I have interface A and class B: A
val a: Stream<A>
val b: Stream<B> = a.filter { it is B }
.map { it as B }
Is there a way to write this using Kotlin smart casts?
Is there a way to write this using Kotlin smart casts?
No, this is not possible with basic static analysis as there no indicator that a, after being filtered, only contains Bs, as it is still a Stream<A>, so you must check this yourself. Kotlin's smart casting is applied only to the value of a variable and not to a type parameter.
AFAIK there isn't anything that does this in the Java or Kotlin libraries for Streams, but you could convert the stream to a Sequence and use filterIsInstance:
a.asSequence().filterIsInstance<B>().asStream()
Of course, you could also implement this functionality directly on streams with an extension method:
inline fun <reified B> Stream<*>.filterIsInstance() = a.filter { it is B }.map { it as B }
...
val a: Stream<A>
val b: Stream<B> = a.filterIsInstance<B>()
Just a comment: do you need to use Streams? I would consider using Kotlin's Sequences from the start instead.
Related
In Kotlin, I can assign a function to a val.
fun intListCat(a: List<Int>, b: List<Int>): List<Int> = a.plus(b)
fun testIntListCat() {
val f = ::intListCat
println( f( listOf(1,2), listOf(30,40) ) )
}
But when I make the function generic, then I'm unable to assign it to a val.
fun<T> listCat(a: List<T>, b: List<T>): List<T> = a.plus(b)
fun testListCat() {
// error: Not enough information to infer type variable T.
val f1 = ::listCat
println( f1( listOf(1,2), listOf(30,40) ) )
// error: Unresolved reference T.
val f2: (List<T>, List<T>) -> List<T> = ::listCat
println( f2( listOf(1,2), listOf(30,40) ) )
}
I'm surprised that a minor change to a simple function seems to disqualify it as a higher-order function in Kotlin, which aims to be as functional as possible.
More than two years ago, there was a similar question on a Kotlin community support page. The community couldn't answer it definitively. And the Kotlin team didn't respond.
I was just wondering if anything changed with Kotlin or programmer knowledge since then, to allow a generic function to be assigned to a val in 2022?
I'm running Kotlin 1.6.20 with Java 17.0.2 on macOS 11.3.1.
No this is not possible. For val f1 = ::listCat to work the way you want, f1 would need to be generic too, but local properties cannot be generic.
By specifying the type explicitly and substituting T with an actual type, you can assign ::listCats to a local property:
val f: (List<Int>, List<Int>) -> List<Int> = ::listCat
Though now you cannot pass other types of lists to f, which is probably undesirable.
On the other hand, non-local properties can be generic, but their type parameter must be used in the receiver parameter, which means that the property must be an extension property, so this probably isn't going to be helpful to whatever you are trying to do.
Introduction
In Kotlin I have a generic conversion extension function that simplifies conversion of this object of type C to an object of another type T (declared as the receiver) with additional conversion action that treats receiver as this and also provides access to original object:
inline fun <C, T, R> C.convertTo(receiver: T, action: T.(C) -> R) = receiver.apply {
action(this#convertTo)
}
It is used like this:
val source: Source = Source()
val result = source.convertTo(Result()) {
resultValue = it.sourceValue
// and so on...
}
I noticed I often use this function on receivers that are created by parameterless constructors and thought it would be nice to simplify it even more by creating additional version of convertTo() that automates construction of the receiver based on its type, like this:
inline fun <reified T, C, R> C.convertTo(action: T.(C) -> R) = with(T::class.constructors.first().call()) {
convertTo(this, action) // calling the first version of convertTo()
}
Unfortunately, I cannot call it like this:
source.convertTo<Result>() {}
because Kotlin expects three type parameters provided.
Question
Given above context, is it possible in Kotlin to create a generic function with multiple type parameters that accepts providing just one type parameter while other types are determined from the call-site?
Additional examples (by #broot)
Imagine there is no filterIsInstance() in stdlib and we would like to implement it (or we are the developer of stdlib). Assume we have access to #Exact as this is important for our example. It would be probably the best to declare it as:
inline fun <T, reified V : T> Iterable<#Exact T>.filterTyped(): List<V>
Now, it would be most convenient to use it like this:
val dogs = animals.filterTyped<Dog>() // compile error
Unfortunately, we have to use one of workarounds:
val dogs = animals.filterTyped<Animal, Dog>()
val dogs: List<Dog> = animals.filterTyped()
The last one isn't that bad.
Now, we would like to create a function that looks for items of a specific type and maps them:
inline fun <T, reified V : T, R> Iterable<T>.filterTypedAndMap(transform: (V) -> R): List<R>
Again, it would be nice to use it just like this:
animals.filterTypedAndMap<Dog> { it.barkingVolume } // compile error
Instead, we have this:
animals.filterTypedAndMap<Animal, Dog, Int> { it.barkingVolume }
animals.filterTypedAndMap { dog: Dog -> dog.barkingVolume }
This is still not that bad, but the example is intentionally relatively simple to make it easy to understand. In reality the function would be more complicated, would have more typed params, lambda would receive more arguments, etc. and then it would become hard to use. After receiving the error about type inference, the user would have to read the definition of the function thoroughly to understand, what is missing and where to provide explicit types.
As a side note: isn't it strange that Kotlin disallows code like this: cat is Dog, but allows this: cats.filterIsInstance<Dog>()? Our own filterTyped() would not allow this. So maybe (but just maybe), filterIsInstance() was designed like this exactly because of the problem described in this question (it uses * instead of additional T).
Another example, utilizing already existing reduce() function. We have function like this:
operator fun Animal.plus(other: Animal): Animal
(Don't ask, it doesn't make sense)
Now, reducing a list of dogs seems pretty straightforward:
dogs.reduce { acc, item -> acc + item } // compile error
Unfortunately, this is not possible, because compiler does not know how to properly infer S to Animal. We can't easily provide S only and even providing the return type does not help here:
val animal: Animal = dogs.reduce { acc, item -> acc + item } // compile error
We need to use some awkward workarounds:
dogs.reduce<Animal, Dog> { acc, item -> acc + item }
(dogs as List<Animal>).reduce { acc, item -> acc + item }
dogs.reduce { acc: Animal, item: Animal -> acc + item }
The type parameter R is not necessary:
inline fun <C, T> C.convertTo(receiver: T, action: T.(C) -> Unit) = receiver.apply {
action(this#convertTo)
}
inline fun <reified T, C> C.convertTo(action: T.(C) -> Unit) = with(T::class.constructors.first().call()) {
convertTo(this, action) // calling the first version of convertTo()
}
If you use Unit, even if the function passed in has a non-Unit return type, the compiler still allows you to pass that function.
And there are other ways to help the compiler infer the type parameters, not only by directly specifying them in <>. You can also annotate the variable's result type:
val result: Result = source.convertTo { ... }
You can also change the name of convertTo to something like convert to make it more readable.
Another option is:
inline fun <T: Any, C> C.convertTo(resultType: KClass<T>, action: T.(C) -> Unit) = with(resultType.constructors.first().call()) {
convertTo(this, action)
}
val result = source.convertTo(Result::class) { ... }
However, this will conflict with the first overload. So you have to resolve it somehow. You can rename the first overload, but I can't think of any good names off the top of my head. I would suggest that you specify the parameter name like this
source.convertTo(resultType = Result::class) { ... }
Side note: I'm not sure if the parameterless constructor is always the first in the constructors list. I suggest that you actually find the parameterless constructor.
This answer does not solve the stated problem but incorporates input from #Sweeper to provide a workaround at least simplifying result object instantiation.
First of all, the main stated problem can be somewhat mitigated if we explicitly state variable's result type (i.e. val result: Result = source.convertTo {}) but it's not enough to solve the problem in cases described by #broot.
Secondly, using KClass<T> as result parameter type provides ability to use KClass<T>.createInstance() making sure we find a parameterless constructor (if there's any – if there is none, then result-instantiating convertTo() is not eligible for use). We can also benefit from Kotlin's default parameter values to make result parameter type omittable from calls, we just need to take into account that action might be provided as lambda (last parameter of call) or function reference – this will require two versions of result-instantiating convertTo().
So, taking all the above into account, I've come up with this implementation(s) of convertTo():
// version A: basic, expects explicitly provided instance of `receiver`
inline fun <C, T> C.convertTo(receiver: T, action: T.(C) -> Unit) = receiver.apply {
action(this#convertTo)
}
// version B: can instantiate result of type `T`, supports calls where `action` is a last lambda
inline fun <C, reified T : Any> C.convertTo(resultType: KClass<T> = T::class, action: T.(C) -> Unit) = with(resultType.createInstance()) {
(this#convertTo).convertTo(this#with, action)
}
// version C: can instantiate result of type `T`, supports calls where `action` is passed by reference
inline fun <C, reified T : Any> C.convertTo(action: T.(C) -> Unit, resultType: KClass<T> = T::class) = with(resultType.createInstance()) {
(this#convertTo).convertTo(T::class, action)
}
All three versions work together depending on a specific use case. Below is a set of examples explaining what version is used in what case.
class Source { var sourceId = "" }
class Result { var resultId = "" }
val source = Source()
fun convertX(result: Result, source: Source) {
result.resultId = source.sourceId
}
fun convertY(result: Result, source: Source) = true
fun Source.toResultX(): Result = convertTo { resultId = it.sourceId }
fun Source.toResultY(): Result = convertTo(::convertX)
val result0 = source.convertTo(Result()) { resultId = it.sourceId } // uses version A of convertTo()
val result1: Result = source.convertTo { resultId = it.sourceId } // uses version B of convertTo()
val result2: Result = source.convertTo(::convertX) // uses version C of convertTo()
val result3: Result = source.convertTo(::convertY) // uses version C of convertTo()
val result4: Result = source.toResultX() // uses version B of convertTo()
val result5: Result = source.toResultY() // uses version C of convertTo()
P.S.: As #Sweeper notices, convertTo might not be a good name for the result-instantiating versions (as it's not as readable as with basic version) but that's a secondary problem.
Consider the following interface
interface EntityConverter<in A, out B> {
fun A.convert(): B
fun List<A>.convert(): List<B> = this.map { it.convert() }
}
I want to use it in a spring boot application where specific implementations get injected so that the extension function becomes usable on the type.
However this doesn't work. The compiler does not resolve the extension function.
Note that you're defining extension functions that are also member functions of the EntityConverter type. You should take a look at this part of the doc for information about how this works.
Essentially, in order to use them, you need 2 instances in scope:
the dispatch receiver (an instance of EntityConverter<A, B>)
the extension receiver (an instance of A or List<A>, where A matches the first type parameter of the EntityConverter in scope)
You can use with() to bring the EntityConverter in scope so you can use convert on your other instances using the usual . syntax:
val converter = object : EntityConverter<Int, String> {
override fun Int.convert() = "#$this"
}
val list = listOf(1, 2, 3)
val convertedList = with(converter) {
list.convert()
}
println(convertedList) // prints [#1, #2, #3]
Now you have to decide whether this kind of usage pattern is what makes most sense for your use case. If you'd prefer more "classic" calls without extensions (converter.convert(a) returning a B), you can declare your functions as regular methods taking an argument instead of a receiver.
Bonus: functional interface
As a side note, if you add the fun keyword in front of your EntityConverter interface, you can create instances of it very easily like this:
val converter = EntityConverter<Int, String> { "#$this" }
This is because your converter interface only has a single abstract method, making it easy to implement with a single lambda. See the docs about functional interfaces.
I'm not sure if you can mention extension functions as a part of interface, because it's like static functions.
I'd recommend to put "common" function in interface with A typed parameter. Then just put extension method for list nearby.
interface EntityConverter<in A, out B> {
fun convert(a: A): B
}
fun <A, B> EntityConverter<A, B>.convert(list: List<A>): List<B> = list.map { convert(it) }
Update
I wasn't aware about possibility of inheritance of extension methods in Kotlin. And about its overriding as well. So my answer could be just an alternative of using extension methods.
I need to be able to tell the generic type of kotlin collection at runtime. How can I do it?
val list1 = listOf("my", "list")
val list2 = listOf(1, 2, 3)
val list3 = listOf<Double>()
/* ... */
when(list.genericType()) {
is String -> handleString(list)
is Int -> handleInt(list)
is Double -> handleDouble(list)
}
Kotlin generics share Java's characteristic of being erased at compile time, so, at run time, those lists no longer carry the necessary information to do what you're asking. The exception to this is if you write an inline function, using reified types. For example this would work:
inline fun <reified T> handleList(l: List<T>) {
when (T::class) {
Int::class -> handleInt(l)
Double::class -> handleDouble(l)
String::class -> handleString(l)
}
}
fun main() {
handleList(mutableListOf(1,2,3))
}
Inline functions get expanded at every call site, though, and mess with your stack traces, so you should use them sparingly.
Depending on what you're trying to achieve, though, there's some alternatives. You can achieve something similar at the element level with sealed classes:
sealed class ElementType {
class DoubleElement(val x: Double) : ElementType()
class StringElement(val s: String) : ElementType()
class IntElement(val i: Int) : ElementType()
}
fun handleList(l: List<ElementType>) {
l.forEach {
when (it) {
is ElementType.DoubleElement -> handleDouble(it.x)
is ElementType.StringElement -> handleString(it.s)
is ElementType.IntElement -> handleInt(it.i)
}
}
}
You can use inline functions with reified type parameters to do that:
inline fun <reified T : Any> classOfList(list: List<T>) = T::class
(runnable demo, including how to check the type in a when statement)
This solution is limited to the cases where the actual type argument for T is known at compile time, because inline functions are transformed at compile time, and the compiler substitutes their reified type parameters with the real type at each call site.
On JVM, the type arguments of generic classes are erased at runtime, and there is basically no way to retrieve them from an arbitrary List<T> (e.g. a list passed into a non-inline function as List<T> -- T is not known at compile-time for each call and is erased at runtime)
If you need more control over the reified type parameter inside the function, you might find this Q&A useful.
is there a bidirectional hashmap for kotlin?
If not - what is the best way to express this in kotlin?
Including guava to get the BiMap from there feels like shooting with a very big gun on a very little target - no solution that I can imagine currently feels right - the best thing I have in mind is to write a custom class for it
I need a simple BiMap implementation too so decided to create a little library called bimap.
The implementation of BiMap is quite straightforward but it contains a tricky part, which is a set of entries, keys and values. I'll try to explain some details of the implementation but you can find the full implementation on GitHub.
First, we need to define interfaces for an immutable and a mutable BiMaps.
interface BiMap<K : Any, V : Any> : Map<K, V> {
override val values: Set<V>
val inverse: BiMap<V, K>
}
interface MutableBiMap<K : Any, V : Any> : BiMap<K, V>, MutableMap<K, V> {
override val values: MutableSet<V>
override val inverse: MutableBiMap<V, K>
fun forcePut(key: K, value: V): V?
}
Please, notice that BiMap.values returns a Set instead of a Collection. Also BiMap.put(K, V) throws an exception when the BiMap already contains a given value. If you want to replace pairs (K1, V1) and (K2, V2) with (K1, V2) you need to call forcePut(K, V). And finally you may get an inverse BiMap to access its keys by values.
The BiMap is implemented using two regular maps:
val direct: MutableMap<K, V>
val reverse: MutableMap<V, K>
The inverse BiMap can be created by just swapping the direct and the reverse maps. My implementation provides an invariant bimap.inverse.inverse === bimap but that's not necessary.
As mentioned earlier the forcePut(K, V) method can replace pairs (K1, V1) and (K2, V2) with (K1, V2). First it checks what the current value for K1 is and removes it from the reverse map. Then it finds a key for value V2 and removes it from the direct map. And then the method inserts the given pair to both maps. Here's how it looks in code.
override fun forcePut(key: K, value: V): V? {
val oldValue = direct.put(key, value)
oldValue?.let { reverse.remove(it) }
val oldKey = reverse.put(value, key)
oldKey?.let { direct.remove(it) }
return oldValue
}
Implementations of Map and MutableMap methods are quite simple so I will not provide details for them here. They just perform an operation on both maps.
The most complicated part is entries, keys and values. In my implementation I create a Set that delegates all method invocations to direct.entries and handle modification of entries. Every modification happens in a try/catch block so that the BiMap remains in consistent state when an exception is thrown. Moreover, iterators and mutable entries are wrapped in similar classes. Unfortunately, it makes iteration over entries much less efficient because an additional MutableMap.MutableEntry wrapper is created on every iteration step.
If speed is not a priority ( O(n) complexity ) you can create an extension function: map.getKey(value)
/**
* Returns the first key corresponding to the given [value], or `null`
* if such a value is not present in the map.
*/
fun <K, V> Map<K, V>.getKey(value: V) =
entries.firstOrNull { it.value == value }?.key
FWIW, you can get the inverse of the map in Kotlin using an extension function:
fun <K, V> Map<K, V>.inverseMap() = map { Pair(it.value, it.key) }.toMap()
The map operator can be used to iterate over the List of key-value pairs in the Map, then convert back to a map using .toMap().
Well, you are right - as it stated in a similar question for Java "Bi-directional Map in Java?", Kotlin does not have BiMap out of the box.
The workarounds include using Guava and creating a custom class using two usual maps:
class BiMap<K, V>() {
private keyValues = mutableMapOf<K, V>()
private valueKeys = mutableMapOf<V, K>()
operator fun get(key: K) = ...
operator fun get(value: V) = ...
...
}
This solution should not be slower or take more memory than a more sophisticated one. Although I am not sure what happens when K is the same as V.
The cleanest solution to to use Guava and create an extension function that turns a Map into a BiMap. This follows the semantics of Kotlin's other Map conversions as well. Although Guava might have a bit of overhead, you gain the flexibility to add more extension functions wrappers in the future. You can always remove Guava in the future and replace the extension function with another implementation.
First declare your extension function.
fun <K, V> Map<K, V>.toBiMap() = HashBiMap.create(this)
Then use it like this:
mutableMapOf("foo" to "bar", "me" to "you").toBiMap()