While trying to run the following snippet from Scala for the impatient:
val b = ArrayBuffer(1,7,2,9)
val bSorted = b.sorted(_ < _)
I get the following error:
error: missing parameter type for expanded function ((x$1, x$2) => x$1.$less(x$2))
val bSorted = b.sorted(_ < _)
Can somebody explain what might be going on here. Shouldn't the parameter type be inferred from the contents of the ArrayBuffer or do I need to specify it explicitly?
Thanks
.sorted takes an implicit parameter of type Ordering (similar to Java Comparator). For integers, the compiler will provide the correct instance for you:
scala> b.sorted
res0: scala.collection.mutable.ArrayBuffer[Int] = ArrayBuffer(1, 2, 7, 9)
If you want to pass a comparison function, use sortWith:
scala> b.sortWith( _ < _ )
res2: scala.collection.mutable.ArrayBuffer[Int] = ArrayBuffer(1, 2, 7, 9)
scala> b.sortWith( _ > _ )
res3: scala.collection.mutable.ArrayBuffer[Int] = ArrayBuffer(9, 7, 2, 1)
However, pay attention, although ArrayBuffer is mutable, both sort methods will return a copy which is sorted, but the original won't be touched.
Related
I've notice this behavior in Scala
val list = List[(Int, Int)]()
val set = HashSet[(Int, Int)]()
scala> list :+ (1, 2)
res30: List[(Int, Int)] = List((1,2))
scala> list :+ (1 -> 2)
res31: List[(Int, Int)] = List((1,2))
scala> list :+ 1 -> 2
res32: List[(Int, Int)] = List((1,2))
//Work
// But the same for set not work
set += (1, 2)
<console>:14: error: type mismatch;
found : Int(2)
required: (Int, Int)
set += (1, 2)
//Ok may be += in set mean add all that mean this should work
set += ((1, 2))
set += ((1, 2), (3,4))
// Worked
// But why this one work
set += 1 -> 2
set += (1 -> 2)
set += ((1 -> 2))
Now I'm confuse, could you explain why tuple is not tuple?
scala> (4->5).getClass
res28: Class[_ <: (Int, Int)] = class scala.Tuple2
scala> (4,7).getClass
res29: Class[_ <: (Int, Int)] = class scala.Tuple2$mcII$sp
The parser stage -Xprint:parser gives
set.$plus$eq(1, 2)
which seems to resolve to
def += (elem1: A, elem2: A, elems: A*)
that is a method that accepts multiple arguments so compiler probably thinks elem1 = 1 or elem2 = 2 instead of considering (1,2) as a tuple.
missingfaktor points to SLS 6.12.3 Infix Operations as the explanation
The right-hand operand of a left-associative operator may consist of
several arguments enclosed in parentheses, e.g. π;op;(π1,β¦,ππ).
This expression is then interpreted as π.op(π1,β¦,ππ).
Now the operator += is left-associative because it does not end in :, and the right-hand operand of += consists of several arguments enclosed in parentheses (1,2). Therefore, by design, the compiler does not treat (1,2) as Tuple2.
I think the difference is that HashSet[T] defines two overloads for +=, one of which takes a single T, and the other takes multiple (as a T* params list). This is inherited from Growable[T], and shown here.
List[T].:+ can only take one T on the right hand side, which is why the compiler works out that it's looking at a tuple, not something that should be turned into a params list.
If you do set += ((1, 2)) then it compiles. Also, val tuple = (1,2); set += x works too.
See Mario Galicβs answer for why in the case of HashSet[T].+= the compiler chooses the overload that can't type over the one that can.
For example,
scala> val a = Set(Array(1, 2),Array(8, 9))
a: scala.collection.immutable.Set[Array[Int]] = Set(Array(1, 2), Array(8, 9))
scala> a.flatMap(_)
<console>:9: error: missing parameter type for expanded function ((x$1) => a.flatMap(x$1))
a.flatMap(_)
^
scala> a.flatMap(x=>x)
res4: scala.collection.immutable.Set[Int] = Set(1, 2, 8, 9)
Is there a shortcut for x=>x type of lambda function?
It seems you are looking for identity,
val a = Set(Array(1, 2) ,Array(8, 9))
a.flatten
a.map(identity).flatten
If you go into identity its like
#inline def identity[A](x: A): A = x
So it works same as x => x, whatever comes just return as it is.
you can use simple flatten.
scala> val a = Set(Array(1, 2),Array(8, 9))
//a: scala.collection.immutable.Set[Array[Int]] = Set(Array(1, 2), Array(8, 9))
scala> a.flatten
//res0: scala.collection.immutable.Set[Int] = Set(1, 2, 8, 9)
scala> a.map(x => x).flatten
//res9: scala.collection.immutable.Set[Int] = Set(1, 2, 8, 9)
Here, a.map(f) where f is A => B conversion function required. Other wise type mismatch.
Since your title asks why it doesn't work, and not just how to make it work: the error message tells you.
When _ is used directly as an argument of a method, its scope expands so that a.flatMap(_) is x => a.flatMap(x). This is simply useful much more often: would you want println(_) to always print <function1>?
Snippet 1:
val l = List(1,2,43,4)
l.map(i => i *2)
Snippet 2:
val s = "dsadadaqer12"
val g = s.groupBy(c=>c)
g.map ( {case (c,s) => (c,s.length)})
In snippet #2, the syntax different than #1 , i.e. curly braces required -- why?
I thought the following would compile, but it does not:
g.map ( (c,s) => (c,s.length))
Can someone explain why?
Thanks
The difference between the two is - the latter uses Pattern Matching and the former doesn't.
The syntax g.map({case (c,s) => (c,s.length)}) is just syntax sugar for:
g.map(v => v match { case (c,s) => (c,s.length) })
Which means: we name the input argument of our anonymous function v, and then in the function body we match it to a tuple (c,s). Since this is so useful, Scala provides the shorthand version you used.
Of course - this doesn't really have anything to do with whether you use a Map or a List - consider all the following possibilities:
scala> val l = List(1,2,43,4)
l: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 43, 4)
scala> l.map({ case i => i*2 })
res0: List[Int] = List(2, 4, 86, 8)
scala> val l2 = List((1,2), (3,4))
l2: List[(Int, Int)] = List((1,2), (3,4))
scala> l2.map({ case (i, j) => i*j })
res1: List[Int] = List(2, 12)
scala> val g = Map(1 -> 2, 3 -> 4)
g: scala.collection.immutable.Map[Int,Int] = Map(1 -> 2, 3 -> 4)
scala> g.map(t => t._1 * t._2)
res2: scala.collection.immutable.Iterable[Int] = List(2, 12)
Both Map and List can use both syntax options, depending mostly on what you actually want to do.
1- g.map{case (c,s) => (c,s.length)}
2- g.map((c,s) => (c,s.length))
The map method pulls a single argument, a 2-tuple, from the g collection. The 1st example compiles because the case statement uses pattern matching to extract the tuple's elements whereas the 2nd example doesn't and it won't compile. For that you'd have to do something like: g.map(t => (t._1, t._2.length))
As for the parenthesis vs. curly braces: braces have always been required for "partial functions," which is what that case statement is. You can use either braces or parens for anonymous functions (i.e. x => ...) although you are required to use braces if the function is more than a single line (i.e. has a carriage-return).
I read somewhere that this parens/braces distinction might be relaxed but I don't know if that's going to happen any time soon.
Why is the below statement valid for .map() but not for .flatMap()?
val tupled = input.map(x => (x*2, x*3))
//Compilation error: cannot resolve reference flatMap with such signature
val tupled = input.flatMap(x => (x*2, x*3))
This statement has no problem, though:
val tupled = input.flatMap(x => List(x*2, x*3))
Assuming input if of type List[Int], map takes a function from Int to A, whereas flatMap takes a function from Int to List[A].
Depending on your use case you can choose either one or the other, but they're definitely not interchangeable.
For instance, if you are merely transforming the elements of a List you typically want to use map:
List(1, 2, 3).map(x => x * 2) // List(2, 4, 6)
but you want to change the structure of the List and - for example - "explode" each element into another list then flattening them, flatMap is your friend:
List(1, 2, 3).flatMap(x => List.fill(x)(x)) // List(1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3)
Using map you would have had List(List(1), List(2, 2), List(3, 3, 3)) instead.
To understand how this is working, it can be useful to explicitly unpack the functions you're sending to map and flatMap and examine their signatures. I've rewritten them here, so you can see that f is a function mapping from Int to an (Int, Int) tuple, and g is a function that maps from Int to a List[Int].
val f: (Int) => (Int, Int) = x => (x*2, x*3)
val g: (Int) => List[Int] = x => List(x*2, x*3)
List(1,2,3).map(f)
//res0: List[(Int, Int)] = List((2,3), (4,6), (6,9))
List(1,2,3).map(g)
//res1: List[List[Int]] = List(List(2, 3), List(4, 6), List(6, 9))
//List(1,2,3).flatMap(f) // This won't compile
List(1,2,3).flatMap(g)
//res2: List[Int] = List(2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 9)
So why won't flatMap(f) compile? Let's look at the signature for flatMap, in this case pulled from the List implementation:
final override def flatMap[B, That](f : scala.Function1[A, scala.collection.GenTraversableOnce[B]])(...)
This is a little difficult to unpack, and I've elided some of it, but the key is the GenTraversableOnce type. List, if you follow it's chain of inheritance up, has this as a trait it is built with, and thus a function that maps from some type A to a List (or any object with the GenTraversableOnce trait) will be a valid function. Notably, tuples do not have this trait.
That is the in-the-weeds explanation why the typing is wrong, and is worth explaining because any error that says 'cannot resolve reference with such a signature' means that it can't find a function that takes the explicit type you're offering. Types are very often inferred in Scala, and so you're well-served to make sure that the type you're giving is the type expected by the method you're calling.
Note that flatMap has a standard meaning in functional programming, which is, roughly speaking, any mapping function that consumes a single element and produces n elements, but your final result is the concatenation of all of those lists. Therefore, the function you pass to flatMap will always expect to produce a list, and no flatMap function would be expected to know how to act on single elements.
I have a function that takes a list of lists of integer, specifically Seq[Seq[Int]]. Then I produce this data from reading a text file and using split, and that produces a list of Array. That is not recognized by Scala, who raises a match error. But either IndexedSeq or Array alone are OK with a Seq[Int] function, apparently only the nested collection is an issue. How can I convert implicitly IndexedSeq[Array[Int]] to Seq[Seq[Int]], or how else could I do this other than using toList as demonstrated below? Iterable[Iterable[Int]] seems to be fine, for instance, but I can't use this.
scala> def g(x:Seq[Int]) = x.sum
g: (x: Seq[Int])Int
scala> g("1 2 3".split(" ").map(_.toInt))
res6: Int = 6
scala> def f(x:Seq[Seq[Int]]) = x.map(_.sum).sum
f: (x: Seq[Seq[Int]])Int
scala> f(List("1 2 3", "3 4 5").map(_.split(" ").map(_.toInt)))
<console>:9: error: type mismatch;
found : List[Array[Int]]
required: Seq[Seq[Int]]
f(List("1 2 3", "3 4 5").map(_.split(" ").map(_.toInt)))
^
scala> f(List("1 2 3", "3 4 5").map(_.split(" ").map(_.toInt).toList))
res8: Int = 18
The problem is that Array does not implement SeqLike. Normally, implicit conversions to ArrayOps or WrappedArray defined in scala.predef allow to use array just like Seq. However, in your case array is 'hidden' from implicit conversions as a generic argument. One solution would be to hint compiler that you can apply an implicit conversion to the generic argument like this:
def f[C <% Seq[Int]](x:Seq[C]) = x.map(_.sum).sum
This is similar to Paul's response above. The problem is that view bounds are deprecated in Scala 2.11 and using deprecated language features is not a good idea. Luckily, view bounds can be rewritten as context bounds as follows:
def f[C](x:Seq[C])(implicit conv: C => Seq[Int]) = x.map(_.sum).sum
Now, this assumes that there is an implicit conversion from C to Seq[Int], which is indeed present in predef.
How about this:
implicit def _convert(b:List[Array[Int]]):Seq[Seq[Int]]=b.map(_.toList)
Redefine f to be a bit more flexible.
Since Traversable is a parent of List, Seq, Array, etc., f will be compatible with these containers if it based on Traversable. Traversable has sum, flatten, and map, and that is all that's needed.
What is tricky about this is that
def f(y:Traversable[Traversable[Int]]):Int = y.flatten.sum
is finicky and doesn't work on a y of type List[Array[Int]] although it will work on Array[List[Int]]
To make it less finicky, some type view bounds will work.
Initially, I replaced your sum of sums with a flatten/sum operation.
def f[Y<%Traversable[K],K<%Traversable[Int]](y:Y):Int=y.flatten.sum
I found this also seems to work but I did not test as much:
def f[Y <% Traversable[K], K <% Traversable[Int]](y:Y):Int=y.map(_.sum).sum
This <% syntax says Y is viewable as Traversable[K] for some type K that is viewable as a Traversable of Int.
Define some different containers, including the one you need:
scala> val myListOfArray = List(Array(1,2,3),Array(3,4,5))
val myListOfArray = List(Array(1,2,3),Array(3,4,5))
myListOfArray: List[Array[Int]] = List(Array(1, 2, 3), Array(3, 4, 5))
scala> val myArrayOfList = Array(List(1,2,3),List(3,4,5))
val myArrayOfList = Array(List(1,2,3),List(3,4,5))
myArrayOfList: Array[List[Int]] = Array(List(1, 2, 3), List(3, 4, 5))
scala> val myListOfList = List(List(1,2,3),List(3,4,5))
val myListOfList = List(List(1,2,3),List(3,4,5))
myListOfList: List[List[Int]] = List(List(1, 2, 3), List(3, 4, 5))
scala> val myListOfRange = List(1 to 3, 3 to 5)
val myListOfRange = List(1 to 3, 3 to 5)
myListOfRange: List[scala.collection.immutable.Range.Inclusive] = List(Range(1, 2, 3), Range(3, 4, 5))
Test:
scala> f(myListOfArray)
f(myListOfArray)
res24: Int = 18
scala> f(myArrayOfList)
f(myArrayOfList)
res25: Int = 18
scala> f(myListOfList)
f(myListOfList)
res26: Int = 18
scala> f(myListOfRange)
f(myListOfRange)
res28: Int = 18