Related
I have a configuration value that matches to one of the values in a map and depending on to which it matches i take an action. Here is some sample code of what i am trying to do
val x = 1 // or 2 or 3
val config = Map("c1"-> 1, "c2"-> 2, "c3"-> 3)
x match {
case config("c1") =>
println("1")
case config("c2") =>
println("2")
case config("c3") =>
println("3")
}
Now this should print 1 because config("c1") evaluates to 1 but it gives error
error: value config is not a case class, nor does it have an unapply/unapplySeq member
case config("c1") =>
Similarly for the other 2 cases. Why should i have an unapply here? Any pointers?
An expression like that looks like an extractor, hence the message about unapply/unapplySeq methods. If you don't want to use an extractor but just want to match against a plain value, you need to store that value in a stable identifier - you can't use an arbitrary expression as a match case:
val case1 = config("c1")
x match {
case case1 => println("1")
...
}
To the best of my knowledge, in Scala, x match {case config("c1") gets translated to config.unapply(x) with the branching dependent on the result of the unapply method. As Imm already mentioned in his answer, this isn't the case for stable identifiers (literals and val), and I'd encourage you to use his solution.
Nevertheless, to show you how you could solve the problem using extractors, I'd like to post a different solution:
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
object config {
val configData = Map("c1" -> 1, "c2" -> 2, "c3" -> 3)
def unapply(value: Int): Option[String] = configData find (_._2 == value) map (_._1)
}
1 to 4 foreach {
case config("c1") => println("1")
case config("c2") => println("2")
case config("c3") => println("3")
case _ => println("no match")
}
}
I changed the match for a foreach to show the different results, but this has no effect on the implementation. This would print:
1
2
3
no match
As you can see, case config("c1") now calls the unapply method and checks whether the result is Some("c1"). Note that this is inverse to how you'd use a map: The key is searched according to the value. However, this makes sense: If in the map, "c1" and "c2" both map to 1, then 1 matches both, the same way _ matches everything, in our case even 4 which is not configured.
Here's also a very brief tutorial on extractors. I don't find it particularly good, because both, the returned type and the argument type are Int, but it might help you understand what's going on.
As others have stated, with x match { case config("c1") => ..., scala looks for an extractor by the name of config (something with an unapply method that takes a single value and returns an Optional value); Making pattern matching work this way seems like an abuse of the pattern, and I would not use an extractor for this.
Personally, I would recommend one of the following:
if (x == config("c1"))
println("1")
else if (x == config("c2"))
println("2")
else ...
Or, if you're set on using a match statement, you can use conditionals like this:
x match {
case _ if x == config("c1") =>
println("1")
case _ if x == config("c2") =>
println("2")
case _ if x == config("c3") =>
println("3")
}
Not as clean; unfortunately, there isn't a way to invoke a method call literally where the extractor goes. You can use back-ticks to tell scala "match against the value of this variable" (rather than default behavior, which would yield the value named as that variable):
val (c1,c2,c3) = (config("c1"), config("c2"), config("c3"))
x match {
case `c1` =>
println("1")
case `c2` =>
println("2")
case `c3` =>
println("3")
}
Finally, if your goal is to reverse-apply a map, maybe try this instead?
scala> Map("a" -> 1).map { case (k,v) => (v,k) }
res0: scala.collection.immutable.Map[Int,String] = Map(1 -> a)
Trying to get a handle on pattern matching here-- coming from a C++/Java background it's very foreign to me.
The point of this branch is to check each member of a List d of tuples [format of (string,object). I want to define three cases.
1) If the counter in this function is larger than the size of the list (defined in another called acc), I want to return nothing (because there is no match)
2) If the key given in the input matches a tuple in the list, I want to return its value (or, whatever is stored in the tuple._2).
3) If there is no match, and there is still more list to iterate, increment and continue.
My code is below:
def get(key:String):Option[Any] = {
var counter: Int = 0
val flag: Boolean = false
x match {
case (counter > acc) => None
case ((d(counter)._1) == key) => d(counter)._2
case _ => counter += 1
}
My issue here is while the first case seems to compile correctly, the second throws an error:
:36: error: ')' expected but '.' found.
case ((d(counter)._1) == key) => d(counter)._2
The third as well:
scala> case _ => counter += 1
:1: error: illegal start of definition
But I assume it's because the second isn't correct. My first thought is that I'm not comparing tuples correctly, but I seem to be following the syntax for indexing into a tuple, so I'm stumped. Can anyone steer me in the right direction?
Hopefully a few things to clear up your confusion:
Matching in scala follows this general template:
x match {
case SomethingThatXIs if(SomeCondition) => SomeExpression
// rinse and repeat
// note that `if(SomeCondition)` is optional
}
It looks like you may have attempted to use the match/case expression as more of an if/else if/else kind of block, and as far as I can tell, the x doesn't really matter within said block. If that's the case, you might be fine with something like
case _ if (d(counter)._1 == key) => d(counter)._2
BUT
Some info on Lists in scala. You should always think of it like a LinkedList, where indexed lookup is an O(n) operation. Lists can be matched with a head :: tail format, and Nil is an empty list. For example:
val myList = List(1,2,3,4)
myList match {
case first :: theRest =>
// first is 1, theRest is List(2,3,4), which you can also express as
// 2 :: 3 :: 4 :: Nil
case Nil =>
// an empty list case
}
It looks like you're constructing a kind of ListMap, so I'll write up a more "functional"/"recursive" way of implementing your get method.
I'll assume that d is the backing list, of type List[(String, Any)]
def get(key: String): Option[Any] = {
def recurse(key: String, list: List[(String, Any)]): Option[Any] = list match {
case (k, value) :: _ if (key == k) => Some(value)
case _ :: theRest => recurse(key, theRest)
case Nil => None
}
recurse(key, d)
}
The three case statements can be explained as follows:
1) The first element in list is a tuple of (k, value). The rest of the list is matched to the _ because we don't care about it in this case. The condition asks if k is equal to the key we are looking for. In this case, we want to return the value from the tuple.
2) Since the first element didn't have the right key, we want to recurse. We don't care about the first element, but we want the rest of the list so that we can recurse with it.
3) case Nil means there's nothing in the list, which should mark "failure" and the end of the recursion. In this case we return None. Consider this the same as your counter > acc condition from your question.
Please don't hesitate to ask for further explanation; and if I've accidentally made a mistake (won't compile, etc), point it out and I will fix it.
I'm assuming that conditionally extracting part of a tuple from a list of tuples is the important part of your question, excuse me if I'm wrong.
First an initial point, in Scala we normally would use AnyRef instead of Object or, if worthwhile, we would use a type parameter which can increase reuse of the function or method and increase type safety.
The three cases you describe can be collapsed into two cases, the first case uses a guard (the if statement after the pattern match), the second case matches the entire non-empty list and searches for a match between each first tuple argument and the key, returning a Some[T] containing the second tuple argument of the matching tuple or None if no match occurred. The third case is not required as the find operation traverses (iterates over) the list.
The map operation after the find is used to extract the second tuple argument (map on an Option returns an Option), remove this operation and change the method's return type to Option[(String, T)] if you want the whole tuple returned.
def f[T](key: String, xs: List[(String, T)], initialCount: Int = 2): Option[T] = {
var counter = initialCount
xs match {
case l: List[(String, T)] if l.size < counter => None
case l: List[(String, T)] => l find {_._1 == key} map {_._2}
}
}
f("A", List(("A", 1), ("B", 2))) // Returns Some(1)
f("B", List(("A", 1), ("B", 2))) // Returns Some(2)
f("A", List(("A", 1))) // Returns None
f("C", List(("A", 1), ("B", 2))) // Returns None
f("C", Nil) // Returns None
First, why are you using a List for that reason? What you need is definitely a Map. Its get() returns None if key is not found and Some(value) if it is found in it.
Second, what is x in your example? Is it the list?
Third, you cannot write case (log) => .. where log is a logical condition, it is in the form of case _ if (log) => ... (as Rex Kerr already pinted out in his comment).
Fouth, you need a recursive function for this (simply increasing the counter will call this only on the second element).
So you'll need something like this (if still prefer sticking to List):
def get(l: List[Tuple2[String, String]], key: String): Option[String] = {
if (l.isEmpty) {
None
} else {
val act = l.head
act match {
case x if (act._1 == key) => Some(act._2)
case _ => get(l.tail, key)
}
}
}
I've obviously done a very poor job of explaining what I'm looking for in my original post so let's try this one more time. What I'm trying to accomplish is the ability to pass a sequence of items, extract one or more of the items, and then pass the REMAINDER of the sequence on to another extractor. Note that by sequence I mean sequence (not necessarily a List). My previous examples used list as the sequence and I gave some examples of extraction using cons (::), but I could just as well pass an Array as my sequence.
I thought I knew how pattern matching and extraction worked but I could be wrong so to avoid any more basic comments and links to how to do pattern matching sites here's my understanding:
If I want to return a single item from my extractor I would define an unapply method. This method takes whatever type I chose as input (the type could be a sequence...) and returns a single optional item (the return type could itself be a sequence). The return must be wrapped in Some if I want a match or None if I don't. Here is an example that takes a sequence as input and returns the same sequence wrapped in Some but only if it contains all Strings. I could very well just return the sequence wrapped in Some and not do anything else, but this seems to cause confusion for people. The key is if it is wrapped in Some then it will match and if it is None it will not. Just to be more clear, the match will also not happen unless the input also matches my unapply methods input type. Here is my example:
object Test {
// In my original post I just returned the Seq itself just to verify I
// had matched but many people commented they didn't understand what I
// was trying to do so I've made it a bit more complicated (e.g. match
// only if the sequence is a sequence of Strings). Hopefully I don't
// screw this up and introduce a bug :)
def unapply[A](xs: Seq[A]): Option[Seq[String]] =
if (xs forall { _.isInstanceOf[String] })
Some(xs.asInstanceOf[Seq[String]])
else
None
}
Using List as an example, I can now perform the following:
// This works
def test1(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case (s: String) :: Test(rest) =>
println("s = " + s + ", rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
test1(List("foo", "bar", "baz")) // "s = foo, rest = List(bar, baz)"
My test1 function takes List as input and extracts the head and tail using cons via the constructor pattern (e.g. ::(s, rest)). It then uses type ascription (: String) to make sure the head (s) is a String. The tail contains List("bar", "baz"). This is a List which means it is also a Seq (sequence). It is then passed as input to my Test extractor which verifies that both "bar" and "baz" are strings and returns the List wrapped in Some. Since Some is returned it is considered a match (although in my original post where I inadvertently mixed up unapplySeq with unapply this didn't work as expected, but that aside...). This is NOT what I'm looking for. This was only an example to show that Test does in fact extract a Seq as input as expected.
Now, here's where I caused mass confusion last time when I inadvertently used unapplySeq instead of unapply in my write up. After much confusion trying to understand the comments that were posted I finally picked up on the mistake. Many thanks to Dan for pointing me in the right direction...
But just be avoid any more confusion, let me clarify my understanding of unapplySeq. Like unapply, unapplySeq takes in whatever argument I choose as input, but instead of returning a single element it returns a sequence of elements. Each item in this sequence can then be used for additional pattern matching. Again, to make a match happen the input type must match and my returned sequence must be wrapped in Some and not be None. When extracting over the sequence of items returned from unapplySeq, you can use _* to match any remaining items not yet matched.
Ok, so my extractor takes a sequence as input and returns a sequence (as a single item) in return. Since I only want to return a single item as a match I need to use unapply NOT unapplySeq. Even though in my case I'm returning a Seq, I don't want unapplySeq because I don't want to do more pattern matching on the items in the Seq. I just want to return the items as a Seq on its own to then be passed to the body of my case match. This sounds confusing, but to those that understand unapply vs unapplySeq I hope it isn't.
So here is what I WANT to do. I want to take something that returns a sequence (e.g. List or Array) and I want to extract a few items from this sequence and then extract the REMAINDER of the items (e.g. _*) as a sequence. Let's call it the remainder sequence. I want to then pass the remainder sequence as input to my extractor. My extractor will then return the remaining items as a single Seq if it matches my criteria. Just to be 100% clear. The List (or Array, etc) will have its unapplySeq extractor called to create the sequence of items. I will extract a one or more of these items and then pass what is left as a sequence to my Test extractor which will use unapply (NOT unapplySeq) to return the remainder. If you are confused by this, then please don't comment...
Here are my tests:
// Doesn't compile. Is there a syntax for this?
def test2(xs: Seq[_]) = xs match {
// Variations tried:
// Test(rest) # _* - doesn't compile (this one seems reasonable to me)
// Test(rest # _*) - doesn't compile (would compile if Test had
// unapplySeq, but in that case would bind List's
// second element to Test as a Seq and then bind
// rest to that Seq (if all strings) - not what I'm
// looking for...). I though that this might work
// since Scala knows Test has no unapplySeq only
// unapply so # _* can be tied to the List not Test
// rest # Test(_*) - doesn't compile (didn't expect to)
case List(s: String, Test(rest) # _*) =>
println("s = " + s + " rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
// This works, but messy
def test3(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case List(s: String, rest # _*) if (
rest match { case Test(rest) => true; case _ => false }
) =>
println("s = " + s + " rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
I created test3 based on comments from Julian (thanks Julian..). Some have commented that test3 does what I want so they are confused what I'm looking for. Yes, it accomplishes what I want to accomplish, but I'm not satisfied with it. Daniel's example also works (thanks Daniel), but I'm also not satisfied with having to create another extractor to split things and then do embedded extractions. These solutions seem too much work in order to accomplish something that seems fairly straight forward to me. What I WANT is to make test2 work or know that it can't be done this way. Is the error given because the syntax is wrong? I know that rest # _* will return a Seq, that can be verified here:
def test4(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case List(s: String, rest # _*) =>
println(rest.getClass) // scala.collection.immutable.$colon$colon
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
It returns cons (::) which is a List which is a Seq. So how can I pass the _* Seq on to my extractor and have is return bound to the variable rest?
Note that I've also tried passing varargs to my unapply constructor (e.g. unapply(xs: A*)...) but that won't match either.
So, I hope it is clear now when I say I want to extract the remainder of a sequence in pattern matching. I'm not sure how else I can word it.
Based on the great feedback from Daniel I'm hoping he is going to have an answer for me :)
I'd like to extract the first item and pass the remainder on to another extractor.
OK. Your test1 does that, exactly. first_item :: Extractor(the_rest). The weird behavior you're seeing comes from your Test extractor. As you already had the answer to your stated question, and as expected behavior from your Test strikes you as a problem with test1, it seems that what you really want is some help with extractors.
So, please read Extractor Objects, from docs.scala-lang.org, and Pattern Matching in Scala (pdf). Although that PDF has an example of unapplySeq, and suggests where you'd want to use it, here are some extra examples:
object Sorted {
def unapply(xs: Seq[Int]) =
if (xs == xs.sortWith(_ < _)) Some(xs) else None
}
object SortedSeq {
def unapplySeq(xs: Seq[Int]) =
if (xs == xs.sortWith(_ < _)) Some(xs) else None
}
Interactively:
scala> List(1,2,3,4) match { case Sorted(xs) => Some(xs); case _ => None }
res0: Option[Seq[Int]] = Some(List(1, 2, 3, 4))
scala> List(4,1,2,3) match { case Sorted(xs) => Some(xs); case _ => None }
res1: Option[Seq[Int]] = None
scala> List(4,1,2,3) match { case first :: Sorted(rest) => Some(first, rest); case _ => None }
res2: Option[(Int, Seq[Int])] = Some((4,List(1, 2, 3)))
scala> List(1,2,3,4) match { case SortedSeq(a,b,c,d) => (a,b,c,d) }
res3: (Int, Int, Int, Int) = (1,2,3,4)
scala> List(4,1,2,3) match { case _ :: SortedSeq(a, b, _*) => (a,b) }
res4: (Int, Int) = (1,2)
scala> List(1,2,3,4) match { case SortedSeq(a, rest # _*) => (a, rest) }
res5: (Int, Seq[Int]) = (1,List(2, 3, 4))
Or maybe -- I only have the faint suspicion of this, you haven't said as much -- you don't want extractor help, but actually you want a terse way to express something like
scala> List(1,2,3,4) match { case 1 :: xs if (xs match { case Sorted(_) => true; case _ => false }) => xs }
res6: List[Int] = List(2, 3, 4)
Erlang has a feature like this (although, without these crazy extractors):
example(L=[1|_]) -> examine(L).
, which pattern-matches the same argument twice - to L and also to [1|_]. In Erlang both sides of the = are full-fledged patterns and could be anything, and you can add a third or more patterns with more =. Scala seems to only support the L=[1|_] form, having a variable and then a full pattern.
scala> List(4,1,2,3) match { case xs # _ :: Sorted(_) => xs }
collection.immutable.::[Int] = List(4, 1, 2, 3)
Well, the easiest way is this:
case (s: String) :: Test(rest # _*) =>
If you need this to work on general Seq, you can just define an extractor to split head from tail:
object Split {
def unapply[T](xs: Seq[T]): Option[(T, Seq[T])] = if (xs.nonEmpty) Some(xs.head -> xs.tail) else None
}
And then use it like
case Split(s: String, Test(rest # _*)) =>
Also note that if you had defined unapply instead of unapplySeq, then # _* would not be required on the pattern matched by Test.
:: is an extractor. For how it works (from a random googling), see, for example, here.
def test1(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case s :: rest =>
println("s = " + s + " rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
scala> test1(List("a", "b", "c"))
s = a rest = List(b, c)
I think this is what you wanted?
Messing around with this, it seems that the issue has something to do with unapplySeq.
object Test {
def unapply[A](xs: List[A]): Option[List[A]] = Some(xs)
}
def test1(xs: List[_]) = xs match {
case (s: String) :: Test(s2 :: rest) =>
println("s = " + s + " rest = " + rest)
case _ =>
println("no match")
}
test1(List("foo", "bar", "baz"))
produces the output:
s = foo rest = List(baz)
I'm havng trouble googling up docs on the difference between unapply and unapplySeq.
I found myself writing something like this quite often:
a match {
case `b` => // do stuff
case _ => // do nothing
}
Is there a shorter way to check if some value matches a pattern? I mean, in this case I could just write if (a == b) // do stuff, but what if the pattern is more complex? Like when matching against a list or any pattern of arbitrary complexity. I'd like to be able to write something like this:
if (a matches b) // do stuff
I'm relatively new to Scala, so please pardon, if I'm missing something big :)
This is exactly why I wrote these functions, which are apparently impressively obscure since nobody has mentioned them.
scala> import PartialFunction._
import PartialFunction._
scala> cond("abc") { case "def" => true }
res0: Boolean = false
scala> condOpt("abc") { case x if x.length == 3 => x + x }
res1: Option[java.lang.String] = Some(abcabc)
scala> condOpt("abc") { case x if x.length == 4 => x + x }
res2: Option[java.lang.String] = None
The match operator in Scala is most powerful when used in functional style. This means, rather than "doing something" in the case statements, you would return a useful value. Here is an example for an imperative style:
var value:Int = 23
val command:String = ... // we get this from somewhere
command match {
case "duplicate" => value = value * 2
case "negate" => value = -value
case "increment" => value = value + 1
// etc.
case _ => // do nothing
}
println("Result: " + value)
It is very understandable that the "do nothing" above hurts a little, because it seems superflous. However, this is due to the fact that the above is written in imperative style. While constructs like these may sometimes be necessary, in many cases you can refactor your code to functional style:
val value:Int = 23
val command:String = ... // we get this from somewhere
val result:Int = command match {
case "duplicate" => value * 2
case "negate" => -value
case "increment" => value + 1
// etc.
case _ => value
}
println("Result: " + result)
In this case, you use the whole match statement as a value that you can, for example, assign to a variable. And it is also much more obvious that the match statement must return a value in any case; if the last case would be missing, the compiler could not just make something up.
It is a question of taste, but some developers consider this style to be more transparent and easier to handle in more real-world examples. I would bet that the inventors of the Scala programming language had a more functional use in mind for match, and indeed the if statement makes more sense if you only need to decide whether or not a certain action needs to be taken. (On the other hand, you can also use if in the functional way, because it also has a return value...)
This might help:
class Matches(m: Any) {
def matches[R](f: PartialFunction[Any, R]) { if (f.isDefinedAt(m)) f(m) }
}
implicit def any2matches(m: Any) = new Matches(m)
scala> 'c' matches { case x: Int => println("Int") }
scala> 2 matches { case x: Int => println("Int") }
Int
Now, some explanation on the general nature of the problem.
Where may a match happen?
There are three places where pattern matching might happen: val, case and for. The rules for them are:
// throws an exception if it fails
val pattern = value
// filters for pattern, but pattern cannot be "identifier: Type",
// though that can be replaced by "id1 # (id2: Type)" for the same effect
for (pattern <- object providing map/flatMap/filter/withFilter/foreach) ...
// throws an exception if none of the cases match
value match { case ... => ... }
There is, however, another situation where case might appear, which is function and partial function literals. For example:
val f: Any => Unit = { case i: Int => println(i) }
val pf: PartialFunction[Any, Unit] = { case i: Int => println(i) }
Both functions and partial functions will throw an exception if called with an argument that doesn't match any of the case statements. However, partial functions also provide a method called isDefinedAt which can test whether a match can be made or not, as well as a method called lift, which will turn a PartialFunction[T, R] into a Function[T, Option[R]], which means non-matching values will result in None instead of throwing an exception.
What is a match?
A match is a combination of many different tests:
// assign anything to x
case x
// only accepts values of type X
case x: X
// only accepts values matches by pattern
case x # pattern
// only accepts a value equal to the value X (upper case here makes a difference)
case X
// only accepts a value equal to the value of x
case `x`
// only accept a tuple of the same arity
case (x, y, ..., z)
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns true of Some(Seq()) (some empty sequence)
case extractor()
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns Some something
case extractor(x)
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns Some Seq or Tuple of the same arity
case extractor(x, y, ..., z)
// only accepts if extractor(value) returns Some Tuple2 or Some Seq with arity 2
case x extractor y
// accepts if any of the patterns is accepted (patterns may not contain assignable identifiers)
case x | y | ... | z
Now, extractors are the methods unapply or unapplySeq, the first returning Boolean or Option[T], and the second returning Option[Seq[T]], where None means no match is made, and Some(result) will try to match result as described above.
So there are all kinds of syntactic alternatives here, which just aren't possible without the use of one of the three constructions where pattern matches may happen. You may able to emulate some of the features, like value equality and extractors, but not all of them.
Patterns can also be used in for expressions. Your code sample
a match {
case b => // do stuff
case _ => // do nothing
}
can then be expressed as
for(b <- Some(a)) //do stuff
The trick is to wrap a to make it a valid enumerator. E.g. List(a) would also work, but I think Some(a) is closest to your intended meaning.
The best I can come up with is this:
def matches[A](a:A)(f:PartialFunction[A, Unit]) = f.isDefinedAt(a)
if (matches(a){case ... =>}) {
//do stuff
}
This won't win you any style points though.
Kim's answer can be “improved” to better match your requirement:
class AnyWrapper[A](wrapped: A) {
def matches(f: PartialFunction[A, Unit]) = f.isDefinedAt(wrapped)
}
implicit def any2wrapper[A](wrapped: A) = new AnyWrapper(wrapped)
then:
val a = "a" :: Nil
if (a matches { case "a" :: Nil => }) {
println("match")
}
I wouldn't do it, however. The => }) { sequence is really ugly here, and the whole code looks much less clear than a normal match. Plus, you get the compile-time overhead of looking up the implicit conversion, and the run-time overhead of wrapping the match in a PartialFunction (not counting the conflicts you could get with other, already defined matches methods, like the one in String).
To look a little bit better (and be less verbose), you could add this def to AnyWrapper:
def ifMatch(f: PartialFunction[A, Unit]): Unit = if (f.isDefinedAt(wrapped)) f(wrapped)
and use it like this:
a ifMatch { case "a" :: Nil => println("match") }
which saves you your case _ => line, but requires double braces if you want a block instead of a single statement... Not so nice.
Note that this construct is not really in the spirit of functional programming, as it can only be used to execute something that has side effects. We can't easily use it to return a value (therefore the Unit return value), as the function is partial — we'd need a default value, or we could return an Option instance. But here again, we would probably unwrap it with a match, so we'd gain nothing.
Frankly, you're better off getting used to seeing and using those match frequently, and moving away from this kind of imperative-style constructs (following Madoc's nice explanation).
I have a recursive function that takes a Map as single parameter. It then adds new entries to that Map and calls itself with this larger Map. Please ignore the return values for now. The function isn't finished yet. Here's the code:
def breadthFirstHelper( found: Map[AIS_State,(Option[AIS_State], Int)] ): List[AIS_State] = {
val extension =
for(
(s, v) <- found;
next <- this.expand(s) if (! (found contains next) )
) yield (next -> (Some(s), 0))
if ( extension.exists( (s -> (p,c)) => this.isGoal( s ) ) )
List(this.getStart)
else
breadthFirstHelper( found ++ extension )
}
In extension are the new entries that shall get added to the map. Note that the for-statement generates an iterable, not a map. But those entries shall later get added to the original map for the recursive call. In the break condition, I need to test whether a certain value has been generated inside extension. I try to do this by using the exists method on extension. But the syntax for extracting values from the map entries (the stuff following the yield) doesn't work.
Questions:
How do I get my break condition (the boolean statement to the if) to work?
Is it a good idea to do recursive work on a immutable Map like this? Is this good functional style?
When using a pattern-match (e.g. against a Tuple2) in a function, you need to use braces {} and the case statement.
if (extension.exists { case (s,_) => isGoal(s) } )
The above also uses the fact that it is more clear when matching to use the wildcard _ for any allowable value (which you subsequently do not care about). The case xyz gets compiled into a PartialFunction which in turn extends from Function1 and hence can be used as an argument to the exists method.
As for the style, I am not functional programming expert but this seems like it will be compiled into a iterative form (i.e. it's tail-recursive) by scalac. There's nothing which says "recursion with Maps is bad" so why not?
Note that -> is a method on Any (via implicit conversion) which creates a Tuple2 - it is not a case class like :: or ! and hence cannot be used in a case pattern match statement. This is because:
val l: List[String] = Nil
l match {
case x :: xs =>
}
Is really shorthand/sugar for
case ::(x, xs) =>
Similarly a ! b is equivalent to !(a, b). Of course, you may have written your own case class ->...
Note2: as Daniel says below, you cannot in any case use a pattern-match in a function definition; so while the above partial function is valid, the following function is not:
(x :: xs) =>
This is a bit convoluted for me to follow, whatever Oxbow Lakes might think.
I'd like first to clarify one point: there is no break condition in for-comprehensions. They are not loops like C's (or Java's) for.
What an if in a for-comprehension means is a guard. For instance, let's say I do this:
for {i <- 1 to 10
j <- 1 to 10
if i != j
} yield (i, j)
The loop isn't "stopped" when the condition is false. It simply skips the iterations for which that condition is false, and proceed with the true ones. Here is another example:
for {i <- 1 to 10
j <- 1 to 10
if i % 2 != 0
} yield (i, j)
You said you don't have side-effects, so I can skip a whole chapter about side effects and guards on for-comprehensions. On the other hand, reading a blog post I made recently on Strict Ranges is not a bad idea.
So... give up on break conditions. They can be made to work, but they are not functional. Try to rephrase the problem in a more functional way, and the need for a break condition will be replaced by something else.
Next, Oxbow is correct in that (s -> (p,c) => isn't allowed because there is no extractor defined on an object called ->, but, alas, even (a :: b) => would not be allowed, because there is no pattern matching going on in functional literal parameter declaration. You must simply state the parameters on the left side of =>, without doing any kind of decomposition. You may, however, do this:
if ( extension.exists( t => val (s, (p,c)) = t; this.isGoal( s ) ) )
Note that I replaced -> with ,. This works because a -> b is a syntactic sugar for (a, b), which is, itself, a syntactic sugar for Tuple2(a, b). As you don't use neither p nor c, this works too:
if ( extension.exists( t => val (s, _) = t; this.isGoal( s ) ) )
Finally, your recursive code is perfectly fine, though probably not optimized for tail-recursion. For that, you either make your method final, or you make the recursive function private to the method. Like this:
final def breadthFirstHelper
or
def breadthFirstHelper(...) {
def myRecursiveBreadthFirstHelper(...) { ... }
myRecursiveBreadthFirstHelper(...)
}
On Scala 2.8 there is an annotation called #TailRec which will tell you if the function can be made tail recursive or not. And, in fact, it seems there will be a flag to display warnings about functions that could be made tail-recursive if slightly changed, such as above.
EDIT
Regarding Oxbow's solution using case, that's a function or partial function literal. It's type will depend on what the inference requires. In that case, because that's that exists takes, a function. However, one must be careful to ensure that there will always be a match, otherwise you get an exception. For example:
scala> List(1, 'c') exists { case _: Int => true }
res0: Boolean = true
scala> List(1, 'c') exists { case _: String => true }
scala.MatchError: 1
at $anonfun$1.apply(<console>:5)
... (stack trace elided)
scala> List(1, 'c') exists { case _: String => true; case _ => false }
res3: Boolean = false
scala> ({ case _: Int => true } : PartialFunction[AnyRef,Boolean])
res5: PartialFunction[AnyRef,Boolean] = <function1>
scala> ({ case _: Int => true } : Function1[Int, Boolean])
res6: (Int) => Boolean = <function1>
EDIT 2
The solution Oxbow proposes does use pattern matching, because it is based on function literals using case statements, which do use pattern matching. When I said it was not possible, I was speaking of the syntax x => s.