So, I'm working to teach myself Scala, and one of the things I've been playing with is the Stream
class. I tried to use a naïve translation of the classic Haskell version of Dijkstra's solution to the Hamming number problem:
object LazyHammingBad {
private def merge(a: Stream[BigInt], b: Stream[BigInt]): Stream[BigInt] =
(a, b) match {
case (x #:: xs, y #:: ys) =>
if (x < y) x #:: merge(xs, b)
else if (y < x) y #:: merge(a, ys)
else x #:: merge(xs, ys)
}
val numbers: Stream[BigInt] =
1 #:: merge(numbers map { _ * 2 },
merge(numbers map { _ * 3 }, numbers map { _ * 5 }))
}
Taking this for a spin in the interpreter led quickly to disappointment:
scala> LazyHammingBad.numbers.take(10).toList
java.lang.StackOverflowError
I decided to look to see if other people had solved the problem in Scala using the Haskell approach, and adapted this solution from Rosetta Code:
object LazyHammingGood {
private def merge(a: Stream[BigInt], b: Stream[BigInt]): Stream[BigInt] =
if (a.head < b.head) a.head #:: merge(a.tail, b)
else if (b.head < a.head) b.head #:: merge(a, b.tail)
else a.head #:: merge(a.tail, b.tail)
val numbers: Stream[BigInt] =
1 #:: merge(numbers map {_ * 2},
merge(numbers map {_ * 3}, numbers map {_ * 5}))
}
This one worked nicely, but I still wonder how I went wrong in LazyHammingBad
. Does using #::
to destructure x #:: xs
force the evaluation of xs
for some reason? Is there any way to use pattern matching safely with infinite streams, or do you just have to use head
and tail
if you don't want things to blow up?
Pattern matching is comparing two patterns in order to determine whether they match (i.e., that they are the same) or do not match (i.e., that they differ). Pattern matching is the core procedure of theory-testing with cases.
Pattern matching in computer science is the checking and locating of specific sequences of data of some pattern among raw data or a sequence of tokens. Unlike pattern recognition, the match has to be exact in the case of pattern matching.
In computer science, pattern matching is the act of checking a given sequence of tokens for the presence of the constituents of some pattern.
Pattern matching is a mechanism for checking a value against a pattern. A successful match can also deconstruct a value into its constituent parts. It is a more powerful version of the switch statement in Java and it can likewise be used in place of a series of if/else statements.
a match {case x#::xs =>...
is about the same as val (x, xs) = (a.head, a.tail)
. So the difference between the bad version and the good one, is that in that in the bad version, you're calling a.tail
and b.tail
right at the start, instead of just use them to build the tail of the resulting stream. Furthermore when you use them at the right of #::
(not pattern matching, but building the result, as in #:: merge(a.b.tail)
you are not actually calling merge, that will be done only later, when accessing the tail of the returned Stream. So in the good version, a call to merge does not call tail
at all. In the bad version, it calls it right at start.
Now if you consider numbers, or even a simplified version, say 1 #:: merge(numbers, anotherStream)
, when you call you call tail
on that (as take(10)
will), merge
has to be evaluated. You call tail
on numbers
, which call merge
with numbers
as parameters, which calls tails
on numbers
, which calls merge
, which calls tail
...
By contrast, in super lazy Haskell, when you pattern match, it does barely any work. When you do case l of x:xs
, it will evaluate l
just enough to know whether it is an empty list or a cons.
If it is indeed a cons, x
and xs
will be available as two thunks, functions that will eventually give access, later, to content. The closest equivalent in Scala would be to just test empty
.
Note also that in Scala Stream, while the tail
is lazy, the head
is not. When you have a (non empty) Stream, the head has to be known. Which means that when you get the tail of the stream, itself a stream, its head, that is the second element of the original stream, has to be computed. This is sometimes problematic, but in your example, you fail before even getting there.
Note that you can do what you want by defining a better pattern matcher for Stream
:
Here's a bit I just pulled together in a Scala Worksheet:
object HammingTest {
// A convenience object for stream pattern matching
object #:: {
class TailWrapper[+A](s: Stream[A]) {
def unwrap = s.tail
}
object TailWrapper {
implicit def unwrap[A](wrapped: TailWrapper[A]) = wrapped.unwrap
}
def unapply[A](s: Stream[A]): Option[(A, TailWrapper[A])] = {
if (s.isEmpty) None
else {
Some(s.head, new TailWrapper(s))
}
}
}
def merge(a: Stream[BigInt], b: Stream[BigInt]): Stream[BigInt] =
(a, b) match {
case (x #:: xs, y #:: ys) =>
if (x < y) x #:: merge(xs, b)
else if (y < x) y #:: merge(a, ys)
else x #:: merge(xs, ys)
} //> merge: (a: Stream[BigInt], b: Stream[BigInt])Stream[BigInt]
lazy val numbers: Stream[BigInt] =
1 #:: merge(numbers map { _ * 2 }, merge(numbers map { _ * 3 }, numbers map { _ * 5 }))
//> numbers : Stream[BigInt] = <lazy>
numbers.take(10).toList //> res0: List[BigInt] = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12)
}
Now you just need to make sure that Scala finds your object #::
instead of the one in Stream.class
whenever it's doing pattern matching. To facilitate that, it might be best to use a different name like #>:
or ##::
and then just remember to always use that name when pattern matching.
If you ever need to match the empty stream, use case Stream.Empty
. Using case Stream()
will attempt to evaluate your entire stream there in the pattern match, which will lead to sadness.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With