I am new to Kotlin and am still trying to learn it. I have been researching this problem for several hours now and still have not figured it out. I want to get an element from inside of a list by it's index. I figured out how to do this with a plain list, like so
val my_list = listOf(1,2,3)
println(my_list.get(0))
The above works, but when I try to do this with a list that is stored inside of a map
val my_list = mutableMapOf<String, Any>()
my_list["set1"] = listOf(1,2,3)
my_list["set2"] = listOf("A","B","C")
my_list["set3"] = listOf("d","e","f")
val sub_list = my_list["set1"]
println(sub_list.get(0))
I get the following error
Unresolved reference. None of the following candidates is applicable
because of receiver type mismatch: #InlineOnly public inline operator
fun <#OnlyInputTypes K, V> Map.get(key: Int): ???
defined in kotlin.collections #SinceKotlin public operator fun
MatchGroupCollection.get(name: String): MatchGroup? defined in
kotlin.text
Note: I primarily use Python, so that is what I am used to. The functionality from Python that I am trying to reproduce in Kotlin is having a dictionary of lists.
The problem is the type declaration of your map, it should be:
val my_list = mutableMapOf<String, List<Any>>()
Any doesn't have a get() method, so there's no way to invoke it.
Even when that problem is solved, you'll probably have to deal with nullability, though, as:
val sub_list = my_list["set1"]
Will return List<Any>?, which means that my_list might not have a value for the specified key. If that's the case, you'll have to do something like:
sub_list?.get(0)?.run { println(it) }
Which in turn, could also cause an exception if the sub_list is empty. That could be solved with something more like:
vsub_list?.firstOrNull()?.run { println(it) }
Related
I have following 2 forms of calling a collect operation, both return same result, but I still cannot depend fully on method references and need a lambda.
<R> R collect(Supplier<R> supplier,
BiConsumer<R,? super T> accumulator,
BiConsumer<R,R> combiner)
For this consider the following stream consisting on 100 random numbers
List<Double> dataList = new Random().doubles().limit(100).boxed()
.collect(Collectors.toList());
1) Following example uses pure lambdas
Map<Boolean, Integer> partition = dataList.stream()
.collect(() -> new ConcurrentHashMap<Boolean, Integer>(),
(map, x) ->
{
map.merge(x < 0.5 ? Boolean.TRUE : Boolean.FALSE, 1, Integer::sum);
}, (map, map2) ->
{
map2.putAll(map);
});
2) Following tries to use method references but 2nd argument still requires a lambda
Map<Boolean, Integer> partition2 = dataList.stream()
.collect(ConcurrentHashMap<Boolean, Integer>::new,
(map, x) ->
{
map.merge(x < 0.5 ? Boolean.TRUE : Boolean.FALSE, 1, Integer::sum);
}, Map::putAll);
How can I rewrite 2nd argument of collect method in java 8 to use method reference instead of a lambda for this example?
System.out.println(partition.toString());
System.out.println(partition2.toString());
{false=55, true=45}
{false=55, true=45}
A method reference is a handy tool if you have an existing method doing exactly the intended thing. If you need adaptations or additional operations, there is no special syntax for method references to support that, except, when you consider lambda expressions to be that syntax.
Of course, you can create a new method in your class doing the desired thing and create a method reference to it and that’s the right way to go when the complexity of the code raises, as then, it will get a meaningful name and become testable. But for simple code snippets, you can use lambda expressions, which are just a simpler syntax for the same result. Technically, there is no difference, except that the compiler generated method holding the lambda expression body will be marked as “synthetic”.
In your example, you can’t even use Map::putAll as merge function, as that would overwrite all existing mappings of the first map instead of merging the values.
A correct implementation would look like
Map<Boolean, Integer> partition2 = dataList.stream()
.collect(HashMap::new,
(map, x) -> map.merge(x < 0.5, 1, Integer::sum),
(m1, m2) -> m2.forEach((k, v) -> m1.merge(k, v, Integer::sum)));
but you don’t need to implement it by yourself. There are appropriate built-in collectors already offered in the Collectors class:
Map<Boolean, Long> partition2 = dataList.stream()
.collect(Collectors.partitioningBy(x -> x < 0.5, Collectors.counting()));
How to declare an empty mutable collection(List) of generic type in kotlin?
Have a look at the Kotlin reference regarding Collections: List, Set, Map.
The following will create an empty mutable list of your desired type:
val yourCollection = mutableListOf<YourType>()
If you rather meant a mutable Collection<List<YourType>>, then maybe the following will help you:
val mutableCollectionWithList : Collection<List<YourType>> = mutableListOf(mutableListOf())
Alternatively if you do not really need an empty list you can also do:
val yourCollection = mutableListOf(YourType(), ...)
And if you rather want an empty list which is not mutable, use the following instead:
val emptyList = emptyList<YourType>()
I have a question on Java 8 Functional Programming. I am trying to achieve something using functional programming, and need some guidance on how to do it.
My requirement is to wrap every method execution inside timer function which times the method execution. Here's the example of timer function and 2 functions I need to time.
timerMethod(String timerName, Function func){
timer.start(timerName)
func.apply()
timer.stop()
}
functionA(String arg1, String arg2)
functionB(int arg1, intArg2, String ...arg3)
I am trying to pass functionA & functionB to timerMethod, but functionA & functionB expects different number & type of arguments for execution.
Any ideas how can I achieve it.
Thanks !!
you should separate it into two things by Separation of Concerns to make your code easy to use and maintaining. one is timing, another is invoking, for example:
// v--- invoking occurs in request-time
R1 result1 = timerMethod("functionA", () -> functionA("foo", "bar"));
R2 result2 = timerMethod("functionB", () -> functionB(1, 2, "foo", "bar"));
// the timerMethod only calculate the timing-cost
<T> T timerMethod(String timerName, Supplier<T> func) {
timer.start(timerName);
try {
return func.get();
} finally {
timer.stop();
}
}
IF you want to return a functional interface rather than the result of that method, you can done it as below:
Supplier<R1> timingFunctionA =timerMethod("A", ()-> functionA("foo", "bar"));
Supplier<R2> timingFunctionB =timerMethod("B", ()-> functionB(1, 2, "foo", "bar"));
<T> Supplier<T> timerMethod(String timerName, Supplier<T> func) {
// v--- calculate the timing-cost when the wrapper function is invoked
return () -> {
timer.start(timerName);
try {
return func.get();
} finally {
timer.stop();
}
};
}
Notes
IF the return type of all of your functions is void, you can replacing Supplier with Runnable and then make the timerMethod's return type to void & remove return keyword from timerMethod.
IF some of your functions will be throws a checked exception, you can replacing Supplier with Callable & invoke Callable#call instead.
Don't hold onto the arguments and then pass them at the last moment. Pass them immediately, but delay calling the function by wrapping it with another function:
Producer<?> f1 =
() -> functionA(arg1, arg2);
Producer<?> f2 =
() -> functionB(arg1, arg2, arg3);
Here, I'm wrapping each function call in a lambda (() ->...) that takes 0 arguments. Then, just call them later with no arguments:
f1()
f2()
This forms a closure over the arguments that you supplied in the lambda, which allows you to use the variables later, even though normally they would have been GC'd for going out of scope.
Note, I have a ? as the type of the Producer since I don't know what type your functions return. Change the ? to the return type of each function.
Introduction
The other answers show how to use a closure to capture the arguments of your function, no matter its number. This is a nice approach and it's very useful, if you know the arguments in advance, so that they can be captured.
Here I'd like to show two other approaches that don't require you to know the arguments in advance...
If you think it in an abstract way, there are no such things as functions with multiple arguments. Functions either receive one set of values (aka a tuple), or they receive one single argument and return another function that receives another single argument, which in turn returns another one-argument function that returns... etc, with the last function of the sequence returning an actual result (aka currying).
Methods in Java might have multiple arguments, though. So the challenge is to build functions that always receive one single argument (either by means of tuples or currying), but that actually invoke methods that receive multiple arguments.
Approach #1: Tuples
So the first approach is to use a Tuple helper class and have your function receive one tuple, either a Tuple2 or Tuple3:
So, the functionA of your example might receive one single Tuple2<String, String> as an argument:
Function<Tuple2<String, String>, SomeReturnType> functionA = tuple ->
functionA(tuple.getFirst(), tuple.getSecond());
And you could invoke it as follows:
SomeReturnType resultA = functionA.apply(Tuple2.of("a", "b"));
Now, in order to decorate the functionA with your timerMethod method, you'd need to do a few modifications:
static <T, R> Function<T, R> timerMethod(
String timerName,
Function<? super T, ? extends R> func){
return t -> {
timer.start(timerName);
R result = func.apply(t);
timer.stop();
return result;
};
}
Please note that you should use a try/finally block to make your code more robust, as shown in holi-java's answer.
Here's how you might use your timerMethod method for functionA:
Function<Tuple2<String, String>, SomeReturnType> timedFunctionA = timerMethod(
"timerA",
tuple -> functionA(tuple.getFirst(), tuple.getSecond());
And you can invoke timedFunctionA as any other function, passing it the arguments now, at invocation time:
SomeReturnType resultA = timedFunctionA.apply(Tuple2.of("a", "b"));
You can take a similar approach with the functionB of your example, except that you'd need to use a Tuple3<Integer, Integer, String[]> for the argument (taking care of the varargs arguments).
The downside of this approach is that you need to create many Tuple classes, i.e. Tuple2, Tuple3, Tuple4, etc, because Java lacks built-in support for tuples.
Approach #2: Currying
The other approach is to use a technique called currying, i.e. functions that accept one single argument and return another function that accepts another single argument, etc, with the last function of the sequence returning the actual result.
Here's how to create a currified function for your 2-argument method functionA:
Function<String, Function<String, SomeReturnType>> currifiedFunctionA =
arg1 -> arg2 -> functionA(arg1, arg2);
Invoke it as follows:
SomeReturnType result = currifiedFunctionA.apply("a").apply("b");
If you want to decorate currifiedFunctionA with the timerMethod method defined above, you can do as follows:
Function<String, Function<String, SomeReturnType>> timedCurrifiedFunctionA =
arg1 -> timerMethod("timerCurryA", arg2 -> functionA(arg1, arg2));
Then, invoke timedCurrifiedFunctionA exactly as you'd do with any currified function:
SomeReturnType result = timedCurrifiedFunctionA.apply("a").apply("b");
Please note that you only need to decorate the last function of the sequence, i.e. the one that makes the actual call to the method, which is what we want to measure.
For the method functionB of your example, you can take a similar approach, except that the type of the currified function would now be:
Function<Integer, Function<Integer, Function<String[], SomeResultType>>>
which is quite cumbersome, to say the least. So this is the downside of currified functions in Java: the syntax to express their type. On the other hand, currified functions are very handy to work with and allow you to apply several functional programming techniques without needing to write helper classes.
Somewhere in the API I use I have a function which takes &[&A] as argument but I only have a vector of A objects. When I try to use this function with
following syntax
pub struct A(pub u64);
fn test(a: &[&A]){}
fn main() {
let v = vec![A(1), A(2), A(3)];
let a = &v[..];
test(a);
}
I have a error:
<anon>:12:9: 12:10 error: mismatched types:
expected `&[&A]`,
found `&[A]`
(expected &-ptr,
found struct `A`) [E0308]
I have made some attempts but without any success:
let a = &v[&..]
and
let a = &v[&A]
How can I make &[&A] from Vec<A>?
Short answer: you can't. These types are not compatible with each other.
What you could do if this is really what the API needs is
test(&v.iter().collect::<Vec<_>>());
But this allocates a new vector. If you are the author of the API, consider changing it: &[&T] is a weird type to work with since you need different owners for the slice and the objects in it. &[T] already has a pass-by-reference semantic of the inner objects.
I've written a basic Node struct in D, designed to be used as a part of a tree-like structure. The code is as follows:
import std.algorithm: min;
alias Number = size_t;
struct Node {
private {
Node* left, right, parent;
Number val;
}
this(Number n) {val = n;}
this(ref Node u, ref Node v) {
this.left = &u;
this.right = &v;
val = min(u.val, v.val);
u.parent = &this;
v.parent = &this;
}
}
Now, I wrote a simple function which is supposed to give me a Node (meaning a whole tree) with the argument array providing the leaves, as follows.
alias Number = size_t;
Node make_tree (Number[] nums) {
if (nums.length == 1) {
return Node(nums[0]);
} else {
Number half = nums.length/2;
return Node(make_tree(nums[0..half]), make_tree(nums[half..$]));
}
}
Now, when I try to run it through dmd, I get the following error message:
Error: constructor Node.this (ulong n) is not callable using argument types (Node, Node)
This makes no sense to me - why is it trying to call a one-argument constructor when given two arguments?
The problem has nothing to do with constructors. It has to do with passing by ref. The constructor that you're trying to use
this(ref Node u, ref Node v) {...}
accepts its arguments by ref. That means that they must be lvalues (i.e. something that can be on the left-hand side of an assignment). But you're passing it the result of a function call which does not return by ref (so, it's returning a temporary, which is an rvalue - something that can go on the right-hand side of an assignment but not the left). So, what you're trying to do is illegal. Now, the error message isn't great, since it's giving an error with regards to the first constructor rather than the second, but regardless, you don't have a constructor which matches what you're trying to do. At the moment, I can think of 3 options:
Get rid of the ref on the constructor's parameters. If you're only going to be passing it the result of a function call like you're doing now, having it accept ref doesn't help you anyway. The returned value will be moved into the function's parameter, so no copy will take place, and ref isn't buying you anything. Certainly, assigning the return values to local variables so that you can pass them to the constructor as it's currently written would lose you something, since then you'd be making unnecessary copies.
Overload the constructor so that it accepts either ref or non-ref. e.g.
void foo(ref Bar b) { ... }
void foo(Bar b) { foo(b); } //this calls the other foo
In general, this works reasonably well when you have one parameter, but it would be a bit annoying here, because you end up with an exponential explosion of function signatures as you add parameters. So, for your constructor, you'd end up with
this(ref Node u, ref Node v) {...}
this(ref Node u, Node v) { this(u, v); }
this(Node u, ref Node v) { this(u, v); }
this(Node u, Node v) { this(u, v); }
And if you added a 3rd parameter, you'd end up with eight overloads. So, it really doesn't scale beyond a single parameter.
Templatize the constructor and use auto ref. This essentially does what #2 does, but you only have to write the function once:
this()(auto ref Node u, auto ref Node v) {...}
This will then generate a copy of the function to match the arguments given (up to 4 different versions of it with the full function body in each rather than 3 of them just forwarding to the 4th one), but you only had to write it once. And in this particular case, it's probably reasonable to templatize the function, since you're dealing with a struct. If Node were a class though, it might not make sense, since templated functions can't be virtual.
So, if you really want to be able to pass by ref, then in this particular case, you should probably go with #3 and templatize the constructor and use auto ref. However, personally, I wouldn't bother. I'd just go with #1. Your usage pattern here wouldn't get anything from auto ref, since you're always passing it two rvalues, and your Node struct isn't exactly huge anyway, so while you obviously wouldn't want to copy it if you don't need to, copying an lvalue to pass it to the constructor probably wouldn't matter much unless you were doing it a lot. But again, you're only going to end up with a copy if you pass it an lvalue, since an rvalue can be moved rather than copied, and you're only passing it rvalues right now (at least with the code shown here). So, unless you're doing something different with that constructor which would involve passing it lvalues, there's no point in worrying about lvalues - or about the Nodes being copied when they're returned from a function and passed into the constructor (since that's a move, not a copy). As such, just removing the refs would be the best choice.