turns the sequence of Iteration objects into a Stream.
We then get an Iterator by calling iterator on the resulting stream object.
By using a Stream our evaluation is lazy; we don't evaluate our next iteration until it is needed.
The trampoline can be used to build an iterator directly.
val itr1 = trampoline {
Yield(1, () => Yield(2, () => Yield(3, () => Done)))
}
for (i <- itr1) { println(i) }
That's pretty horrible to write, so let's use delimited continuations to create our Iteration objects automatically.
We use the shift and reset operators to break the computation up into Iterations,
then use trampoline to turn the Iterations into an Iterator.
import scala.continuations._
import scala.continuations.ControlContext.{shift,reset}
def iterator[R](body: => Unit #cps[Iteration[R],Iteration[R]]): Iterator[R] =
trampoline {
reset[Iteration[R],Iteration[R]] { body ; Done }
}
def yld[R](result: R): Unit #cps[Iteration[R],Iteration[R]] =
shift((k: Unit => Iteration[R]) => Yield(result, () => k(())))
Now we can rewrite our example.
val itr2 = iterator[Int] {
yld(1)
yld(2)
yld(3)
}
for (i <- itr2) { println(i) }
Much better!
Now here's an example from the C# reference page for yield that shows some more advanced usage.
The types can be a bit tricky to get used to, but it all works.
def power(number: Int, exponent: Int): Iterator[Int] = iterator[Int] {
def loop(result: Int, counter: Int): Unit #cps[Iteration[Int],Iteration[Int]] = {
if (counter < exponent) {
yld(result)
loop(result * number, counter + 1)
}
}
loop(number, 0)
}
for (i <- power(2, 8)) { println(i) }
I managed to discover a way to do this, after a few more hours of playing around. I thought this was simpler to wrap my head around than all the other solutions I've seen thus far, though I did afterward very much appreciate Rich's and Miles' solutions.
def loopWhile(cond: =>Boolean)(body: =>(Unit #suspendable)): Unit #suspendable = {
if (cond) {
body
loopWhile(cond)(body)
}
}
class Gen {
var prodCont: Unit => Unit = { x: Unit => prod }
var nextVal = 0
def yld(i: Int) = shift { k: (Unit => Unit) => nextVal = i; prodCont = k }
def next = { prodCont(); nextVal }
def prod = {
reset {
// following is generator logic; can be refactored out generically
var i = 0
i += 1
yld(i)
i += 1
yld(i)
// scala continuations plugin can't handle while loops, so need own construct
loopWhile (true) {
i += 1
yld(i)
}
}
}
}
val it = new Gen
println(it.next)
println(it.next)
println(it.next)