Polish notation evaluate function - scala

I am new to Scala and I am having hard-time with defining, or more likely translating my code from Ruby to evaluate calculations described as Polish Notations,
f.e. (+ 3 2) or (- 4 (+ 3 2))
I successfully parse the string to form of ArrayBuffer(+, 3, 2) or ArrayBuffer(-, 4, ArrayBuffer(+, 3 2)).
The problem actually starts when I try to define a recursive eval function ,which simply takes ArrayBuffer as argument and "return" an Int(result of evaluated application).
IN THE BASE CASE:
I want to simply check if 2nd element is an instanceOf[Int] and 3rd element is instanceOf[Int] then evaluate them together (depending on sign operator - 1st element) and return Int.
However If any of the elements is another ArrayBuffer, I simply want to reassign that element to returned value of recursively called eval function. like:
Storage(2) = eval(Storage(2)). (** thats why i am using mutable ArrayBuffer **)
The error ,which I get is:
scala.collection.mutable.ArrayBuffer cannot be cast to java.lang.Integer
I am of course not looking for any copy-and-paste answers but for some advices and observations.
Constructive Criticism fully welcomed.
****** This is the testing code I am using only for the addition ******
def eval(Input: ArrayBuffer[Any]):Int = {
if(ArrayBuffer(2).isInstaceOf[ArrayBuffer[Any]]) {
ArrayBuffer(2) = eval(ArrayBuffer(2))
}
if(ArrayBuffer(3).isInstaceOf[ArrayBuffer[Any]]) {
ArrayBuffer(3) = eval(ArrayBuffer(3))
}
if(ArrayBuffer(2).isInstaceOf[Int] && ArrayBuffer(3).isInstanceOf[Int]) {
ArrayBuffer(2).asInstanceOf[Int] + ArrayBuffer(3).asInstanceOf[Int]
}
}

A few problems with your code:
ArrayBuffer(2) means "construct an ArrayBuffer with one element: 2". Nowhere in your code are you referencing your parameter Input. You would need to replace instances of ArrayBuffer(2) with Input(2) for this to work.
ArrayBuffer (and all collections in Scala) are 0-indexed, so if you want to access the second thing in the collection, you would do input(1).
If you leave the the final if there, then the compiler will complain since your function won't always return an Int; if the input contained something unexpected, then that last if would evaluate to false, and you have no else to fall to.
Here's a direct rewrite of your code: fixing the issues:
def eval(input: ArrayBuffer[Any]):Int = {
if(input(1).isInstanceOf[ArrayBuffer[Any]])
input(1) = eval(input(1).asInstanceOf[ArrayBuffer[Any]])
if(input(2).isInstanceOf[ArrayBuffer[Any]])
input(2) = eval(input(2).asInstanceOf[ArrayBuffer[Any]])
input(1).asInstanceOf[Int] + input(2).asInstanceOf[Int]
}
(note also that variable names, like input, should be lowercased.)
That said, the procedure of replacing entries in your input with their evaluations is probably not the best route because it destroys the input in the process of evaluating. You should instead write a function that takes the ArrayBuffer and simply recurses through it without modifying the original.
You'll want you eval function to check for specific cases. Here's a simple implementation as a demonstration:
def eval(e: Seq[Any]): Int =
e match {
case Seq("+", a: Int, b: Int) => a + b
case Seq("+", a: Int, b: Seq[Any]) => a + eval(b)
case Seq("+", a: Seq[Any], b: Int) => eval(a) + b
case Seq("+", a: Seq[Any], b: Seq[Any]) => eval(a) + eval(b)
}
So you can see that for the simple case of (+ arg1 arg2), there are 4 cases. In each case, if the argument is an Int, we use it directly in the addition. If the argument itself is a sequence (like ArrayBuffer), then we recursively evaluate before adding. Notice also that Scala's case syntax lets to do pattern matches with types, so you can skip the isInstanceOf and asInstanceOf stuff.
Now there definitely style improvements you'd want to make down the line (like using Either instead of Any and not hard coding the "+"), but this should get you on the right track.
And here's how you would use it:
eval(Seq("+", 3, 2))
res0: Int = 5
scala> eval(Seq("+", 4, Seq("+", 3, 2)))
res1: Int = 9
Now, if you want to really take advantage of Scala features, you could use an Eval extractor:
object Eval {
def unapply(e: Any): Option[Int] = {
e match {
case i: Int => Some(i)
case Seq("+", Eval(a), Eval(b)) => Some(a + b)
}
}
}
And you'd use it like this:
scala> val Eval(result) = 2
result: Int = 2
scala> val Eval(result) = ArrayBuffer("+", 2, 3)
result: Int = 5
scala> val Eval(result) = ArrayBuffer("+", 2, ArrayBuffer("+", 2, 3))
result: Int = 7
Or you could wrap it in an eval function:
def eval(e: Any): Int = {
val Eval(result) = e
result
}

Here is my take on right to left stack-based evaluation:
def eval(expr: String): Either[Throwable, Int] = {
import java.lang.NumberFormatException
import scala.util.control.Exception._
def int(s: String) = catching(classOf[NumberFormatException]).opt(s.toInt)
val symbols = expr.replaceAll("""[^\d\+\-\*/ ]""", "").split(" ").toSeq
allCatch.either {
val results = symbols.foldRight(List.empty[Int]) {
(symbol, operands) => int(symbol) match {
case Some(op) => op :: operands
case None => val x :: y :: ops = operands
val result = symbol match {
case "+" => x + y
case "-" => x - y
case "*" => x * y
case "/" => x / y
}
result :: ops
}
}
results.head
}
}

Related

Cats Writer Vector is empty

I wrote this simple program in my attempt to learn how Cats Writer works
import cats.data.Writer
import cats.syntax.applicative._
import cats.syntax.writer._
import cats.instances.vector._
object WriterTest extends App {
type Logged2[A] = Writer[Vector[String], A]
Vector("started the program").tell
val output1 = calculate1(10)
val foo = new Foo()
val output2 = foo.calculate2(20)
val (log, sum) = (output1 + output2).pure[Logged2].run
println(log)
println(sum)
def calculate1(x : Int) : Int = {
Vector("came inside calculate1").tell
val output = 10 + x
Vector(s"Calculated value ${output}").tell
output
}
}
class Foo {
def calculate2(x: Int) : Int = {
Vector("came inside calculate 2").tell
val output = 10 + x
Vector(s"calculated ${output}").tell
output
}
}
The program works and the output is
> run-main WriterTest
[info] Compiling 1 Scala source to /Users/Cats/target/scala-2.11/classes...
[info] Running WriterTest
Vector()
50
[success] Total time: 1 s, completed Jan 21, 2017 8:14:19 AM
But why is the vector empty? Shouldn't it contain all the strings on which I used the "tell" method?
When you call tell on your Vectors, each time you create a Writer[Vector[String], Unit]. However, you never actually do anything with your Writers, you just discard them. Further, you call pure to create your final Writer, which simply creates a Writer with an empty Vector. You have to combine the writers together in a chain that carries your value and message around.
type Logged[A] = Writer[Vector[String], A]
val (log, sum) = (for {
_ <- Vector("started the program").tell
output1 <- calculate1(10)
foo = new Foo()
output2 <- foo.calculate2(20)
} yield output1 + output2).run
def calculate1(x: Int): Logged[Int] = for {
_ <- Vector("came inside calculate1").tell
output = 10 + x
_ <- Vector(s"Calculated value ${output}").tell
} yield output
class Foo {
def calculate2(x: Int): Logged[Int] = for {
_ <- Vector("came inside calculate2").tell
output = 10 + x
_ <- Vector(s"calculated ${output}").tell
} yield output
}
Note the use of for notation. The definition of calculate1 is really
def calculate1(x: Int): Logged[Int] = Vector("came inside calculate1").tell.flatMap { _ =>
val output = 10 + x
Vector(s"calculated ${output}").tell.map { _ => output }
}
flatMap is the monadic bind operation, which means it understands how to take two monadic values (in this case Writer) and join them together to get a new one. In this case, it makes a Writer containing the concatenation of the logs and the value of the one on the right.
Note how there are no side effects. There is no global state by which Writer can remember all your calls to tell. You instead make many Writers and join them together with flatMap to get one big one at the end.
The problem with your example code is that you're not using the result of the tell method.
If you take a look at its signature, you'll see this:
final class WriterIdSyntax[A](val a: A) extends AnyVal {
def tell: Writer[A, Unit] = Writer(a, ())
}
it is clear that tell returns a Writer[A, Unit] result which is immediately discarded because you didn't assign it to a value.
The proper way to use a Writer (and any monad in Scala) is through its flatMap method. It would look similar to this:
println(
Vector("started the program").tell.flatMap { _ =>
15.pure[Logged2].flatMap { i =>
Writer(Vector("ended program"), i)
}
}
)
The code above, when executed will give you this:
WriterT((Vector(started the program, ended program),15))
As you can see, both messages and the int are stored in the result.
Now this is a bit ugly, and Scala actually provides a better way to do this: for-comprehensions. For-comprehension are a bit of syntactic sugar that allows us to write the same code in this way:
println(
for {
_ <- Vector("started the program").tell
i <- 15.pure[Logged2]
_ <- Vector("ended program").tell
} yield i
)
Now going back to your example, what I would recommend is for you to change the return type of compute1 and compute2 to be Writer[Vector[String], Int] and then try to make your application compile using what I wrote above.

DRY when passing similar functions to Scala map()

def doubleList(noList:List[Int]) = {
val result = noList.map{ number =>
number*2
}
result
}
def halfList(noList:List[Int]) = {
val result = noList.map{ number =>
number/2
}
result
}
def mapFunctionDRY(noList:List[Int])(codeBlock: () => Int) = {
}
println(halfList(List(1,2,3)))
println(doubleList(List(1,2,4)))
I was playing around with scala and noticed violation of DRY (Dont Repeat Yourself) in the above two functions doubleList and halfList. I want the code common in both the function to be isolated and just pass the code block which is different. That way my code would not be violating DRY principle. I know that you could pass in code block as argument in scala. That is what I intend to do in mapFunctionDRY
I want mapFunctionDRY to be in this way
def mapFunctionDRY(noList:List[Int])(codeBlock: () => Int) = {
noList.map{ number =>
codeBlock()
}
}
And code in doubleList and halfList to be similar to this
def doubleList(noList:List[Int]) = { mapFunctionDRY(noList){ () => number*2 } }
But I would get a compilation error if I do such thing. How can I make the code pass in as the parameter in this case to avoid violation of DRY. Can this code be reduced further to keep it DRY?
You don't need to reinvent job that map does quite DRY:
def double(x: Int) = x * 2
def half(x: Int) = x / 2
val xs = List(1,2,3,4)
xs.map(double)
// List[Int] = List(2, 4, 6, 8)
xs.map(half)
// List[Int] = List(0, 1, 1, 2)
The compilation error occurs because you want to map each Int to another Int. codeBlock: () => Int is a function that takes no argument.
codeBlock: Int => Int should do what you want. Then you can define something like this:
def doubleList(noList:List[Int]) = { mapFunctionDRY(noList){ (number : Int) => number*2 } }
Haven't tested it though.
Edit: And like the others said. This function is not really useful because it's like map but weaker in the sense that it can only be applied to List[Int]
Why are you building a wrapper around map, which actually provides the dry-est solution to your problem? I would suggest a different strategy:
val mapDouble = (x: Int) => x * 2
val mapHalf = (x: Int) => x / 2
List(1, 2, 3).map(mapDouble)
List(1, 2, 3).map(mapHalf)
Your functions operate on one element of a list. Therefore instead of codeBlock being a () => Int, I would change it to (Int) => Int. So given one element of a list what do you want to do with it.
This results in the following code:
def mapFunctionDRY(noList:List[Int])(elementFn: (Int) => Int) = {
noList.map{ number =>
elementFn(number)
}
}
And if you're into short code, then the equivalent code is:
def mapFunctionDRY(noList:List[Int])(elementFn: (Int) => Int) = noList.map(elementFn)
There are many other ways to keep being DRY. For an example your could define the operations separately to be able to reuse them:
val doubleOperation: Int => Int = _ * 2
val halfOperation: Int => Int = _ / 2
def doubleList(noList:List[Int]) = noList.map(doubleOperation)
def halfList(noList:List[Int]) = noList.map(halfOperation)
Or you could use function currying to save yourself one line of code:
def mapFunction(fn: (Int) => Int)(noList: List[Int]) = noList.map(fn)
val doubleList = mapFunction(_ * 2)
val halfList = mapFunction(_ / 2)
I think what you are looking for is Currying in this regard.
def func(factor:Double)(noList:List[Int]) ={
val result = noList.map{ number =>
number*factor
}
result
Now you can pass this function with func(0.5f)(noList) or func(1.0f)(noList)
You could even have References to the different Versions of your Function.
halfed = x:List[Int] => func(0.5f)(x)
doubled = x:List[Int] => func(2.0f)(x)

Scala tail recursion error

Below is a simple 'repeat' method I am trying to write using tail recursion. The sole purpose of this function is to just repeat the giving string back to back 'n' amount of times.
I.e. repeat("Hello",3) = "HelloHelloHello"
But for whatever reason I am getting a 'java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException' and I am not sure why.
P.S. This is a homework assignment so if I could just be pointed in the right direction instead of a straight answer that would be cool!
def repeat(s: String, n: Int): String = {
def tailRepeat(str: String, x: Int): String = x match {
case `n` => str
case _ => val repeatString = s + str
tailRepeat(repeatString, (x + 1))
}
tailRepeat(s, 0)
}
I think you are making this a little too complex. For one thing you don't really need pattern matching at all, you have a counting variable that tells you how many times to repeat your string, using that would simplify your code greatly. Also it is usually more straightforward to count down and not up:
def repeat(s: String, n: Int): String = {
def tailRepeat(str: String, x: Int): String = {
if(x == 0) str
else tailRepeat(str + s, x - 1)
}
tailRepeat(s, n - 1)
}
println( repeat("hello", 3) );
// hellohellohello

Abort early in a fold

What's the best way to terminate a fold early? As a simplified example, imagine I want to sum up the numbers in an Iterable, but if I encounter something I'm not expecting (say an odd number) I might want to terminate. This is a first approximation
def sumEvenNumbers(nums: Iterable[Int]): Option[Int] = {
nums.foldLeft (Some(0): Option[Int]) {
case (Some(s), n) if n % 2 == 0 => Some(s + n)
case _ => None
}
}
However, this solution is pretty ugly (as in, if I did a .foreach and a return -- it'd be much cleaner and clearer) and worst of all, it traverses the entire iterable even if it encounters a non-even number.
So what would be the best way to write a fold like this, that terminates early? Should I just go and write this recursively, or is there a more accepted way?
My first choice would usually be to use recursion. It is only moderately less compact, is potentially faster (certainly no slower), and in early termination can make the logic more clear. In this case you need nested defs which is a little awkward:
def sumEvenNumbers(nums: Iterable[Int]) = {
def sumEven(it: Iterator[Int], n: Int): Option[Int] = {
if (it.hasNext) {
val x = it.next
if ((x % 2) == 0) sumEven(it, n+x) else None
}
else Some(n)
}
sumEven(nums.iterator, 0)
}
My second choice would be to use return, as it keeps everything else intact and you only need to wrap the fold in a def so you have something to return from--in this case, you already have a method, so:
def sumEvenNumbers(nums: Iterable[Int]): Option[Int] = {
Some(nums.foldLeft(0){ (n,x) =>
if ((n % 2) != 0) return None
n+x
})
}
which in this particular case is a lot more compact than recursion (though we got especially unlucky with recursion since we had to do an iterable/iterator transformation). The jumpy control flow is something to avoid when all else is equal, but here it's not. No harm in using it in cases where it's valuable.
If I was doing this often and wanted it within the middle of a method somewhere (so I couldn't just use return), I would probably use exception-handling to generate non-local control flow. That is, after all, what it is good at, and error handling is not the only time it's useful. The only trick is to avoid generating a stack trace (which is really slow), and that's easy because the trait NoStackTrace and its child trait ControlThrowable already do that for you. Scala already uses this internally (in fact, that's how it implements the return from inside the fold!). Let's make our own (can't be nested, though one could fix that):
import scala.util.control.ControlThrowable
case class Returned[A](value: A) extends ControlThrowable {}
def shortcut[A](a: => A) = try { a } catch { case Returned(v) => v }
def sumEvenNumbers(nums: Iterable[Int]) = shortcut{
Option(nums.foldLeft(0){ (n,x) =>
if ((x % 2) != 0) throw Returned(None)
n+x
})
}
Here of course using return is better, but note that you could put shortcut anywhere, not just wrapping an entire method.
Next in line for me would be to re-implement fold (either myself or to find a library that does it) so that it could signal early termination. The two natural ways of doing this are to not propagate the value but an Option containing the value, where None signifies termination; or to use a second indicator function that signals completion. The Scalaz lazy fold shown by Kim Stebel already covers the first case, so I'll show the second (with a mutable implementation):
def foldOrFail[A,B](it: Iterable[A])(zero: B)(fail: A => Boolean)(f: (B,A) => B): Option[B] = {
val ii = it.iterator
var b = zero
while (ii.hasNext) {
val x = ii.next
if (fail(x)) return None
b = f(b,x)
}
Some(b)
}
def sumEvenNumbers(nums: Iterable[Int]) = foldOrFail(nums)(0)(_ % 2 != 0)(_ + _)
(Whether you implement the termination by recursion, return, laziness, etc. is up to you.)
I think that covers the main reasonable variants; there are some other options also, but I'm not sure why one would use them in this case. (Iterator itself would work well if it had a findOrPrevious, but it doesn't, and the extra work it takes to do that by hand makes it a silly option to use here.)
The scenario you describe (exit upon some unwanted condition) seems like a good use case for the takeWhile method. It is essentially filter, but should end upon encountering an element that doesn't meet the condition.
For example:
val list = List(2,4,6,8,6,4,2,5,3,2)
list.takeWhile(_ % 2 == 0) //result is List(2,4,6,8,6,4,2)
This will work just fine for Iterators/Iterables too. The solution I suggest for your "sum of even numbers, but break on odd" is:
list.iterator.takeWhile(_ % 2 == 0).foldLeft(...)
And just to prove that it's not wasting your time once it hits an odd number...
scala> val list = List(2,4,5,6,8)
list: List[Int] = List(2, 4, 5, 6, 8)
scala> def condition(i: Int) = {
| println("processing " + i)
| i % 2 == 0
| }
condition: (i: Int)Boolean
scala> list.iterator.takeWhile(condition _).sum
processing 2
processing 4
processing 5
res4: Int = 6
You can do what you want in a functional style using the lazy version of foldRight in scalaz. For a more in depth explanation, see this blog post. While this solution uses a Stream, you can convert an Iterable into a Stream efficiently with iterable.toStream.
import scalaz._
import Scalaz._
val str = Stream(2,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2)
var i = 0 //only here for testing
val r = str.foldr(Some(0):Option[Int])((n,s) => {
println(i)
i+=1
if (n % 2 == 0) s.map(n+) else None
})
This only prints
0
1
which clearly shows that the anonymous function is only called twice (i.e. until it encounters the odd number). That is due to the definition of foldr, whose signature (in case of Stream) is def foldr[B](b: B)(f: (Int, => B) => B)(implicit r: scalaz.Foldable[Stream]): B. Note that the anonymous function takes a by name parameter as its second argument, so it need no be evaluated.
Btw, you can still write this with the OP's pattern matching solution, but I find if/else and map more elegant.
Well, Scala does allow non local returns. There are differing opinions on whether or not this is a good style.
scala> def sumEvenNumbers(nums: Iterable[Int]): Option[Int] = {
| nums.foldLeft (Some(0): Option[Int]) {
| case (None, _) => return None
| case (Some(s), n) if n % 2 == 0 => Some(s + n)
| case (Some(_), _) => None
| }
| }
sumEvenNumbers: (nums: Iterable[Int])Option[Int]
scala> sumEvenNumbers(2 to 10)
res8: Option[Int] = None
scala> sumEvenNumbers(2 to 10 by 2)
res9: Option[Int] = Some(30)
EDIT:
In this particular case, as #Arjan suggested, you can also do:
def sumEvenNumbers(nums: Iterable[Int]): Option[Int] = {
nums.foldLeft (Some(0): Option[Int]) {
case (Some(s), n) if n % 2 == 0 => Some(s + n)
case _ => return None
}
}
You can use foldM from cats lib (as suggested by #Didac) but I suggest to use Either instead of Option if you want to get actual sum out.
bifoldMap is used to extract the result from Either.
import cats.implicits._
def sumEven(nums: Stream[Int]): Either[Int, Int] = {
nums.foldM(0) {
case (acc, n) if n % 2 == 0 => Either.right(acc + n)
case (acc, n) => {
println(s"Stopping on number: $n")
Either.left(acc)
}
}
}
examples:
println("Result: " + sumEven(Stream(2, 2, 3, 11)).bifoldMap(identity, identity))
> Stopping on number: 3
> Result: 4
println("Result: " + sumEven(Stream(2, 7, 2, 3)).bifoldMap(identity, identity))
> Stopping on number: 7
> Result: 2
Cats has a method called foldM which does short-circuiting (for Vector, List, Stream, ...).
It works as follows:
def sumEvenNumbers(nums: Stream[Int]): Option[Long] = {
import cats.implicits._
nums.foldM(0L) {
case (acc, c) if c % 2 == 0 => Some(acc + c)
case _ => None
}
}
If it finds a not even element it returns None without computing the rest, otherwise it returns the sum of the even entries.
If you want to keep count until an even entry is found, you should use an Either[Long, Long]
#Rex Kerr your answer helped me, but I needed to tweak it to use Either
def foldOrFail[A,B,C,D](map: B => Either[D, C])(merge: (A, C) => A)(initial: A)(it: Iterable[B]): Either[D, A] = {
val ii= it.iterator
var b= initial
while (ii.hasNext) {
val x= ii.next
map(x) match {
case Left(error) => return Left(error)
case Right(d) => b= merge(b, d)
}
}
Right(b)
}
You could try using a temporary var and using takeWhile. Here is a version.
var continue = true
// sample stream of 2's and then a stream of 3's.
val evenSum = (Stream.fill(10)(2) ++ Stream.fill(10)(3)).takeWhile(_ => continue)
.foldLeft(Option[Int](0)){
case (result,i) if i%2 != 0 =>
continue = false;
// return whatever is appropriate either the accumulated sum or None.
result
case (optionSum,i) => optionSum.map( _ + i)
}
The evenSum should be Some(20) in this case.
You can throw a well-chosen exception upon encountering your termination criterion, handling it in the calling code.
A more beutiful solution would be using span:
val (l, r) = numbers.span(_ % 2 == 0)
if(r.isEmpty) Some(l.sum)
else None
... but it traverses the list two times if all the numbers are even
Just for an "academic" reasons (:
var headers = Source.fromFile(file).getLines().next().split(",")
var closeHeaderIdx = headers.takeWhile { s => !"Close".equals(s) }.foldLeft(0)((i, S) => i+1)
Takes twice then it should but it is a nice one liner.
If "Close" not found it will return
headers.size
Another (better) is this one:
var headers = Source.fromFile(file).getLines().next().split(",").toList
var closeHeaderIdx = headers.indexOf("Close")

How to check if a character is contained in string?

I want to check if the string contains the character. I am writing a hangman code.
For example, here is the word to guess: "scala", but it looks like "_ _ _ _ _" tho the user. Let's assume that user inputs letter 'a', then it must look like "_ _ a _ a".
def checkGuess(){
if (result.contains(user_input)) {
val comp = result.toCharArray
for (i <- comp){
if (user_input != comp(i))
comp(i) = '_'
comp(i)
}
val str = comp.toString
}
}
Is this right?
Thank you in advance.
I don't think this is homework, so I'll probably regret answering if it is...
case class HangmanGame(goal: String, guesses: Set[Char] = Set.empty[Char]) {
override def toString = goal map {c => if (guesses contains c) c else '_'} mkString " "
val isComplete = goal forall { guesses.contains }
def withGuess(c: Char) = copy(guesses = guesses + c)
}
Then
val h = HangmanGame("scala")
h: HangmanGame = _ _ _ _ _
scala> val h1 = h.withGuess('a')
h1: HangmanGame = _ _ a _ a
scala> val h2 = h1.withGuess('l')
h2: HangmanGame = _ _ a l a
scala> val h3 = h2.withGuess('s')
h3: HangmanGame = s _ a l a
scala> val h4 = h3.withGuess('c')
h4: HangmanGame = s c a l a
scala> h4.isComplete
res5: Boolean = true
UPDATE
Okay, so it does look like homework. I guess the genie's out of the bottle now, but unless you get up to speed on Scala very quickly you're going to have a really hard time explaining how it works.
How about:
scala> def checkGuess(str: String, c: Char) = str.replaceAll("[^"+c+"]","_")
checkGuess: (str: String,c: Char)java.lang.String
scala> checkGuess("scala",'a')
res1: java.lang.String = __a_a
scala> def checkGuess2(str: String, C: Char) = str map { case C => C; case _ => '_'}
checkGuess2: (str: String,C: Char)String
scala> checkGuess2("scala",'a')
res2: String = __a_a
Here are some comments about how you wrote this. When using this syntax, def checkGuess() { ... }, the function will not return any value, it will return Unit instead.
This means that you're using it for its side effect only (such as setting some var outside the code block or printing some values). The issue is that you are not setting any value or printing anything inside the function (no printing, no assignment).
What you don't show in your code snippet is where you store the string to guess, the user input and the feedback to print. You can pass the first two as arguments and the last one as a returned value. This make the input and output self contained in the function and does not presume where you render the feedback.
def feedback(target:String, guesses:String): String = {
// target is the string to guess like "scala"
// guesses are the letters that have been provided so far, like "ac"
// last expression should be the feedback to print for instance "_ca_a"
}
Then you can think about the function as transforming each letter in target with _ or with itself depending on whether it is contained in guesses. For this the target map { c => expr } would work pretty well if you figure out how to make expr return c if c is in guesses and '_' otherwise.
Staying as close as possible to the main question ( How to check if a character is contained in string? ) what I did was changing the approach, i.e.:
Inside a for loop, I wanted to do something like some_chr == 't'
and I did the following some_chr.toString == "t" and it worked just fine.