I have a variable underlying of type Option[mutable.Traversable[Field]]
All I wanted todo in my class was provide a method to return this as Sequence in the following way:
def toSeq: scala.collection.mutable.Seq[Field] = {
for {
f <- underlying.get
} yield f
}
This fails as it complains that mutable.traversable does not conform to mutable.seq. All it is doing is yielding something of type Field - in my mind this should work?
A possible solution to this is:
def toSeq: Seq[Field] = {
underlying match {
case Some(x) => x.toSeq
case None =>
}
}
Although I have no idea what is actually happening when x.toSeq is called and I imagine there is more memory being used here that actually required to accomplish this.
An explanation or suggestion would be much appreciated.
I am confused why you say that "I imagine there is more memory being used here than actually required to accomplish". Scala will not copy your Field values when doing x.toSeq, it is simply going to create an new Seq which will have pointers to the same Field values that underlying is pointing to. Since this new structure is exactly what you want there is no avoiding the additional memory associated with the extra pointers (but the amount of additional memory should be small). For a more in-depth discussion see the wiki on persistent data structures.
Regarding your possible solution, it could be slightly modified to get the result you're expecting:
def toSeq : Seq[Field] =
underlying
.map(_.toSeq)
.getOrElse(Seq.empty[Field])
This solution will return an empty Seq if underlying is a None which is safer than your original attempt which uses get. I say it's "safer" because get throws a NoSuchElementException if the Option is a None whereas my toSeq can never fail to return a valid value.
Functional Approach
As a side note: when I first started programming in scala I would write many functions of the form:
def formatSeq(seq : Seq[String]) : Seq[String] =
seq map (_.toUpperCase)
This is less functional because you are expecting a particular collection type, e.g. formatSeq won't work on a Future.
I have found that a better approach is to write:
def formatStr(str : String) = str.toUpperCase
Or my preferred coding style:
val formatStr = (_ : String).toUpperCase
Then the user of your function can apply formatStr in any fashion they want and you don't have to worry about all of the collection casting:
val fut : Future[String] = ???
val formatFut = fut map formatStr
val opt : Option[String] = ???
val formatOpt = opt map formatStr
I've just started using Scala/Spark and having come from a Java background and I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of immutability and other best practices of Scala.
This is a very small segment of code from a larger program:
intersections is RDD(Key, (String, String))
obs is (Key, (String, String))
Data is just a case class I've defined above.
val intersections = map1 join map2
var listOfDatas = List[Data]()
intersections take NumOutputs foreach (obs => {
listOfDatas ::= ParseInformation(obs._1.key, obs._2._1, obs._2._2)
})
listOfDatas foreach println
This code works and does what I need it to do, but I was wondering if there was a better way of making this happen. I'm using a variable list and rewriting it with a new list every single time I iterate, and I'm sure there has to be a better way to create an immutable list that's populated with the results of the ParseInformation method call. Also, I remember reading somewhere that instead of accessing the tuple values directly, the way I have done, you should use case classes within functions (as partial functions I think?) to improve readability.
Thanks in advance for any input!
This might work locally, but only because you are takeing locally. It will not work once distributed as the listOfDatas is passed to each worker as a copy. The better way of doing this IMO is:
val processedData = intersections map{case (key, (item1, item2)) => {
ParseInfo(key, item1, item2)
}}
processedData foreach println
A note for a new to functional dev: If all you are trying to do is transform data in an iterable (List), forget foreach. Use map instead, which runs your transformation on each item and spits out a new iterable of the results.
What's the type of intersections? It looks like you can replace foreach with map:
val listOfDatas: List[Data] =
intersections take NumOutputs map (obs => {
ParseInformation(obs._1.key, obs._2._1, obs._2._2)
})
I have the following code which is working:
case class Step() {
def bindings(): Map[String, Any] = ???
}
class Builder {
private val globalBindings = scala.collection.mutable.HashMap.empty[String, Any]
private val steps = scala.collection.mutable.ArrayBuffer.empty[Step]
private def context: Map[String, Any] =
globalBindings.foldLeft(Map[String, Any]())((l, r) => l + r) ++ Map[String, Any]("steps" -> steps.foldLeft(Vector[Map[String, Any]]())((l, r) => l.+:(r.bindings)))
}
But I think it could be simplified so as to not need the first foldLeft in the 'context' method.
The desired result is to produce a map where the entry values are either a String, an object upon which toString will be invoked later, or a function which returns a String.
Is this the best I can do with Scala's type system or can I make the code clearer?
TIA
First of all, the toMap method on mutable.HashMap returns an immutable.Map. You can also use map instead of the inner foldLeft together with toVector if you really need a vector, which might be unnecessary. Finally, you can just use + to add the desired key-value pair of "steps" to the map.
So your whole method body could be:
globalBindings.toMap + ("steps" -> steps.map(_.bindings).toVector)
I'd also note that you should be apprehensive of using types like Map[String, Any] in Scala. So much of the power of Scala comes from its type system and it can be used to great effect in many such situations, and so these types are often considered unidiomatic. Of course, there are situations where this approach makes the most sense, and without more context it would be hard to determine if that were true here.
I'm writing a programming language interpreter.
I have need of the right code idiom to both evaluate a sequence of expressions to get a sequence of their values, and propagate state from one evaluator to the next to the next as the evaluations take place. I'd like a functional programming idiom for this.
It's not a fold because the results come out like a map. It's not a map because of the state prop across.
What I have is this code which I'm using to try to figure this out. Bear with a few lines of test rig first:
// test rig
class MonadLearning extends JUnit3Suite {
val d = List("1", "2", "3") // some expressions to evaluate.
type ResType = Int
case class State(i : ResType) // trivial state for experiment purposes
val initialState = State(0)
// my stub/dummy "eval" function...obviously the real one will be...real.
def computeResultAndNewState(s : String, st : State) : (ResType, State) = {
val State(i) = st
val res = s.toInt + i
val newStateInt = i + 1
(res, State(newStateInt))
}
My current solution. Uses a var which is updated as the body of the map is evaluated:
def testTheVarWay() {
var state = initialState
val r = d.map {
s =>
{
val (result, newState) = computeResultAndNewState(s, state)
state = newState
result
}
}
println(r)
println(state)
}
I have what I consider unacceptable solutions using foldLeft which does what I call "bag it as you fold" idiom:
def testTheFoldWay() {
// This startFold thing, requires explicit type. That alone makes it muddy.
val startFold : (List[ResType], State) = (Nil, initialState)
val (r, state) = d.foldLeft(startFold) {
case ((tail, st), s) => {
val (r, ns) = computeResultAndNewState(s, st)
(tail :+ r, ns) // we want a constant-time append here, not O(N). Or could Cons on front and reverse later
}
}
println(r)
println(state)
}
I also have a couple of recursive variations (which are obvious, but also not clear or well motivated), one using streams which is almost tolerable:
def testTheStreamsWay() {
lazy val states = initialState #:: resultStates // there are states
lazy val args = d.toStream // there are arguments
lazy val argPairs = args zip states // put them together
lazy val resPairs : Stream[(ResType, State)] = argPairs.map{ case (d1, s1) => computeResultAndNewState(d1, s1) } // map across them
lazy val (results , resultStates) = myUnzip(resPairs)// Note .unzip causes infinite loop. Had to write my own.
lazy val r = results.toList
lazy val finalState = resultStates.last
println(r)
println(finalState)
}
But, I can't figure out anything as compact or clear as the original 'var' solution above, which I'm willing to live with, but I think somebody who eats/drinks/sleeps monad idioms is going to just say ... use this... (Hopefully!)
With the map-with-accumulator combinator (the easy way)
The higher-order function you want is mapAccumL. It's in Haskell's standard library, but for Scala you'll have to use something like Scalaz.
First the imports (note that I'm using Scalaz 7 here; for previous versions you'd import Scalaz._):
import scalaz._, syntax.std.list._
And then it's a one-liner:
scala> d.mapAccumLeft(initialState, computeResultAndNewState)
res1: (State, List[ResType]) = (State(3),List(1, 3, 5))
Note that I've had to reverse the order of your evaluator's arguments and the return value tuple to match the signatures expected by mapAccumLeft (state first in both cases).
With the state monad (the slightly less easy way)
As Petr Pudlák points out in another answer, you can also use the state monad to solve this problem. Scalaz actually provides a number of facilities that make working with the state monad much easier than the version in his answer suggests, and they won't fit in a comment, so I'm adding them here.
First of all, Scalaz does provide a mapM—it's just called traverse (which is a little more general, as Petr Pudlák notes in his comment). So assuming we've got the following (I'm using Scalaz 7 again here):
import scalaz._, Scalaz._
type ResType = Int
case class Container(i: ResType)
val initial = Container(0)
val d = List("1", "2", "3")
def compute(s: String): State[Container, ResType] = State {
case Container(i) => (Container(i + 1), s.toInt + i)
}
We can write this:
d.traverse[({type L[X] = State[Container, X]})#L, ResType](compute).run(initial)
If you don't like the ugly type lambda, you can get rid of it like this:
type ContainerState[X] = State[Container, X]
d.traverse[ContainerState, ResType](compute).run(initial)
But it gets even better! Scalaz 7 gives you a version of traverse that's specialized for the state monad:
scala> d.traverseS(compute).run(initial)
res2: (Container, List[ResType]) = (Container(3),List(1, 3, 5))
And as if that wasn't enough, there's even a version with the run built in:
scala> d.runTraverseS(initial)(compute)
res3: (Container, List[ResType]) = (Container(3),List(1, 3, 5))
Still not as nice as the mapAccumLeft version, in my opinion, but pretty clean.
What you're describing is a computation within the state monad. I believe that the answer to your question
It's not a fold because the results come out like a map. It's not a map because of the state prop across.
is that it's a monadic map using the state monad.
Values of the state monad are computations that read some internal state, possibly modify it, and return some value. It is often used in Haskell (see here or here).
For Scala, there is a trait in the ScalaZ library called State that models it (see also the source). There are utility methods in States for creating instances of State. Note that from the monadic point of view State is just a monadic value. This may seem confusing at first, because it's described by a function depending on a state. (A monadic function would be something of type A => State[B].)
Next you need is a monadic map function that computes values of your expressions, threading the state through the computations. In Haskell, there is a library method mapM that does just that, when specialized to the state monad.
In Scala, there is no such library function (if it is, please correct me). But it's possible to create one. To give a full example:
import scalaz._;
object StateExample
extends App
with States /* utility methods */
{
// The context that is threaded through the state.
// In our case, it just maps variables to integer values.
class Context(val map: Map[String,Int]);
// An example that returns the requested variable's value
// and increases it's value in the context.
def eval(expression: String): State[Context,Int] =
state((ctx: Context) => {
val v = ctx.map.get(expression).getOrElse(0);
(new Context(ctx.map + ((expression, v + 1)) ), v);
});
// Specialization of Haskell's mapM to our State monad.
def mapState[S,A,B](f: A => State[S,B])(xs: Seq[A]): State[S,Seq[B]] =
state((initState: S) => {
var s = initState;
// process the sequence, threading the state
// through the computation
val ys = for(x <- xs) yield { val r = f(x)(s); s = r._1; r._2 };
// return the final state and the output result
(s, ys);
});
// Example: Try to evaluate some variables, starting from an empty context.
val expressions = Seq("x", "y", "y", "x", "z", "x");
print( mapState(eval)(expressions) ! new Context(Map[String,Int]()) );
}
This way you can create simple functions that take some arguments and return State and then combine them into more complex ones by using State.map or State.flatMap (or perhaps better using for comprehensions), and then you can run the whole computation on a list of expressions by mapM.
See also http://blog.tmorris.net/posts/the-state-monad-for-scala-users/
Edit: See Travis Brown's answer, he described how to use the state monad in Scala much more nicely.
He also asks:
But why, when there's a standard combinator that does exactly what you need in this case?
(I ask this as someone who's been slapped for using the state monad when mapAccumL would do.)
It's because the original question asked:
It's not a fold because the results come out like a map. It's not a map because of the state prop across.
and I believe the proper answer is it is a monadic map using the state monad.
Using mapAccumL is surely faster, both less memory and CPU overhead. But the state monad captures the concept of what is going on, the essence of the problem. I believe in many (if not most) cases this is more important. Once we realize the essence of the problem, we can either use the high-level concepts to nicely describe the solution (perhaps sacrificing speed/memory a little) or optimize it to be fast (or perhaps even manage to do both).
On the other hand, mapAccumL solves this particular problem, but doesn't give us a broader answer. If we need to modify it a little, it might happen it won't work any more. Or, if the library starts to be complex, the code can start to be messy and we won't know how to improve it, how to make the original idea clear again.
For example, in the case of evaluating stateful expressions, the library can become complicated and complex. But if we use the state monad, we can build the library around small functions, each taking some arguments and returning something like State[Context,Result]. These atomic computations can be combined to more complex ones using flatMap method or for comprehensions, and finally we'll construct the desired task. The principle will stay the same across the whole library, and the final task will also be something that returns State[Context,Result].
To conclude: I'm not saying using the state monad is the best solution, and certainly it's not the fastest one. I just believe it is most didactic for a functional programmer - it describes the problem in a clean, abstract way.
You could do this recursively:
def testTheRecWay(xs: Seq[String]) = {
def innerTestTheRecWay(xs: Seq[String], priorState: State = initialState, result: Vector[ResType] = Vector()): Seq[ResType] = {
xs match {
case Nil => result
case x :: tail =>
val (res, newState) = computeResultAndNewState(x, priorState)
innerTestTheRecWay(tail, newState, result :+ res)
}
}
innerTestTheRecWay(xs)
}
Recursion is a common practice in functional programming and is most of the time easier to read, write and understand than loops. In fact scala does not have any loops other than while. fold, map, flatMap, for (which is just sugar for flatMap/map), etc. are all recursive.
This method is tail recursive and will be optimized by the compiler to not build a stack, so it is absolutely safe to use. You can add the #annotation.tailrec annotaion, to force the compiler to apply tail recursion elimination. If your method is not tailrec the compiler will then complain.
edit: renamed inner method to avoid ambiguity
I have a map that I need to map to a different type, and the result needs to be a List. I have two ways (seemingly) to accomplish what I want, since calling map on a map seems to always result in a map. Assuming I have some map that looks like:
val input = Map[String, List[Int]]("rk1" -> List(1,2,3), "rk2" -> List(4,5,6))
I can either do:
val output = input.map{ case(k,v) => (k.getBytes, v) } toList
Or:
val output = input.foldRight(List[Pair[Array[Byte], List[Int]]]()){ (el, res) =>
(el._1.getBytes, el._2) :: res
}
In the first example I convert the type, and then call toList. I assume the runtime is something like O(n*2) and the space required is n*2. In the second example, I convert the type and generate the list in one go. I assume the runtime is O(n) and the space required is n.
My question is, are these essentially identical or does the second conversion cut down on memory/time/etc? Additionally, where can I find information on storage and runtime costs of various scala conversions?
Thanks in advance.
My favorite way to do this kind of things is like this:
input.map { case (k,v) => (k.getBytes, v) }(collection.breakOut): List[(Array[Byte], List[Int])]
With this syntax, you are passing to map the builder it needs to reconstruct the resulting collection. (Actually, not a builder, but a builder factory. Read more about Scala's CanBuildFroms if you are interested.) collection.breakOut can exactly be used when you want to change from one collection type to another while doing a map, flatMap, etc. — the only bad part is that you have to use the full type annotation for it to be effective (here, I used a type ascription after the expression). Then, there's no intermediary collection being built, and the list is constructed while mapping.
Mapping over a view in the first example could cut down on the space requirement for a large map:
val output = input.view.map{ case(k,v) => (k.getBytes, v) } toList