I am trying to implement the reduce function from underscore in hack. In underscore, the reduce function has the following behavior:
If no memo is passed to the initial invocation of reduce, the iteratee is not invoked on the first element of the list. The first element is instead passed as the memo in the invocation of the iteratee on the next element in the list.
My attempt to implement the function:
function reduce<T, Tresult>(
Iterable<T> $iterable,
(function(?Tresult, T):Tresult) $fn,
?Tresult $memo=null):?Tresult {
if (is_null($memo)) {
$memo = $iterable->firstValue();
$iterable = $iterable->skip(1);
}
foreach ($iterable as $value) {
$memo = $fn($memo, $value);
}
return $memo;
}
This results in the error:
Invalid return type (Typing[4110])
This is a value of generic type Tresult
It is incompatible with a value of generic type T
via this generic Tv
How do I tell the type checker that T == Tresult when is_null($memo)
I note that the line
$memo = $iterable->firstValue();
assigns a value of type T to $memo. This seems wrong; $memo is given to be of type ?Tresult in the declaration, and assigned a value of type Tresult here:
$memo = $fn($memo, $value);
Can you explain why $memo is assigned a value of type T in the first instance? How do you know that T and Tresult are the same? I see no evidence whatsoever that these two types are ever constrained to be the same thing. The type checker is giving you an error here because this program isn't typesafe; if T is Animal and Tresult is Fruit, and someone passes in a null fruit, there's no way to get a fruit out of the sequence.
Also, I find it weird that reduce returns a nullable result; surely it should be returning a result of the given result type, no?
If you want this function to have two different behaviours depending on the nullity of the argument, then why not instead simply have two functions?
function reduce1<T, Tresult>(
Iterable<T> $iterable,
(function(Tresult, T):Tresult) $fn,
Tresult $memo): Tresult {
foreach ($iterable as $value) {
$memo = $fn($memo, $value);
}
return $memo;
}
function reduce2<T>(
Iterable<T> $iterable,
(function(T, T):T) $fn): T {
return reduce1($iterable->skip(1), $fn, $iterable->firstValue());
}
There, now we have two different forms of reduce, and both of them are typesafe.
Related
I am trying to understand the difference between passing a Closure vs a Comparator to the min function on a collection:
// Example 1: Closure/field/attribute?
Sample min = container.min { it.timespan.start }
// Example 2: Comparator
Sample min2 = container.min(new Comparator<Sample>() {
#Override
int compare(Sample o1, Sample o2) {
return o1.timespan.start <=> o2.timespan.start
}
})
They both return the correct result.
Where:
class Sample {
TimeSpan timespan
static constraints = {
}
}
And:
class TimeSpan {
LocalDate start
LocalDate end
}
In Example 1 I just pass the field timespan.start to min which I guess means that I am passing a Closure (even though its just a field in a class)?
In Example 1 does groovy convert the field timespan.start into a Comparator behind the scenes like the one I create explicitly in Example 2?
The difference is, that those are two different min methods both
taking different arguments. There is one for passing
a closure
and one for the
comparator
(there is a third one using identity and some deprecated ones, but we can ignore that for now).
The first version (Closure with one (implicit argument)) you have to
extract the value from the passed value, you want to make the min
aggregate with. Therefor this versions has some inner working to deal
with comparing the values.
But the docs also state:
If the closure has two parameters it is used like a traditional
Comparator. I.e. it should compare its two parameters for order,
returning a negative integer, zero, or a positive integer when the
first parameter is less than, equal to, or greater than the second
respectively. Otherwise, the Closure is assumed to take a single
parameter and return a Comparable (typically an Integer) which is then
used for further comparison.
So you can use a Closure version also to the same as your second example
(you have to define two params explicitly):
container.min{ a, b -> a <=> b }
And there is also a shorter version of the second example. You can cast
a Closure to an interface with groovy. So this works too:
container.min({ a, b -> a <=> b } as Comparator)
I want to get a List from repository and assert its contents.
In following code I get a warning that states that Object cannot be assigned to List
Is there any way to add better argument to handle such case?
myDomainObjectRepository.save(_) >> { arguments ->
final List<MyDomainObject> myDomainObjects = arguments[0]
assert myDomainObjects == [new MyDomainObject(someId, someData)]
}
To elaborate on Opals answer: There are two parts and a footnote in the docs that are relevant here:
If the closure declares a single untyped parameter, it gets passed the
method’s argument list:
And
In most cases it would be more convenient to have direct access to the
method’s arguments. If the closure declares more than one parameter or
a single typed parameter, method arguments will be mapped one-by-one
to closure parameters[footnote]:
Footnote:
The destructuring semantics for closure arguments come straight from
Groovy.
The problem is that you have a single argument List, and since generics are erased groovy can't decide that you actually want to unwrap the list.
So a single non-List argument works fine:
myDomainObjectRepository.save(_) >> { MyDomainObject myDomainObject ->
assert myDomainObject == new MyDomainObject(someId, someData)
}
or a List argument combined with a second, e.g., save(List domain, boolean flush)
myDomainObjectRepository.save(_, _) >> { List<MyDomainObject> myDomainObjects, boolean flush ->
assert myDomainObjects == [new MyDomainObject(someId, someData)]
}
So the docs are a little bit misleading about this edge case. I'm afraid that you are stuck with casting for this case.
Edit: You should be able to get rid of the IDE warnings if you do this.
myDomainObjectRepository.save(_) >> { List<List<MyDomainObject>> arguments ->
List<MyDomainObject> myDomainObjects = arguments[0]
assert myDomainObjects == [new MyDomainObject(someId, someData)]
}
The docs seems to be precise:
If the closure declares a single untyped parameter, it gets passed the method’s argument list
However I've just changed my spec that uses rightShift + arguments to accept a single type argument and it did work. Try it out.
I am new to Groovy so I am a bit confused by the run time binding, typed and not typed attributes of the language. Personally I prefer types to be declared.
However, I have a question.
I have a small method that takes some variable from maps, input, whatever, that I know are numbers. Let's say that I don't know what the initial type was (it's somewhere deep in the code or comes from an external source), other that it was a number. Now I have a method that takes two of these arguments and I have to do a modulo operation on them. Because they might be decimal or not, I wrote a small method using the remainder of BigDecimal so to enforce the type I used the type BigDecimal on the method signature.
def callerMethod(Map map) {
...
map.each{
calledMethod(it.val1, it.val2)
...
}
...
}
def calledMethod(BigDecimal val1, BigDecimal val2) {
...
vl1.remainder(val2)
...
}
Is this correct? If the incoming argument is Integer (most of the time the primitives are boxed if I understand it correctly), will it be implicitly cast or turned into a BigDecimal?
How does this work in Groovy.
I still think that since I have the option to use types, I want to use them rather than declaring everything def. It also makes it easier to read code or see what something is if you reading already existing code
The problem in this methods are not the type of variables, is the each of your map
In a groovy Map, the each have two signatures.
One receive a Map.Entry of parameter and other receive key and value
Ex.:
Map map = [key1:'value1',key2:'value2']
map.each{ Map.Entry entryMap ->
println "The value of key: ${entryMap.key} is ${entryMap.value}"
}
The result of this each will be:
The value of key: key1 is value1
The value of key: key2 is value2
Or could be like this
Map map = [key1:'value1',key2:'value2']
map.each{ def key, def value ->
println "The value of key: ${key} is ${value}"
}
And the result of this second will be the same of the first.
If you want to pass two specific arguments to you calledMethod, pass both outside of the each like this:
def callerMethod(Map map) {
calledMethod(map.val1, map.val2)
}
I don't understand perfectly what you want.. I hope that's help you to do you code.
I am new to groovy and I've been facing some issues understanding the each{} and eachwithindex{} statements in groovy.
Are each and eachWithIndex actually methods? If so what are the arguments that they take?
In the groovy documentation there is this certain example:
def numbers = [ 5, 7, 9, 12 ]
numbers.eachWithIndex{ num, idx -> println "$idx: $num" } //prints each index and number
Well, I see that numbers is an array. What are num and idx in the above statement? What does the -> operator do?
I do know that $idx and $num prints the value, but how is it that idx and num are automatically being associated with the index and contents of the array? What is the logic behind this? Please help.
These are plain methods but they follow quite a specific pattern - they take a Closure as their last argument. A Closure is a piece of functionality that you can pass around and call when applicable.
For example, method eachWithIndex might look like this (roughly):
void eachWithIndex(Closure operation) {
for (int i = 0; this.hasNext(); i++) {
operation(this.next(), i); // Here closure passed as parameter is being called
}
}
This approach allows one to build generic algorithms (like iteration over items) and change the concrete processing logic at runtime by passing different closures.
Regarding the parameters part, as you see in the example above we call the closure (operation) with two parameters - the current element and current index. This means that the eachWithIndex method expects to receive not just any closure but one which would accept these two parameters. From a syntax prospective one defines the parameters during closure definition like this:
{ elem, index ->
// logic
}
So -> is used to separate arguments part of closure definition from its logic. When a closure takes only one argument, its parameter definition can be omitted and then the parameter will be accessible within the closure's scope with the name it (implicit name for the first argument). For example:
[1,2,3].each {
println it
}
It could be rewritten like this:
[1,2,3].each({ elem ->
println elem
})
As you see the Groovy language adds some syntax sugar to make such constructions look prettier.
each and eachWithIndex are, amongst many others, taking so called Closure as an argument. The closure is just a piece of Groovy code wrapped in {} braces. In the code with array:
def numbers = [ 5, 7, 9, 12 ]
numbers.eachWithIndex{ num, idx -> println "$idx: $num" }
there is only one argument (closure, or more precisely: function), please note that in Groovy () braces are sometime optional. num and idx are just an optional aliases for closure (function) arguments, when we need just one argument, this is equivalent (it is implicit name of the first closure argument, very convenient):
def numbers = [ 5, 7, 9, 12 ]
numbers.each {println "$it" }
References:
http://groovy.codehaus.org/Closures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_function
Normally, if you are using a functional programing language such as Groovy, you would want to avoid using each and eachWithIndex since they encourage you to modify state within the closure or do things that have side effects.
If possible, you may want to do your operations using other groovy collection methods such as .collect or .inject or findResult etc.
However, to use these for your problem, i.e print the list elements with their index, you will need to use the withIndex method on the original collection which will transform the collection to a collection of pairs of [element, index]
For example,
println(['a', 'b', 'c'].withIndex())
EachWithIndex can be used as follows:
package json
import groovy.json.*
import com.eviware.soapui.support.XmlHolder
def project = testRunner.testCase.testSuite.project
def testCase = testRunner.testCase;
def strArray = new String[200]
//Response for a step you want the json from
def response = context.expand('${Offers#Response#$[\'Data\']}').toString()
def json = new JsonSlurper().parseText(response)
//Value you want to compare with in your array
def offername = project.getPropertyValue("Offername")
log.info(offername)
Boolean flagpresent = false
Boolean flagnotpresent = false
strArray = json.Name
def id = 0;
//To find the offername in the array of offers displayed
strArray.eachWithIndex
{
name, index ->
if("${name}" != offername)
{
flagnotpresent= false;
}
else
{
id = "${index}";
flagpresent = true;
log.info("${index}.${name}")
log.info(id)
}
}
I get the following error when compiling the std::find_if function:
error C2451: conditional expression of type 'overloaded-function' is illegal
The code looks like this:
typedef std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<node> >::iterator nodes_iterator;
nodes_iterator node_iter = std::find_if(_request->begin(), _request->end(), boost::bind(&RequestValues::is_parameter, this));
bool RequestValues::is_parameter(nodes_iterator iter)
{
return ((*iter)->name.compare("parameter") == 0);
}
It seems to have something to do with the predicate function passed to the std::find_if, however I cannot figure out what is wrong, can anybody help?
node is a struct containing some values.
You should use _1, not this when binding, and take a value_type as an argument of your function.
If this is a class or struct member function, then bind(func, this, _1) maybe? But if it is a class member function it should probably be static because it needn't state.
The comparison function you provide to find_if should not take in an iterator, but rather the value that the iterator is pointing at (or even better, a const reference to it). For example, when writing a predicate for find_if over a range of ints, the comparison should take in an int rather than vector<int>::iterator. Changing your comparison function to work on shared_ptr<node>s might not fix all your errors, but it should at least account for some of them.
That function's signature should be
bool RequestValues::is_parameter(boost::shared_ptr<node>);
i.e., it doesn't take an iterator, but the iterator's value_type.