The move to the new continuations API in Arrow brought with it a handy new function: shift, in theory letting me get rid of ensure(false) { NewError() } or NewError().left().bind() constructs.
But I'm not sure how to properly use it. The documentation states that it is intended to short-circuit the continuation, and there are no conditionals, so it should always take the parameter, and (in either parlance) "make it a left value", and exit the scope.
So what is the type parameter B intended to be used for? It determines the return type of shift, but shift will not return. Given no more context, B can not be inferred, leading to this kind of code:
val res = either {
val intermediate = mayReturnNull()
if (intermediate == null) {
shift<Nothing>(IntermediateWasNull())
}
process(intermediate)
}
Note the <Nothing> (and ignore the contrived example, the main point is that shifts return type can not be inferred – the actual type parameter does not even matter).
I could wrap shift like this:
suspend fun <L> EffectScope<L>.fail(left: L): Nothing = shift(left)
But I feel like that is missing the point. Any explanations/hints would be greatly appreciated.
That is a great question!
This is more a matter of style, ideally we'd have both but they conflict so we cannot have both APIs available.
So shift always returns Nothing in its implementation, and so the B parameter is completely artificial.
This is something that is true for a lot of other things in Kotlin, such as object EmptyList : List<Nothing>. The Kotlin Std however exposes it as fun <A> emptyList(): List<A> = EmptyList.
For Arrow to stay consistent with APIs found in Kotlin Std, and to remain as Kotlin idiomatic as possible we also require a type argument just like emptyList. This has been up for discussion multiple times, and the Kotlin languages authors have stated that it was decided too explicitly require A for emptyList since that results in the best and most consistent ergonomics in Kotlin.
In the example you shared I would however recommend using ensureNotNull which will also smart-cast intermediate to non-null.
Arrow attempts to build the DSL so that you don't need to rely on shift in most cases, and you should prefer ensure and ensureNotNull when possible.
val res = either {
val intermediate = mayReturnNull()
ensureNotNull(intermediate) { IntermediateWasNull() }
process(intermediate) // <-- smart casted to non-null
}
Related
I know there was documented in main kotlin page, but there is no clear explanation about when to use it, why this function need a receiver as a function. What would be the correct way to create a correct definition of inline function.
This is inline function
inline fun String?.toDateString(rawDateFormat: String = MMMM_DD_YYYY, outputDate: String = MM_DD_YYYY, block: (date: String) -> String): String {
return try {
var sdf = SimpleDateFormat(rawDateFormat, Locale.US)
val date = sdf.parse(this.orEmpty())
sdf = SimpleDateFormat(outputDate, Locale.US)
block(sdf.format(date ?: Date()).orEmpty())
} catch (ex: Exception) {
block("")
}
}
The same way we also can do
inline fun String?.toDateString(rawDateFormat: String = MMMM_DD_YYYY, outputDate: String = MM_DD_YYYY): String {
return try {
var sdf = SimpleDateFormat(rawDateFormat, Locale.US)
val date = sdf.parse(this.orEmpty())
sdf = SimpleDateFormat(outputDate, Locale.US)
sdf.format(date ?: Date()).orEmpty()
} catch (ex: Exception) {
""
}
}
If anyone could have a detail explanation about this?
Edit:
I understand that the inline function will insert the code whenever it called by the compiler. But this come to my attention, when I want to use inline function without functional parameter receiver type the warning show as this in which should have a better explain. I also want to understand why this is such recommendation.
There are few things here.
First, you ask about using a function with a receiver. In both cases here, the receiver is the String? part of String?.toDateString(). It means that you can call the function as if it were a method of String, e.g. "2021-01-15 12:00:00".toDateString(…).
The original String? is accessible as this within the function; you can see it in the sdf.parse(this.orEmpty()) call. (It's not always as obvious as this; you could simply call sdf.parse(orEmpty()), where the this. is implied.)
Then you ask about inline functions. All you have to do is to mark the function as inline, and the compiler will automatically insert its code wherever it's called, instead of defining a function in the usual way. But you don't need to worry about how it's implemented; there are just a few visible effects in the code. In particular, if a function is inline and accepts a function parameter, then its lambda can do a few things (such as calling return) that it couldn't otherwise do.
Which leads us to what I think is your real question: about the block function parameter. Your first example has this parameter, with the type (date: String) -> String — i.e. a function taking a single String parameter and returning another String. (The technical term for this is that toDateString() is a higher-order function.)
The toDateString() function calls this block function before returning, applying it to the date string it has formatted before returning it to the caller.
As to why it does this, it's hard to tell. That's why we put documentation comments before functions: to explain anything that's not obvious from the code! Ideally, there would be a comment explaining why you're required to supply a block lamdba (or function reference), when it's not vital to what the function does.
There are times when blocks passed this way are very useful. For example, the joinToString() function accepts an optional transform parameter, which it applies to each item before joining it to the list. If it didn't, the effect would be a lot more awkward to obtain. (You'd probably have to apply a map() to the collection before calling joinToString(), which would be less efficient.)
But this isn't one of those times. As your second example shows, toDateString() would work perfectly well without the block parameter — and then if you needed to pass the result through another function, you could just call it on toDateString()'s result.
Perhaps if you included a link to the ‘main kotlin page’ where you saw this, it might give some more context?
The edited question also asks about the IDE warning. This is shown when it thinks inlining a function won't give a significant improvement.
When no lambdas are involved, the only potential benefit from inlining a function is performance, and that's a trade-off. It might avoid the overhead of a function call wherever it's called — but the Java runtime will often inline small functions anyway, all on its own. And having the compiler do the inlining comes at the cost of duplicating the function's code everywhere it's called; the increased code size is less likely to fit into memory caches, and less likely to be optimised by the Java runtime — so that can end up reducing the performance overall. Because this isn't always obvious, the IDE gives a warning.
It's different when lambdas are involved, though. In that case, inlining affects functionality: for example, it allows non-local returns and reified type parameters. So in that case there are good reasons for using inline regardless of any performance implications, and the IDE doesn't give the warning.
(In fact, if a function calls a lambda it's passed, inlining can have a more significant performance benefit: not only does the function itself get inlined, but the lambda itself usually does as well, removing two levels of function call — and the lambda is often called repeatedly, so there can be a real saving.)
Let's assume that I have two functions which do the same stuff.
First one:
fun doSomething() = someObject.getSomeData()
Second one:
fun doSomething(): SomeData {
return someObject.getSomeData()
}
Are there any technical differences between expression functions and standard function in Kotlin excluding the way how they look?
Is compiled output the same?
Are there any advantages using one instead another?
As #Sơn Phan says, they both compile to exactly the same bytecode.
So the differences are simply about conciseness. The expression form omits the braces and return; it also lets you omit the return type (using type inference as needed). As the question illustrates, the expression form can be shorter — and when all else is equal, shorter tends to be easier to read and understand.
So whether the expression form is appropriate is usually a matter of style rather than correctness. For example, this function could be on one line:
fun String.toPositiveIntegers() = split(",").mapNotNull{ it.toIntOrNull() }.filter{ it >= 0 }
But it's a bit long, and probably better to split it. You could keep the expression form:
fun String.toPositiveIntegers()
= split(",")
.mapNotNull{ it.toIntOrNull() }
.filter{ it >= 0 }
Or use a traditional function form:
fun String.toPositiveIntegers(): List<Int> {
return split(",")
.mapNotNull{ it.toIntOrNull() }
.filter{ it >= 0 }
}
(I tend to prefer the former, but there are arguments both ways.)
Similarly, I rather like using it when the body is a simple lambda, e.g.:
fun createMyObject() = MyObject.apply {
someConfig(someField)
someOtherConfig()
}
…but I expect some folk wouldn't.
One gotcha when using the expression form is the type inference. Generally speaking, in Kotlin it's good to let the compiler figure out the type when it can; but for function return values, that's not always such a good idea. For example:
fun myFun(): String = someProperty.someFunction()
will give a compilation error if the someFunction() is ever changed to return something other than a String — even a nullable String?. However:
fun myFun() = someProperty.someFunction()
…would NOT give a compilation error; it would silently change the function's return type. That can mask bugs, or make them harder to find. (It's not a very common problem, but I've hit it myself.) So you might consider specifying the return type, even though you don't need to, whenever there's a risk of it changing.
One particular case of this is when calling a Java function which doesn't have an annotation specifying its nullability. Kotlin will treat the result as a ‘platform type’ (which means it can't tell whether it's nullable); returning such a platform type is rarely a good idea, and IntelliJ has a warning suggesting that you specify the return type explicitly.
1. Compiled output
Yes the compiled output will be completely the same
2. Advantage
You usually use expression function when the body of a function is only one line of expression to make it a oneliner function. Its advantage mainly about making the code more concise. Imagine instead of all the brackets and return, you only need a = to make things done.
I'm pretty new with Kotlin and I'm trying to figure out Kotlin's scope functions.
My code looks like this:
with(something) {
when {
equals("test") -> var1 = "test123"
startsWith("test2") -> var2 = "test456"
contains("test3") -> myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }
}
}
So before I entered the third check with the .let function my with function does not need to be exhaustive (I'm not returning something, I'm only doing assignments). In my third check I'm using .let as a null-check ... but only for an assignment of it.var3 (if it is not null). I don't need to return anything while I know that Kotlin's .let function returns the result of the body by standard.
Nevertheless now my with/when needs to be exhaustive otherwise it won't compile anymore.
This got me thinking and trying out different things. I found these ways to solve this issue:
I can add an else to my with/when so it becomes exhaustive but actually I don't need an else and I don't want to use it in this case.
I can add another .let, so it looks like this: myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }.let{} .... but this looks kinda hacky to me. Is it supposed to work like this?
Use If(xy==null){...}else{...} stuff but I thought I can solve this with Kotlin differently
Because I'm new with Kotlin I'm not really sure how to handle this case properly. I would probably just go with my second idea because "it works". Or should I don't use .let for null-checks? Add another empty .let{}? Or did I not get the null-safety concept at all? I feel a little bit lost here. Thanks for any help.
This seems to be an unfortunate combination of features…
A when can be non-exhaustive only when it doesn't return a value. The problem is that the with() function does return a value. And since the when is at the bottom, its value is what gets returned, so in this case it must be exhaustive.
So why doesn't it insist on an else branch even if you omit the "test3" branch? That's because assignments don't yield a value. (They evaluate to Unit, which is Kotlin's special type for functions that don't return a useful value.) If every branch gives Unit, then Kotlin seems* to be happy to infer a default branch also giving Unit.
But the "test3" branch returns something else — the type of myNullableVar. So what type does the when infer? The nearest common supertype of that type and Unit, which is the top type Any?. And now it needs an explicit else branch!
So what to do?
You've found a few options, none of which is ideal. So here are a few more, ditto!
You could return an explicit Unit from that branch:
contains("test3") -> { myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }; Unit }
You could return an explicit Unit from the with():
contains("test3") -> myNullableVar?.let { it.var3 = "test789" }
}
Unit
}
You could give an explicit type for the with(). (It has two type parameters, so you'd need to give both, starting with the type of its parameter):
with<String, Unit>("abc") {
I haven't found a single obvious best answer, I'm afraid…
And to answer your last question: yes, ?.let{ is perfectly idiomatic and common for null checks. In this particular case, replacing it with an if happens to solve the type problem:
contains("test3") -> { if (myNullableVar != null) myNullableVar.var3 = "test789" }
But as well as being long-winded, if myNullableVar is a property and not a local variable, then it opens up a race condition (what if another thread sets it to null in between the test and the assignment?) so the compiler would complain — which is exactly why people use let instead!
(* I can't find a reference for this behaviour. Is there an official word on it?)
How can i make an arraylist of functions, and call each function easily? I have already tried making an ArrayList<Function<Unit>>, but when i tried to do this:
functionList.forEach { it }
and this:
for(i in 0 until functionList.size) functionList[i]
When i tried doing this: it() and this: functionList[i](), but it wouldn't even compile in intellij. How can i do this in kotlin? Also, does the "Unit" in ArrayList<Function<Unit>> mean return value or parameters?
Just like this:
val funs:List<() -> Unit> = listOf({}, { println("fun")})
funs.forEach { it() }
The compiler can successfully infer the type of funs here which is List<() -> Unit>. Note that () -> Unit is a function type in Kotlin which represents a function that does not take any argument and returns Unit.
I think there are two problems with the use of the Function interface here.
The first problem is that it doesn't mean what you might think. As I understand it, it's a very general interface, implemented by all functions, however many parameters they take (or none). So it doesn't have any invoke() method. That's what the compiler is complaining about.
Function has several sub-interfaces, one for each 'arity' (i.e. one for each number of parameters): Function0 for functions that take no parameters, Function1 for functions taking one parameter, and so on. These have the appropriate invoke() methods. So you could probably fix this by replacing Function by Function0.
But that leads me on to the second problem, which is that the Function interfaces aren't supposed to be used this way. I think they're mainly for Java compatibility and/or for internal use by the compiler.
It's usually much better to use the Kotlin syntax for function types: (P1, P2...) -> R. This is much easier to read, and avoids these sorts of problems.
So the real answer is probably to replace Function<Unit> by () -> Unit.
Also, in case it's not clear, Kotlin doesn't have a void type. Instead, it has a type called Unit, which has exactly one value. This might seem strange, but makes better sense in the type system, as it lets the compiler distinguish functions that return without an explicit value, from those which don't return. (The latter might always throw an exception or exit the process. They can be defined to return Nothing -- a type with no values at all.)
I was having a look at the Arrow library found here. Why would ever want to use an Option type instead of Kotlin's built in nullables?
I have been using the Option data type provided by Arrow for over a year, and there at the beginning, we did the exact same question to ourselves. The answer follows.
Option vs Nullable
If you compare just the option data type with nullables in Kotlin, they are almost even. Same semantics (there is some value or not), almost same syntax (with Option you use map, with nullables you use safe call operator).
But when using Options, you enable the possibility to take benefits from the arrow ecosystem!
Arrow ecosystem (functional ecosystem)
When using Options, you are using the Monad Pattern. When using the monad pattern with libraries like arrow, scala cats, scalaz, you can take benefits from several functional concepts. Just 3 examples of benefits (there is a lot more than that):
1. Access to other Monads
Option is not the only one! For instance, Either is a lot useful to express and avoid to throw Exceptions. Try, Validated and IO are examples of other common monads that help us to do (in a better way) things we do on typical projects.
2. Conversion between monads + abstractions
You can easily convert one monad to another. You have a Try but want to return (and express) an Either? Just convert to it. You have an Either but doesn't care about the error? Just convert to Option.
val foo = Try { 2 / 0 }
val bar = foo.toEither()
val baz = bar.toOption()
This abstraction also helps you to create functions that doesn't care about the container (monad) itself, just about the content. For example, you can create an extension method Sum(anyContainerWithBigDecimalInside, anotherContainerWithBigDecimal) that works with ANY MONAD (to be more precise: "to any instance of applicative") this way:
fun <F> Applicative<F>.sum(vararg kinds: Kind<F, BigDecimal>): Kind<F, BigDecimal> {
return kinds.reduce { kindA, kindB ->
map(kindA, kindB) { (a, b) -> a.add(b) }
}
}
A little complex to understand, but very helpful and easy to use.
3. Monad comprehensions
Going from nullables to monads is not just about changing safe call operators to map calls. Take a look at the "binding" feature that arrow provides as the implementation of the pattern "Monad Comprehensions":
fun calculateRocketBoost(rocketStatus: RocketStatus): Option<Double> {
return binding {
val (gravity) = rocketStatus.gravity
val (currentSpeed) = rocketStatus.currentSpeed
val (fuel) = rocketStatus.fuel
val (science) = calculateRocketScienceStuff(rocketStatus)
val fuelConsumptionRate = Math.pow(gravity, fuel)
val universeStuff = Math.log(fuelConsumptionRate * science)
universeStuff * currentSpeed
}
}
All the functions used and also the properties from rocketStatus parameter in the above example are Options. Inside the binding block, the flatMap call is abstracted for us. The code is a lot easier to read (and write) and you don't need to check if the values are present, if some of them is not, the computation will stop and the result will be an Option with None!
Now try to imagine this code with null verifications instead. Not just safe call operators but also probably if null then return code paths. A lot harder isn't it?
Also, the above example uses Option but the true power about monad comprehensions as an abstraction is when you use it with monads like IO in which you can abstract asynchronous code execution in the exact same "clean, sequential and imperative" way as above :O
Conclusion
I strongly recommend you to start using monads like Option, Either, etc as soon as you see the concept fits the semantics you need, even if you are not sure if you will take the other big benefits from the functional ecosystem or if you don't know them very well yet. Soon you'll be using it without noticing the learning-curve. In my company, we use it in almost all Kotlin projects, even in the object-oriented ones (which are the majority).
Disclaimer: If you really want to have a detailed talk about why Arrow is useful, then please head over to https://soundcloud.com/user-38099918/arrow-functional-library and listen to one of the people who work on it. (5:35min)
The people who create and use that library simple want to use Kotlin differently than the people who created it and use "the Option datatype similar to how Scala, Haskell and other FP languages handle optional values".
This is just another way of defining return types of values that you do not know the output of.
Let me show you three versions:
nullability in Kotlin
val someString: String? = if (condition) "String" else null
object with another value
val someString: String = if (condition) "String" else ""
the Arrow version
val someString: Option<String> = if (condition) Some("String") else None
A major part of Kotlin logic can be to never use nullable types like String?, but you will need to use it when interopting with Java. When doing that you need to use safe calls like string?.split("a") or the not-null assertion string!!.split("a").
I think it is perfectly valid to use safe calls when using Java libraries, but the Arrow guys seem to think different and want to use their logic all the time.
The benefit of using the Arrow logic is "empowering users to define pure FP apps and libraries built atop higher order abstractions. Use the below list to learn more about Λrrow's main features".
One thing other answers haven't mentioned: you can have Option<Option<SomeType>> where you can't have SomeType??. Or Option<SomeType?>, for that matter. This is quite useful for compositionality. E.g. consider Kotlin's Map.get:
abstract operator fun get(key: K): V?
Returns the value corresponding to the given key, or null if such a key is not present in the map.
But what if V is a nullable type? Then when get returns null it can be because the map stored a null value for the given key or because there was no value; you can't tell! If it returned Option<V>, there wouldn't be a problem.