I am using scala immutable list in Java. I want to add element at the middle of this list. Can someone help me on this please?
Thanks
Let sList be a Scala List, let List be the Scala List type and 42 the element to add:
final int half = sList.size /2;
final List<Int> first = sList.take(half);
final List<Int> second = sList.drop(half);
final List<Int> result = first.$colon$colon$colon( second.$colon$colon( 42 ) );
Vague answer to a vague question:
There are several ways to split an immutable list, e.g. using take and drop. From the parts (including your middle elements), you can assemble a new immutable List, e.g. using :::, which should be called $colon$colon$colon in Java, IIRC.
Please add some code if you need more details.
Hmmm… you are using an immutable list. The meaning of the word "immutable" is that it can not be changed - if there is a way to add an element to the middle of such a list, it would be a bug.
Edit: actually, there are probably ways to add elements in such a list - probably manipulating the corresponding data at the JVM level would do the trick - but that would still be bad, because every other program that uses an immutable list expects that list to always stay the same.
Related
If I have a list of ten elements in Scala how can I create a new list that consists of only the elements of the previous list from a range of two indexes. So if the original list was ten items long the new one could be like:
val N=Oldlist(0) to Oldlist(10)
Please do not use the split at method thats not what I'm trying to do.
List has a slice(from, to) method. You should probably use that. I thought it used structural sharing, but it doesn't (as discussed in the comments).
If I understand correctly your question, you can do:
val list = (oldlist(0) to oldList(10)).toList
oldlist(0) to oldList(10) creates a new Range that is then converted to a List.
We know that Scala supports immutable data structures..i.e each time u update the list it will create a new object and reference in the heap.
Example
val xs:List[Int] = List.apply(22)
val newList = xs ++ (33)
So when i append the second element to a list it will create a new list which will contain both 22 and 33.This exactly works like how immutable String works in Java.
So the question is each time I append a element in the list a new object will be created each time..This ldoes not look efficient to me.
is there some special data structures like persistent data structures are used when dealing with this..Does anyone know about this?
Appending to a list has O(n) complexity and is inefficient. A general approach is to prepend to a list while building it, and finally reverse it.
Now, your question on creating new object still applies to the prepend. Note that since xs is immutable, newList just points to xs for the rest of the data after the prepend.
While #manojlds is correct in his analysis, the original post asked about the efficiency of duplicating list nodes whenever you do an operation.
As #manojlds said, constructing lists often require thinking backwards, i.e., building a list and then reversing it. There are a number of other situations where list building requires "needless" copying.
To that end, there is a mutable data structure available in Scala called ListBuffer which you can use to build up your list and then extract the result as an immutable list:
val xsa = ListBuffer[Int](22)
xsa += 33
val newList = xsa.toList
However, the fact that the list data structure is, in general, immutable means that you have some very useful tools to analyze, de-compose and re-compose the list. Many builtin operations take advantage of the immutability. By extension, your own programs can also take advantage of this immutability.
I'm using Scala 2.7.7
I'm experiencing difficulties with access to the documentation, so code snippets would be greate.
Context
I parse an IP address of 4 or 16 bytes in length. I need an array of bytes, to pass into java.net.InetAddress. The result of String.split(separator).map(_.toByte) returns me an instance of Iterable.
I see two ways to solve the problem
use an array of 16 bytes length, fil it from Iterable and return just a part of it, if not all fields are used (Is there a function to fill an array in 2.7.7? How to get the part?).
use a dynamic length container and form an array form it (Which container is suitable?).
Current implementation is published in my other question about memory leaks.
In Scala 2.7, Iterable has a method called copyToArray.
I'd strongly advise you not to use an Array here, unless you have to use a particular library/framework then requires an array.
Normally, you'd be better off with a native Scala type:
String.split(separator).map(_.toByte).toList
//or
String.split(separator).map(_.toByte).toSeq
Update
Assuming that your original string is a delimited list of hostnames, why not just:
val namesStr = "www.sun.com;www.stackoverflow.com;www.scala-tools.com"
val separator = ";"
val addresses = namesStr.split(separator).map(InetAddress.getByName)
That'll give you an iterable of InetAddress instances.
I'm pretty new to scala and I am not able to solve this (pretty) trivial problem.
I know I can instantiate a List with predefined values like this:
val myList = List(1,2)
I want to fill a List with all Integers from 1 to 100000 . My Goal is not to use a var for the List and use a loop to fill the list.
Is there any "functional" way of doing this?
Either of these will do the trick. (If you try them in the REPL, though, be advised that it's going to try to print all million hundred thousand entries, which is generally not going to work.)
List.range(1,100001)
(1 to 100000).toList
I am also very new to Scala, it's pretty awesome isn't it.
Rex has the absolutely correct answer, but as food for thought: if you want a list that is not evaluated up front (perhaps the computations involved in evaluating the items in the list is expensive, or you just want to make things lazy), you can use a Stream.
Stream.from(0,1).takeWhile(_<=100000)
This can be used in most situations where you'd use a List.
If I have an ArrayList<Double> dblList and a Predicate<Double> IS_EVEN I am able to remove all even elements from dblList using:
Collections2.filter(dblList, IS_EVEN).clear()
if dblList however is a result of a transformation like
dblList = Lists.transform(intList, TO_DOUBLE)
this does not work any more as the transformed list is immutable :-)
Any solution?
Lists.transform() accepts a List and helpfully returns a result that is RandomAccess list. Iterables.transform() only accepts an Iterable, and the result is not RandomAccess. Finally, Iterables.removeIf (and as far as I see, this is the only one in Iterables) has an optimization in case that the given argument is RandomAccess, the point of which is to make the algorithm linear instead of quadratic, e.g. think what would happen if you had a big ArrayList (and not an ArrayDeque - that should be more popular) and kept removing elements from its start till its empty.
But the optimization depends not on iterator remove(), but on List.set(), which is cannot be possibly supported in a transformed list. If this were to be fixed, we would need another marker interface, to denote that "the optional set() actually works".
So the options you have are:
Call Iterables.removeIf() version, and run a quadratic algorithm (it won't matter if your list is small or you remove few elements)
Copy the List into another List that supports all optional operations, then call Iterables.removeIf().
The following approach should work, though I haven't tried it yet.
Collection<Double> dblCollection =
Collections.checkedCollection(dblList, Double.class);
Collections2.filter(dblCollection, IS_EVEN).clear();
The checkCollection() method generates a view of the list that doesn't implement List. [It would be cleaner, but more verbose, to create a ForwardingCollection instead.] Then Collections2.filter() won't call the unsupported set() method.
The library code could be made more robust. Iterables.removeIf() could generate a composed Predicate, as Michael D suggested, when passed a transformed list. However, we previously decided not to complicate the code by adding special-case logic of that sort.
Maybe:
Collection<Double> odds = Collections2.filter(dblList, Predicates.not(IS_EVEN));
or
dblList = Lists.newArrayList(Lists.transform(intList, TO_DOUBLE));
Collections2.filter(dblList, IS_EVEN).clear();
As long as you have no need for the intermediate collection, then you can just use Predicates.compose() to create a predicate that first transforms the item, then evaluates a predicate on the transformed item.
For example, suppose I have a List<Double> from which I want to remove all items where the Integer part is even. I already have a Function<Double,Integer> that gives me the Integer part, and a Predicate<Integer> that tells me if it is even.
I can use these to get a new predicate, INTEGER_PART_IS_EVEN
Predicate<Double> INTEGER_PART_IS_EVEN = Predicates.compose(IS_EVEN, DOUBLE_TO_INTEGER);
Collections2.filter(dblList, INTEGER_PART_IS_EVEN).clear();
After some tries, I think I've found it :)
final ArrayList<Integer> ints = Lists.newArrayList(1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
Iterables.removeIf(Iterables.transform(ints, intoDouble()), even());
System.out.println(ints);
[1,3,5]
I don't have a solution, instead I found some kind of a problem with Iterables.removeIf() in combination with Lists.TransformingRandomAccessList.
The transformed list implements RandomAccess, thus Iterables.removeIf() delegates to Iterables.removeIfFromRandomAccessList() which depends on an unsupported List.set() operation.
Calling Iterators.removeIf() however would be successful, as the remove() operation IS supported by Lists.TransformingRandomAccessList.
see: Iterables: 147
Conclusion: instanceof RandomAccess does not guarantee List.set().
Addition:
In special situations calling removeIfFromRandomAccessList() even works:
if and only if the elements to erase form a compact group at the tail of the List or all elements are covered by the Predicate.