I have the following code:
val text = "some text goes here"
val (first, rest) = text.splitAt(4)
println(first + " *" + rest)
That works fine.
However, I want to have two cases, defining "first" and "rest" outside, like this:
val text = "some text goes here"
var (first, rest) = ("", "")
if (text.contains("z")) {
(first, rest) = text.splitAt(4)
} else {
(first, rest) = text.splitAt(7)
}
println(first + " *" + rest)
But that gives me an error:
scala> | <console>:2: error: ';' expected but '=' found.
(first, rest) = text.splitAt(4)
Why is it an error to do (first, rest) = text.splitAt(4) but not to do val (first, rest) = text.splitAt(4)? And what can I do?
Edit: Can't re-assign val, changed to var. Same error
The answer by Serj gives a better way of writing this, but for an answer to your question about why your second version doesn't work, you can go to the Scala specification, which makes a distinction between variable definitions and assignments.
From "4.2 Variable Declarations and Definitions":
Variable definitions can alternatively have a pattern (§8.1) as
left-hand side. A variable definition var p = e where p is a
pattern other than a simple name or a name followed by a colon and a
type is expanded in the same way (§4.1) as a value definition val p
= e, except that the free names in p are introduced as mutable variables, not values.
From "6.15 Assignments":
The interpretation of an assignment to a simple variable x = e depends
on the definition of x. If x denotes a mutable variable, then the
assignment changes the current value of x to be the result of
evaluating the expression e.
(first, rest) here is a pattern, not a simple variable, so it works in the variable definition but not in the assignment.
First of all val is immutable, so you can't reassign it. Second, if, like all control structures in Scala, can return a value. So, you can do it like this:
val text = "some text goes here"
val (first, rest) = if (text.contains("z")) text.splitAt(4) else text.splitAt(7)
println(first + " *" + rest)
SerJ de SuDDeN answer is absolutely correct but some more details why the code you mentioned works the way it works.
val (a, b) = (1, 2)
is called an extractor of a pattern-match-expression. The value on the right side is matched to the extractor of the left side. This can be done everywhere in Scala and can have different faces. For example a pattern match on a List can look something like
scala> val head :: tail = 1 :: 2 :: 3 :: Nil
head: Int = 1
tail: List[Int] = List(2, 3)
On the right side the ::-symbol is a method of class List which prepends elements to it. On the left side the ::-symbol is an extractor of class ::, a subclass of List.
Some other places can be for-comprehensions
scala> for ((a, b) <- (1 to 3) zip (4 to 6)) println(a+b)
5
7
9
or the equivalent notation with higher-order-methods
scala> (1 to 3) zip (4 to 6) foreach { case (a, b) => println(a+b) }
5
7
9
Related
From the Book programming in Scala I got the following line of code:
val second: List[ Int] => Int = { case x :: y :: _ => y }
//warning: match may not be exhaustive.
It states that this function will return the second element of a list of integers if the list is not empty or nil. Stil this part is a bit awkward to me:
case x :: y :: _
How does this ecxactly work? Does this mathches any list with at least 2 Elements and than return the second? If so can somebody still explain the syntax? I understood that :: is invoked on the right operand. So it could be written as
(_.::(y)).::(X)
Still I than don't get why this would return 2
val second: List[ Int] => Int = { case x :: y :: _ => y }
var x = List(1,2)
second(x) //returns 2
In the REPL, you can type:
scala> val list = "a" :: "b" :: Nil
list: List[String] = List(a, b)
which is to be read from right to left, and means take the end of a List (Nil), prepend String "b" and to this List ("b" :: Nil) prepend String a, a :: ("b" :: Nil) but you don't need the parens, so it can be written "a" :: "b" :: Nil.
In pattern matching you will more often see:
... list match {
case Nil => // ...
case x :: xs => // ...
}
to distinguish between empty list, and nonempty, where xs might be a rest of list, but matches Nil too, if the whole list is ("b" :: Nil) for example, then x="b" and xs=Nil.
But if list= "a" :: "b" :: Nil, then x="a" and xs=(b :: Nil).
In your example, the deconstruction is just one more step, and instead of a name like xs, the joker sign _ is used, indicating, that the name is probably not used and doesn't play a role.
The value second is of function type, it takes List[Int] and returns Int.
If the list has first element ("x"), and a second element ("y"), and whatever comes next (we don't care about it), we simply return the element "y" (which is the second element of the list).
In any other case, the function is not defined. You can check that:
scala> val second: PartialFunction[List[Int], Int] = {
| case x :: y :: _ => y
| }
second: PartialFunction[List[Int],Int] = <function1>
scala> second.isDefinedAt(List(1,2,3))
res18: Boolean = true
scala> second.isDefinedAt(List(1,2))
res19: Boolean = true
scala> second.isDefinedAt(List(0))
res20: Boolean = false
First of all. When you think about pattern matching you should think about matching a structure.
The first part of the case statement describes a structure. This structure may describe one or more things (variables) which are useful to deriving your result.
In your example, you are interested in deriving the second element of a list. A shorthand to build a list in Scala is to use :: method (also called cons). :: can also be used to describe a structure in case statement. At this time, you shouldn't think about evaluation of the :: method in first part of case. May be that's why you are saying about evaluation of _.::(y).::(x). The :: cons operator help us describe the structure of the list in terms of its elements. In this case, the first element (x) , the second element (y) and the rest of it (_ wildcard). We are interested in a structure that is a list with at least 2 elements and the third can be anything - a Nil to indicate end of list or another element - hence the wildcard.
The second part of the case statement, uses the second element to derive the result (y).
More on List and Consing
List in Scala is similar to a LinkedList. You know about the first element called head and start of the rest of the list. When traversing the linked list you stop if the rest of the list is Nil. This :: cons operator helps us visualise the structure of the linked list. Although Scala compile would actually be calling :: methods evaluating from right to left as you described _.::(y).::(x)
As an aside, you might have already noticed that the Scala compiler might be complain that your match isn't exhaustive. This means that this second method would work for list of any size. Because there isn't any case statement to describe list with zero or one element. Also, as mentioned in comments of previous answers, if you aren't interested in first element you can describe it as a wildcard _.
case _ :: y :: _ => y
I hope this helped.
If you see the structure of list in scala its head::tail, first element is treated as head and all remaining ones as tail(Nil will be the last element of tail). whenever you do x::y::_, x will match the head of the list and remaining will be tail and again y will match the head of the next list(tail of first list)
eg:
val l = List(1,2,3,4,5)
you can see this list in differnt ways:
1::2::3::4::5::Nil
1::List(2,3,4,5)
1::2::List(2,3,4,5)
and so on
So try matching the pattern. In your question y will give the second element
In the following code snippet in which the outer match vars (x,y) are case matched by (xx,yy):
scala> val (x,y) = (1,2)
x: Int = 1
y: Int = 2
scala> (x,y) match {
| case (xx:Int, yy:Int) => println(s"x=$x xx=$xx")
| }
x=1 xx=1
We could have also written that code as follows:
scala> (x,y) match {
| case (x:Int, y:Int) => println(s"x=$x y=$y")
| }
x=1 y=2
In this latter case the Scala Code Analyzers will inform us:
Suspicious shadowing by a Variable Pattern
OK. But is there any situation where we could end up actually misusing the inner variable (x or y) in place of the original outer match variables?
It seems this is purely stylistic? No actual possibility for bugs? If so i would be interested to learn what the bugs could be.
This could be confusing:
val x = Some(1)
val y = Some(2)
(x, y) match {
case (Some(x), Some(y)) => println(s"x=$x y=$y")
}
x and y have different types depending on whether you are inside or outside of the match. If this code wasn't using simply Option, and was several lines longer, it could be rather difficult to reason about.
Could any bugs arise from this? None that I can think of that aren't horribly contrived. You could for example, mistake one for another.
val list = List(1,2,3)
list match {
case x :: y :: list => list // List(3) and not List(1,2,3)
case x :: list => list // List with 1 element, should the outer list have size 2
case _ => list // Returns the outer list when empty
}
Not to mention what a horrible mess that is. Within the match, list sometimes refers to an inner symbol, and sometimes the outer list.
It's just code that's unnecessarily complicated to read and understand, there are no special bugs that could happen.
I want to iterate over a list of values using a beautiful one-liner in Scala.
For example, this one works well:
scala> val x = List(1,2,3,4)
x: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3, 4)
scala> x foreach println
1
2
3
4
But if I use the placeholder _, it gives me an error:
scala> x foreach println(_ + 1)
<console>:6: error: missing parameter type for expanded function ((x$1) =>x$1.$plus(1))
x foreach println(_ + 1)
^
Why is that? Can't compiler infer type here?
This:
x foreach println(_ + 1)
is equivalent to this:
x.foreach(println(x$1 => x$1 + 1))
There's no indication as to what might be the type of x$1, and, to be honest, it doesn't make any sense to print a function.
You obviously (to me) meant to print x$0 + 1, where x$0 would the the parameter passed by foreach, instead. But, let's consider this... foreach takes, as a parameter, a Function1[T, Unit], where T is the type parameter of the list. What you are passing to foreach instead is println(_ + 1), which is an expression that returns Unit.
If you wrote, instead x foreach println, you'd be passing a completely different thing. You'd be passing the function(*) println, which takes Any and returns Unit, fitting, therefore, the requirements of foreach.
This gets slightly confused because of the rules of expansion of _. It expands to the innermost expression delimiter (parenthesis or curly braces), except if they are in place of a parameter, in which case it means a different thing: partial function application.
To explain this better, look at these examples:
def f(a: Int, b: Int, c: Int) = a + b + c
val g: Int => Int = f(_, 2, 3) // Partial function application
g(1)
Here, we applies the second and third arguments to f, and returned a function requiring just the remaining argument. Note that it only worked as is because I indicated the type of g, otherwise I'd have to indicate the type of the argument I was not applying. Let's continue:
val h: Int => Int = _ + 1 // Anonymous function, expands to (x$1: Int => x$1 + 1)
val i: Int => Int = (_ + 1) // Same thing, because the parenthesis are dropped here
val j: Int => Int = 1 + (_ + 1) // doesn't work, because it expands to 1 + (x$1 => x$1 + 1), so it misses the type of `x$1`
val k: Int => Int = 1 + ((_: Int) + 1) // doesn't work, because it expands to 1 + (x$1: Int => x$1 + 1), so you are adding a function to an `Int`, but this operation doesn't exist
Let discuss k in more detail, because this is a very important point. Recall that g is a function Int => Int, right? So, if I were to type 1 + g, would that make any sense? That's what was done in k.
What confuses people is that what they really wanted was:
val j: Int => Int = x$1 => 1 + (x$1 + 1)
In other words, they want the x$1 replacing _ to jump to outside the parenthesis, and to the proper place. The problem here is that, while it may seem obvious to them what the proper place is, it is not obvious to the compiler. Consider this example, for instance:
def findKeywords(keywords: List[String], sentence: List[String]) = sentence.filter(keywords contains _.map(_.toLowerCase))
Now, if we were to expand this to outside the parenthesis, we would get this:
def findKeywords(keywords: List[String], sentence: List[String]) = (x$1, x$2) => sentence.filter(keywords contains x$1.map(x$2.toLowerCase))
Which is definitely not what we want. In fact, if the _ did not get bounded by the innermost expression delimiter, one could never use _ with nested map, flatMap, filter and foreach.
Now, back to the confusion between anonymous function and partial application, look here:
List(1,2,3,4) foreach println(_) // doesn't work
List(1,2,3,4) foreach (println(_)) // works
List(1,2,3,4) foreach (println(_ + 1)) // doesn't work
The first line doesn't work because of how operation notation works. Scala just sees that println returns Unit, which is not what foreachexpects.
The second line works because the parenthesis let Scala evaluate println(_) as a whole. It is a partial function application, so it returns Any => Unit, which is acceptable.
The third line doesn't work because _ + 1 is anonymous function, which you are passing as a parameter to println. You are not making println part of an anonymous function, which is what you wanted.
Finally, what few people expect:
List(1,2,3,4) foreach (Console println _ + 1)
This works. Why it does is left as an exercise to the reader. :-)
(*) Actually, println is a method. When you write x foreach println, you are not passing a method, because methods can't be passed. Instead, Scala creates a closure and passes it. It expands like this:
x.foreach(new Function1[Any,Unit] { def apply(x$1: Any): Unit = Console.println(x$1) })
The underscore is a bit tricky. According to the spec, the phrase:
_ + 1
is equivalent to
x => x + 1
Trying
x foreach println (y => y + 1)
yields:
<console>:6: error: missing parameter type
x foreach println (y => y + 1)
If you add some types in:
x foreach( println((y:Int) => y + 1))
<console>:6: error: type mismatch;
found : Unit
required: (Int) => Unit
x foreach( println((y:Int) => y + 1))
The problem is that you are passing an anonymous function to println and it's not able to deal with it. What you really want to do (if you are trying to print the successor to each item in the list) is:
x map (_+1) foreach println
scala> for(x <- List(1,2,3,4)) println(x + 1)
2
3
4
5
There is a strange limitation in Scala for the nesting depth of expressions with underscore. It's well seen on the following example:
scala> List(1) map(1+_)
res3: List[Int] = List(2)
scala> Some(1) map (1+(1+_))
<console>:5: error: missing parameter type for expanded function ((x$1) => 1.+(x$1))
Some(1) map (1+(1+_))
^
Looks like a bug for me.
Welcome to Scala version 2.8.0.Beta1-prerelease (Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM, Java 1.6.0_17).
Type in expressions to have them evaluated.
Type :help for more information.
scala> val l1 = List(1, 2, 3)
l1: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3)
scala>
scala> l1.foreach(println(_))
1
2
3
I know that you can do matching on lists in a way like
val list = List(1,2,3)
list match {
case head::tail => head
case _ => //whatever
}
so I started to wonder how this works. If I understand correctly, :: is just an operator, so what's to stop me from doing something like
4 match {
case x + 2 => x //I would expect x=2 here
}
If there is a way to create this kind of functionality, how is it done; if not, then why?
Pattern matching takes the input and decomposes it with an unapply function. So in your case, unapply(4) would have to return the two numbers that sum to 4. However, there are many pairs that sum to 4, so the function wouldn't know what to do.
What you need is for the 2 to be accessible to the unapply function somehow. A special case class that stores the 2 would work for this:
case class Sum(addto: Int) {
def unapply(i: Int) = Some(i - addto)
}
val Sum2 = Sum(2)
val Sum2(x) = 5 // x = 3
(It would be nice to be able to do something like val Sum(2)(y) = 5 for compactness, but Scala doesn't allow parameterized extractors; see here.)
[EDIT: This is a little silly, but you could actually do the following too:
val `2 +` = Sum(2)
val `2 +`(y) = 5 // y = 3
]
EDIT: The reason the head::tail thing works is that there is exactly one way to split the head from the tail of a list.
There's nothing inherently special about :: versus +: you could use + if you had a predetermined idea of how you wanted it to break a number. For example, if you wanted + to mean "split in half", then you could do something like:
object + {
def unapply(i: Int) = Some(i-i/2, i/2)
}
and use it like:
scala> val a + b = 4
a: Int = 2
b: Int = 2
scala> val c + d = 5
c: Int = 3
d: Int = 2
EDIT: Finally, this explains that, when pattern matching, A op B means the same thing as op(A,B), which makes the syntax look nice.
Matching with case head :: tail uses an infix operation pattern of the form p1 op p2 which gets translated to op(p1, p2) before doing the actual matching. (See API for ::)
The problem with + is the following:
While it is easy to add an
object + {
def unapply(value: Int): Option[(Int, Int)] = // ...
}
object which would do the matching, you may only supply one result per value. E.g.
object + {
def unapply(value: Int): Option[(Int, Int)] = value match {
case 0 => Some(0, 0)
case 4 => Some(3, 1)
case _ => None
}
Now this works:
0 match { case x + 0 => x } // returns 0
also this
4 match { case x + 1 => x } // returns 3
But this won’t and you cannot change it:
4 match { case x + 2 => x } // does not match
No problem for ::, though, because it is always defined what is head and what is tail of a list.
There are two ::s (pronounced "cons") in Scala. One is the operator on Lists and the other is a class, which represents a non empty list characterized by a head and a tail. So head :: tail is a constructor pattern, which has nothing to do with the operator.
I understand Ruby and Python's yield. What does Scala's yield do?
I think the accepted answer is great, but it seems many people have failed to grasp some fundamental points.
First, Scala's for comprehensions are equivalent to Haskell's do notation, and it is nothing more than a syntactic sugar for composition of multiple monadic operations. As this statement will most likely not help anyone who needs help, let's try again… :-)
Scala's for comprehensions is syntactic sugar for composition of multiple operations with map, flatMap and filter. Or foreach. Scala actually translates a for-expression into calls to those methods, so any class providing them, or a subset of them, can be used with for comprehensions.
First, let's talk about the translations. There are very simple rules:
This
for(x <- c1; y <- c2; z <-c3) {...}
is translated into
c1.foreach(x => c2.foreach(y => c3.foreach(z => {...})))
This
for(x <- c1; y <- c2; z <- c3) yield {...}
is translated into
c1.flatMap(x => c2.flatMap(y => c3.map(z => {...})))
This
for(x <- c; if cond) yield {...}
is translated on Scala 2.7 into
c.filter(x => cond).map(x => {...})
or, on Scala 2.8, into
c.withFilter(x => cond).map(x => {...})
with a fallback into the former if method withFilter is not available but filter is. Please see the section below for more information on this.
This
for(x <- c; y = ...) yield {...}
is translated into
c.map(x => (x, ...)).map((x,y) => {...})
When you look at very simple for comprehensions, the map/foreach alternatives look, indeed, better. Once you start composing them, though, you can easily get lost in parenthesis and nesting levels. When that happens, for comprehensions are usually much clearer.
I'll show one simple example, and intentionally omit any explanation. You can decide which syntax was easier to understand.
l.flatMap(sl => sl.filter(el => el > 0).map(el => el.toString.length))
or
for {
sl <- l
el <- sl
if el > 0
} yield el.toString.length
withFilter
Scala 2.8 introduced a method called withFilter, whose main difference is that, instead of returning a new, filtered, collection, it filters on-demand. The filter method has its behavior defined based on the strictness of the collection. To understand this better, let's take a look at some Scala 2.7 with List (strict) and Stream (non-strict):
scala> var found = false
found: Boolean = false
scala> List.range(1,10).filter(_ % 2 == 1 && !found).foreach(x => if (x == 5) found = true else println(x))
1
3
7
9
scala> found = false
found: Boolean = false
scala> Stream.range(1,10).filter(_ % 2 == 1 && !found).foreach(x => if (x == 5) found = true else println(x))
1
3
The difference happens because filter is immediately applied with List, returning a list of odds -- since found is false. Only then foreach is executed, but, by this time, changing found is meaningless, as filter has already executed.
In the case of Stream, the condition is not immediatelly applied. Instead, as each element is requested by foreach, filter tests the condition, which enables foreach to influence it through found. Just to make it clear, here is the equivalent for-comprehension code:
for (x <- List.range(1, 10); if x % 2 == 1 && !found)
if (x == 5) found = true else println(x)
for (x <- Stream.range(1, 10); if x % 2 == 1 && !found)
if (x == 5) found = true else println(x)
This caused many problems, because people expected the if to be considered on-demand, instead of being applied to the whole collection beforehand.
Scala 2.8 introduced withFilter, which is always non-strict, no matter the strictness of the collection. The following example shows List with both methods on Scala 2.8:
scala> var found = false
found: Boolean = false
scala> List.range(1,10).filter(_ % 2 == 1 && !found).foreach(x => if (x == 5) found = true else println(x))
1
3
7
9
scala> found = false
found: Boolean = false
scala> List.range(1,10).withFilter(_ % 2 == 1 && !found).foreach(x => if (x == 5) found = true else println(x))
1
3
This produces the result most people expect, without changing how filter behaves. As a side note, Range was changed from non-strict to strict between Scala 2.7 and Scala 2.8.
It is used in sequence comprehensions (like Python's list-comprehensions and generators, where you may use yield too).
It is applied in combination with for and writes a new element into the resulting sequence.
Simple example (from scala-lang)
/** Turn command line arguments to uppercase */
object Main {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val res = for (a <- args) yield a.toUpperCase
println("Arguments: " + res.toString)
}
}
The corresponding expression in F# would be
[ for a in args -> a.toUpperCase ]
or
from a in args select a.toUpperCase
in Linq.
Ruby's yield has a different effect.
Yes, as Earwicker said, it's pretty much the equivalent to LINQ's select and has very little to do with Ruby's and Python's yield. Basically, where in C# you would write
from ... select ???
in Scala you have instead
for ... yield ???
It's also important to understand that for-comprehensions don't just work with sequences, but with any type which defines certain methods, just like LINQ:
If your type defines just map, it allows for-expressions consisting of a
single generator.
If it defines flatMap as well as map, it allows for-expressions consisting
of several generators.
If it defines foreach, it allows for-loops without yield (both with single and multiple generators).
If it defines filter, it allows for-filter expressions starting with an if
in the for expression.
Unless you get a better answer from a Scala user (which I'm not), here's my understanding.
It only appears as part of an expression beginning with for, which states how to generate a new list from an existing list.
Something like:
var doubled = for (n <- original) yield n * 2
So there's one output item for each input (although I believe there's a way of dropping duplicates).
This is quite different from the "imperative continuations" enabled by yield in other languages, where it provides a way to generate a list of any length, from some imperative code with almost any structure.
(If you're familiar with C#, it's closer to LINQ's select operator than it is to yield return).
Consider the following for-comprehension
val A = for (i <- Int.MinValue to Int.MaxValue; if i > 3) yield i
It may be helpful to read it out loud as follows
"For each integer i, if it is greater than 3, then yield (produce) i and add it to the list A."
In terms of mathematical set-builder notation, the above for-comprehension is analogous to
which may be read as
"For each integer , if it is greater than , then it is a member of the set ."
or alternatively as
" is the set of all integers , such that each is greater than ."
The keyword yield in Scala is simply syntactic sugar which can be easily replaced by a map, as Daniel Sobral already explained in detail.
On the other hand, yield is absolutely misleading if you are looking for generators (or continuations) similar to those in Python. See this SO thread for more information: What is the preferred way to implement 'yield' in Scala?
Yield is similar to for loop which has a buffer that we cannot see and for each increment, it keeps adding next item to the buffer. When the for loop finishes running, it would return the collection of all the yielded values. Yield can be used as simple arithmetic operators or even in combination with arrays.
Here are two simple examples for your better understanding
scala>for (i <- 1 to 5) yield i * 3
res: scala.collection.immutable.IndexedSeq[Int] = Vector(3, 6, 9, 12, 15)
scala> val nums = Seq(1,2,3)
nums: Seq[Int] = List(1, 2, 3)
scala> val letters = Seq('a', 'b', 'c')
letters: Seq[Char] = List(a, b, c)
scala> val res = for {
| n <- nums
| c <- letters
| } yield (n, c)
res: Seq[(Int, Char)] = List((1,a), (1,b), (1,c), (2,a), (2,b), (2,c), (3,a), (3,b), (3,c))
Hope this helps!!
val aList = List( 1,2,3,4,5 )
val res3 = for ( al <- aList if al > 3 ) yield al + 1
val res4 = aList.filter(_ > 3).map(_ + 1)
println( res3 )
println( res4 )
These two pieces of code are equivalent.
val res3 = for (al <- aList) yield al + 1 > 3
val res4 = aList.map( _+ 1 > 3 )
println( res3 )
println( res4 )
These two pieces of code are also equivalent.
Map is as flexible as yield and vice-versa.
val doubledNums = for (n <- nums) yield n * 2
val ucNames = for (name <- names) yield name.capitalize
Notice that both of those for-expressions use the yield keyword:
Using yield after for is the “secret sauce” that says, “I want to yield a new collection from the existing collection that I’m iterating over in the for-expression, using the algorithm shown.”
taken from here
According to the Scala documentation, it clearly says "yield a new collection from the existing collection".
Another Scala documentation says, "Scala offers a lightweight notation for expressing sequence comprehensions. Comprehensions have the form for (enums) yield e, where enums refers to a semicolon-separated list of enumerators. An enumerator is either a generator which introduces new variables, or it is a filter. "
yield is more flexible than map(), see example below
val aList = List( 1,2,3,4,5 )
val res3 = for ( al <- aList if al > 3 ) yield al + 1
val res4 = aList.map( _+ 1 > 3 )
println( res3 )
println( res4 )
yield will print result like: List(5, 6), which is good
while map() will return result like: List(false, false, true, true, true), which probably is not what you intend.