CODEWITHSUNDEEP
scalafunctional-programmingscala-collections
Luigi Plinge
Luigi Plinge

Reputation: 51109

Multiple flatMaps in Scala

Instead of xs map f map g it's more efficient to write xs map { x => g(f(x)) }, and similarly for multiple filter operations.

If I have two or more flatMaps in a row, is there a way to combine them into one, that's maybe more efficient? e.g.

def f(x: String) = Set(x, x.reverse)
def g(x: String) = Set(x, x.toUpperCase)

Set("hi", "bye") flatMap f flatMap g  
  // Set(bye, eyb, IH, BYE, EYB, ih, hi, HI)

Upvotes: 7

Views: 1983

Answers (3)

George
George

Reputation: 8378

In scalaz there is a way to compose functions like a -> m b and b -> m c into a -> m c (like the function here, from String to Set[String]). They are called Kleisli functions, by the way. In haskell this is done simply with >=> on those functions. In scala you'll have to be a bit more verbose (by the way, I've changed the example a bit: I couldn't make it work with Set, so I've used List):

scala> import scalaz._, std.list._
import scalaz._
import std.list._

scala> def f(x: String) = List(x, x.reverse)
f: (x: String)List[String]

scala> def g(x: String) = List(x, x.toUpperCase)
g: (x: String)List[java.lang.String]

scala> val composition = Kleisli(f) >=> Kleisli(g)
composition: scalaz.Kleisli[List,String,java.lang.String] = scalaz.KleisliFunctions$$anon$18@37911406

scala> List("hi", "bye") flatMap composition
res17: List[java.lang.String] = List(hi, HI, ih, IH, bye, BYE, eyb, EYB)

Upvotes: 5

Petr
Petr

Reputation: 63359

In order to do such a transformation, we need to use some identity the operations have. For example, as you wrote, map has the identity

map f ∘ map g ≡ map (f ∘ g)

(where ∘ stands for function composition - see Function1.compose(...); and ≡ stands for an equivalence of expressions). This is because classes with map can be viewed as functors, so any reasonable implementation of map must preserve this property.

On the other hand, classes that have flatMap and have a way how to create some kind of one-element instance (like creating a singleton Set) usually form a monad. So we may try to deduce some transformations from the monad rules. But the only identity we can deduce for repeated applications of flatMap is

(set flatMap f) flatMap g ≡ x flatMap { y => f(y) flatMap g }

which is a kind of associativity relationship for flatMap composition. This doesn't help much for optimizing the computation (actually it can make it worse). So, the conclusion is, there is no similar general "optimizing" identity for flatMap.

The bottom line is: Each function given to Set.flatMap creates a new Set for each element it's applied to. We cannot avoid creating such intermediate sets unless we completely forget using composing flatMap and solve the problem in some different way. Usually this is not worth, since composing flatMaps (or using for(...) yield ..) is much cleaner and more readable, and the little speed trade-off isn't usually a big issue.

Upvotes: 11

Jens Schauder
Jens Schauder

Reputation: 81907

The approach you describe for filters basically skips the creation of intermediate collections.

With flatMap at least the inner collections get created inside the functions, so I can't imagine any way to skip that creation without changing the function.

What you could try is using a view, although I'm not sure if this does anything usefull with flatMap.

Alternatively you could build a multiFlatMap which builds the final collection directly from the function results, Without stuffing the intermediate collections returned from the functions in a new collection.

No idea if this is workable. I at least see some serious type challenges comming, since you would need to pass in a Seq of functions where each function returns a Collection of A where A is the input type for the next function. At least in the general case of arbitrary types and arbitrary number of functions this sound somewhat challenging.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions