is there a way to create an alias for a scala keyword? in particular i have some boilerplate syntax that involves "val" and in order to make it easier to read i'd like to be able to type something "##" instead and have that translated to val.
Edit:
In some cases, it might be very convenient to be able to replace "lazy val", not just "val". The use case has to do with a function that acts as a python decorator. It looks like this:
lazy val function = Decorate(function_ _)
def function_(x: Int, ...) = { ... }
it would be a lot nicer if it looked like this:
# function = Decorate(function_ _)
def function_(x: Int, ...) = { ... }
just so that there's not a val stacked on top of a def, where both names are extremely similar. (the function_ name is not meant to be called, so it's the cleanest to make the names similar.)
No, there isn't.
(filler so SO will let me post)
Ouch! This isn't particularly idiomatic Scala.
To start with, you're naming a method "function_", they're not the same thing, a method is simply a member of some class, a Function is an object in its own right (although a method can be "lifted" to a function by the compiler, in a similar fashion to the autoboxing of primitives).
Second, what is Decorate? The initial uppercase letter suggests that it's a singleton, therefore an object and the only actual "Function" in that expression!
Could you post a bit more info as to what the method and decorator actually do, so that I can give you a better example as to how you might achieve the same in Scala?
I guess one could write a Scala Compiler Plugin to achieve this. At least the Eclipse Plugin actually uses the original Scala Compiler, so it might actually work nicely with the IDE.
Other then that: Daniel C. Sobral is correct: No, there isn't.
Still it sounds like a lot of trouble for a little gain.
If function_ is never meant to be called directly, why not write
lazy val function = Decorate { (x: Int, ...) => ... }
or even
/**
* This version makes it more explicit that it's a function value.
*/
lazy val function: (Int, ...) => ReturnType =
Decorate { (x, ...) => ... }
Some caution is advised: conciseness and terseness are two different things. Here, it looks like you're trying to buy a few keystrokes at a very high price in terms of readability.
Update:
If you really want to achieve a simpler syntax for this sort of thing, you will need a compiler plugin. If you're going to go that far, I'd suggest using an annotations-based syntax that's likely to be pretty intuitive for Java/Scala developers:
#decorate(Memoize)
def slowFn(i: Int) = { ... }
Related
I'm admittedly very new to Scala, and I'm having trouble with the syntactical sugar I see in many Scala examples.
It often results in a very concise statement, but honestly so far (for me) a bit unreadable.
So I wish to take a typical use of the Option class, safe-dereferencing, as a good place to start for understanding, for example, the use of the underscore in a particular example I've seen.
I found a really nice article showing examples of the use of Option to avoid the case of null.
https://medium.com/#sinisalouc/demystifying-the-monad-in-scala-cc716bb6f534#.fhrljf7nl
He describes a use as so:
trait User {
val child: Option[User]
}
By the way, you can also write those functions as in-place lambda
functions instead of defining them a priori. Then the code becomes
this:
val result = UserService.loadUser("mike")
.flatMap(user => user.child)
.flatMap(user => user.child)
That looks great! Maybe not as concise as one can do in groovy, but not bad.
So I thought I'd try to apply it to a case I am trying to solve.
I have a type Person where the existence of a Person is optional, but if we have a person, his attributes are guaranteed. For that reason, there are no use of the Option type within the Person type itself.
The Person has an PID which is of type Id. The Id type consists of two String types; the Id-Type and the Id-Value.
I've used the Scala console to test the following:
class Id(val idCode : String, val idVal : String)
class Person(val pid : Id, val name : String)
val anId: Id = new Id("Passport_number", "12345")
val person: Person = new Person(anId, "Sean")
val operson : Option[Person] = Some(person)
OK. That setup my person and it's optional instance.
I learned from the above linked article that I could get the Persons Id-Val by using flatMap; Like this:
val result = operson.flatMap(person => Some(person.pid)).flatMap(pid => Some(pid.idVal)).getOrElse("NoValue")
Great! That works. And if I infact have no person, my result is "NoValue".
I used flatMap (and not Map) because, unless I misunderstand (and my tests with Map were incorrect) if I use Map I have to provide an alternate or default Person instance. That I didn't want to have to do.
OK, so, flatMap is the way to go.
However, that is really not a very concise statement.
If I were writing that in more of a groovy style, I guess i'd be able to do something like this:
val result = person?.pid.idVal
Wow, that's a bit nicer!
Surely Scala has a means to provide something at least nearly as nice as Groovy?
In the above linked example, he was able to make his statement more concise using some of that syntactical sugar I mentioned before. The underscore:
or even more concise:
val result = UserService.loadUser("mike")
.flatMap(_.child)
.flatMap(_.child)
So, it seems in this case the underscore character allows you to skip specifying the type (as the type is inferred) and replace it with underscore.
However, when I try the same thing with my example:
val result = operson.flatMap(Some(_.pid)).flatMap(Some(_.idVal)).getOrElse("NoValue")
Scala complains.
<console>:15: error: missing parameter type for expanded function ((x$2) => x$2.idVal)
val result = operson.flatMap(Some(_.pid)).flatMap(Some(_.idVal)).getOrElse("NoValue")
Can someone help me along here?
How am I misunderstanding this?
Is there a short-hand method of writing my above lengthy statement?
Is flatMap the best way to achieve what I am after? Or is there a better more concise and/or readable way to do it ?
thanks in advance!
Why do you insist on using flatMap? I'd just use map for your example instead:
val result = operson.map(_.pid).map(_.idVal).getOrElse("NoValue")
or even shorter:
val result = operson.map(_.pid.idVal).getOrElse("NoValue")
You should only use flatMap with functions that return Options. Your pid and idVals are not Options, so just map them instead.
You said
I have a type Person where the existence of a Person is optional, but if we have a person, his attributes are guaranteed. For that reason, there are no use of the Option type within the Person type itself.
This is the essential difference between your example and the User example. In the User example, both the existence of a User instance, and its child field are options. This is why, to get a child, you need to flatMap. However, since in your example, only the existence of a Person is not guaranteed, after you've retrieved an Option[Person], you can safely map to any of its fields.
Think of flatMap as a map, followed by a flatten (hence its name). If I mapped on child:
val ouser = Some(new User())
val child: Option[Option[User]] = ouser.map(_.child)
I would end up with an Option[Option[User]]. I need to flatten that to a single Option level, that's why I use flatMap in the first place.
If you looking for the most concise solution, consider this:
val result = operson.fold("NoValue")(_.pid.idVal)
Though one could find it not clear or confusing
I'm a fairly new Scala developer. I am an experienced Java developer and so far I've been enjoying Scala's simplicity. I really like the functional constructs and quite often they force you to write cleaner code. However recently I noticed due to comfort and simplicity I end up using constructs I wouldn't necessarily use in Java and would actually be considered a bad practice e.g.
private def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String) : Seq[Integer] = {
Try(value.split(",").toSeq.map(convertToSourceId(_))).getOrElse(Seq())
}
The same code snippet can be written as
private def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String) : Seq[Integer] = {
if(value!=null) value.split(",").toSeq.map(convertToSourceId(_)) else Seq()
}
A part of me realizes that the Try/getOrElse block is designed with Options in mind but quite often it makes code more readable and handles cases you might have missed (which of course isn't always a good thing).
I would be interested to know what is the opinion of an experienced Scala developer on the matter.
I am not claiming any "experience" title but I much prefer your second construct for a few reasons
Throwing an exception (an NPE in this case) is expensive and best avoided; it should remain just that, exceptional
if are expressions in Scala, which avoids declaring "dangling" variables to hold the result of the test (just like ternary operators). Alternatively the match..case construct provides for very readable code.
I would personally return an Option[Seq[Integer]] to "pass back" the information that the values was null and facilitate further chaining of your function.
Something like
private def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String) : Option[Seq[Integer]] = value match {
case null => None
case _ => Some(value.split(",").map(convertToSourceId(_)))
}
note 1: not sure you need the toSeq
note 2: for good or bad, looks a bit Haskellish
The combination of Scala + FP makes it almost doubly certain you will get different opinions :)
Edit
Please read comments below for additional reasons and alternatives, i.e,
def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String): Option[Array[String]] = Option(value).map(_.split(",").map(convertToSourceId(_)))
If you can, use Options instead of null to show when a value is missing.
Assuming that you can't use Options, a more readable way to handle this could be
private def convertStringToSourceIds(value: String) : Seq[Integer] = value match {
case null => Seq();
case s => s.split(",").toSeq.map(convertToSourceId(_));
}
Reading Martin's book, chapter about equality Object equality chapter one may notice that properly implementing equals in scala (as actually in any other language) is not very straightforward. However scala is extremely powerful and agile, and I cannot believe it could not simplify things a bit. I know that scala generates proper equals for case classes, so I wonder why couldn't it generate simplifications for normal classes?
To show my point, I wrote an example of how would I see this should look like. It probably has flaws, and I had to use ClassTag which I know is very wrong for such basic thing as equals due to performance (any tip how could I do it without ClassTag?), but thinking that scala can generate proper equals for case classes, I'd say it should be able to generate proper code for normal classes, giving that developer provides the Key which should be used to compare objects.
trait Equality[T] extends Equals {
val ttag: ClassTag[T]
def Key: Seq[Any]
def canEqual(other: Any): Boolean = other match {
case that: Equality[_] if that.ttag == ttag => true
case _ => false
}
override def equals(other: Any): Boolean =
other match {
case that: Equality[T] => canEqual(that) && Key == that.Key
case _ => false
}
override def hashCode = Key.foldLeft(1)((x, y) => 41 * x + y.hashCode)
}
Then you can use it like this:
class Point(val x: Int, val y: Int)(implicit val ttag: ClassTag[Point]) extends Equality[Point]{
override def Key: Seq[Any] = Seq(x, y)
}
I'm not very much into ClassTags, so I might have made it wrong, but it seems to be working. Still that's not what I am asking - I want to know is there any serious reasons, why scala itself do not simplify implementing equality checks?
It is an interesting idea, and I can see from a comment that scalaz has something like this. I'm not sure I have a complete answer, but some factors to consider are:
Case classes are a bit unique in that you're not supposed to inherit from them. Assuming they're not sub-classed, canEqual isn't even required.
There's something elegant about the idea that even '+' in scala is a function not a 'language feature.' It's not necessarily better to have this as a language feature instead of a library (and there are a number of utilities even in Java to help with implementing hashcode/equals). The existing "equals" method isn't a language feature, it's just a method on the parent class Object, inherited from Java.
Scala does still need to play-nice with Java, and that could be one barrier to radically changing how equals works. Interface requirements can't be imposed on existing Java classes that scala might want to inherit from.
When you do consider what the syntax might look like if it were a language feature, I'm not sure what could actually be eliminated or changed.
For example, the developer still has to specify the Key you suggest. Also, to be able to support, for example, anonymous subclasses and trait mix-ins where canEqual won't change, with a language feature you'd still need to explicitly define your class tag.
Maybe the analysis could be more interesting if you provide what, syntactically, it might look like if it were a language feature instead of a helper library. I might be missing some aspects of how this would work.
There is no such thing "proper equals" since it depends on the use cases.
For simple cases what you suggest may work, but in such case, using case class with also work. The problem is that while for simple Data classes it works, the same isn't true for other cases. For example, when there are inheritance - what is the right thing to do? if class have private members - does it should be part of the equals?? does public getters should be ? What will happen when when there are cyclic dependencies ?
One of the main reasons for the case classes cannot be inherit by other case class is the equality.
We are pretty familiar with implicits in Scala for now, but macros are pretty undiscovered area (at least for me) and, despite the presence of some great articles by Eugene Burmako, it is still not an easy material to just dive in.
In this particular question I'd like to find out if there is a possibility to achieve the analogous to the following code functionality using just macros:
implicit class Nonsense(val s: String) {
def ##(i:Int) = s.charAt(i)
}
So "asd" ## 0 will return 'a', for example. Can I implement macros that use infix notation? The reason to this is I'm writing a DSL for some already existing project and implicits allow making the API clear and concise, but whenever I write a new implicit class, I feel like introducing a new speed-reducing factor. And yes, I do know about value classes and stuff, I just think it would be really great if my DSL transformed into the underlying library API calls during compilation rather than in runtime.
TL;DR: can I replace implicits with macros while not changing the API? Can I write macros in infix form? Is there something even more suitable for this case? Is the trouble worth it?
UPD. To those advocating the value classes: in my case I have a little more than just a simple wrapper - they are often stacked. For example, I have an implicit class that takes some parameters, returns a lambda wrapping this parameters (i.e. partial function), and the second implicit class that is made specifically for wrapping this type of functions. I can achieve something like this:
a --> x ==> b
where first class wraps a and adds --> method, and the second one wraps the return type of a --> x and defines ==>(b). Plus it may really be the case when user creates considerable amount of objects in this fashion. I just don't know if this will be efficient, so if you could tell me that value classes cover this case - I'd be really glad to know that.
Back in the day (2.10.0-RC1) I had trouble using implicit classes for macros (sorry, I don't recollect why exactly) but the solution was to use:
an implicit def macro to convert to a class
define the infix operator as a def macro in that class
So something like the following might work for you:
implicit def toNonsense(s:String): Nonsense = macro ...
...
class Nonsense(...){
...
def ##(...):... = macro ...
...
}
That was pretty painful to implement. That being said, macro have become easier to implement since.
If you want to check what I did, because I'm not sure that applies to what you want to do, refer to this excerpt of my code (non-idiomatic style).
I won't address the relevance of that here, as it's been commented by others.
With intention of reducing the boilerplate for the end-user when deriving instances of a certain typeclass (let's take Showable for example), I aim to write a macro, which will autogenerate the instance names. E.g.:
// calling this:
Showable.derive[Int]
Showable.derive[String]
// should expand to this:
// implicit val derivedShowableInstance0 = new Showable[Int] { ... }
// implicit val derivedShowableInstance1 = new Showable[String] { ... }
I tried to approach the problem the following way, but the compiler complained that the expression should return a < no type > instead of Unit:
object Showable {
def derive[a] = macro Macros.derive[a]
object Macros {
private var instanceNameIndex = 0
def derive[ a : c.WeakTypeTag ]( c : Context ) = {
import c.universe._
import Flag._
val newInstanceDeclaration = ...
c.Expr[Unit](
ValDef(
Modifiers(IMPLICIT),
newTermName("derivedShowableInstance" + nameIndex),
TypeTree(),
newInstanceDeclaration
)
)
}
}
}
I get that a val declaration is not exactly an expression and hence Unit might not be appropriate, but then how to make it right?
Is this at all possible? If not then why, will it ever be, and are there any workarounds?
Yes, that's right. Declarations/definitions aren't expressions, so they need to be wrapped into Unit-returning blocks to become ones. Typically Scala does this automatically, but in this particular case you need to do it yourself.
However if you wrap a definition in a block, then it becomes invisible from the outside. That's the limitation of the current macro system that strictly follows the metaphor of "macro application is very much similar to a typed function call". Function calls don't bring new members into scope, so neither do def macros - both for technical and philosophical reasons. As shown in the example #3 of my recent "What Are Macros Good For?" talk, by using structural types def macros can work around this limitation, but this doesn't look particularly related to your question, so I'll omit the details.
On the other hand, there are some ideas how to overcome this limitation with new macro flavors. Macro annotations show that it's technically feasible for the macro engine to hook into new member creation, but we'd like to get more experience with macro annotations before bringing them into trunk. Some details about this can be found in my "Philosophy of Scala Macros" presentation. This can be useful in your situation, but I still won't go into details, because I think there's a much better solution for this particular case (feel free to ask for elaboration in comments, though!).
What I'd like to recommend you is to use materialization as described in http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/macros/implicits.html. With materializing macros you can automatically generate type class instances for the user without having the user write any code at all. Would that fit your use case?