I am writing an application which needs to find out the schema of a database, across engines. To that end, I am writing a small database adapter using Python. I decided to first write a base class that outlines the functionality I need, and then implement it using classes that inherit from this base. Along the way, I need to implement some constants which need to be accessible across all these classes. Some of these constants need to be combined using C-style bitwise OR.
My question is,
what is the standard way of sharing such constants?
what is the right way to create constants that can be combined? I am referring to MAP_FIXED | MAP_FILE | MAP_SHARED style code that C allows.
For the former, I came across threads where all the constants were put into a module first. For the latter, I briefly thought of using a dict of booleans. Both of these seemed too unwieldly. I imagine that this is a fairly common requirement, and think some good way must indeed exist!
what is the standard way of sharing such constants?
Throughout the standard library, the most common way is to define constants as module-level variables using UPPER_CASE_WITH_UNDERSCORES names.
what is the right way to create constants that can be combined? I am referring to MAP_FIXED | MAP_FILE | MAP_SHARED style code that C allows.
The same rules as in C apply. You have to make sure that each constant value corresponds to a single, unique bit, i.e. powers of 2 (2, 4, 8, 16, ...).
Most of the time, people use hex numbers for this:
OPTION_A = 0x01
OPTION_B = 0x02
OPTION_C = 0x04
OPTION_D = 0x08
OPTION_E = 0x10
# ...
Some prefer a more human-readable style, computing the constant values dynamically using shift operators:
OPTION_A = 1 << 0
OPTION_B = 1 << 1
OPTION_C = 1 << 2
# ...
In Python, you could also use binary notation to make this even more obvious:
OPTION_A = 0b00000001
OPTION_B = 0b00000010
OPTION_C = 0b00000100
OPTION_D = 0b00001000
But since this notation is lengthy and hard to read, using hex or binary shift notation is probably preferable.
Constants generally go at the module level. From PEP 8:
Constants
Constants are usually defined on a module level and written in all capital letters with underscores separating words. Examples include MAX_OVERFLOW and TOTAL.
If you want constants at class level, define them as class properties.
Stdlib is a great source of knowledge example of what you want can be found in doctest code:
OPTIONS = {}
# A function to add (register) an option.
def register_option(name):
return OPTIONS.setdefault(name, 1 << len(OPTIONS))
# A function to test if an option exist.
def has_option(options, name):
return bool(options & name)
# All my option defined here.
FOO = register_option('FOO')
BAR = register_option('BAR')
FOOBAR = register_option('FOOBAR')
# Test if an option figure out in `ARG`.
ARG = FOO | BAR
print has_option(ARG, FOO)
# True
print has_option(ARG, BAR)
# True
print has_option(ARG, FOOBAR)
# False
N.B: The re module also use bit-wise argument style too, if you want another example.
You often find constants at global level, and they are one of the few variables that exist up there. There are also people who write Constant namespaces using dicts or objects like this
class Const:
x = 33
Const.x
There are some people who put them in modules and others that attach them as class variables that instances access. Most of the time its personal taste, but just a few global variables can't really hurt that much.
Naming is usually UPPERCASE_WITH_UNDERSCORE, and they are usually module level but occasionally they live in their own class. One good reason to be in a class is when the values are special -- such as needing to be powers of two:
class PowTwoConstants(object):
def __init__(self, items):
self.names = items
enum = 1
for name in items:
setattr(self, name, enum)
enum <<= 1
constants = PowTwoConstants('ignore_case multiline newline'.split())
print constants.newline # prints 4
If you want to be able to export those constants to module level (or any other namespace) you can add the following to the class:
def export(self, namespace):
for name in self.names:
setattr(namespace, name, getattr(self, name))
and then
import sys
constants.export(sys.modules[__name__])
Related
Is there a method to overwrite variable without copying its name? For example, when I want to change my_var = '3' to an integer, I must do something like this:
my_var = my_var.to_i
Is there way to do this without copying variable's name? I want to do something like this:
my_var = something_const.to_i
For numbers there exists +=, -= etc, but is there universal way to do this for all methods ?
There is no way to covert a string to an integer like that, without repeating the variable name. Methods such as String#upcase! and Array#flatten! work by mutating the object; however, it is not possible to define such a method like String#to_i! because we are converting the object to an instance of a different class.
For example, here is a (failed) attempt to define such a method:
# What I want to be able to do:
# my_var = "123"
# my_var.to_i! # => my_var == 123
class String
def to_i!
replace(Integer(self))
end
end
my_var = "123"
my_var.to_i! # TypeError: no implicit conversion of Fixnum into String
...And even if this code were valid, it would still offer no performance gain since a new object is still being created.
As for your examples of += and -=, these are in fact simply shorthand for:
x += 1
# Is equivalent to:
x = x + 1
So again, there is no performance gain here either; just slightly nicer syntax. A good question to ask is, why doesn't ruby support a ++ operator? If such an operator existed then it would offer performance gain... But I'll let you research for yourself why this is missing from the language.
So to summarise,
is there universal way to do this for all methods?
No. The special operators like +=, -=, |= and &= are all predefined; there is no "generalised" version such as method_name=.
You can also define methods that mutate the object, but only when appropriate. Such methods are usually named with a !, are called "bang-methods", and have a "non-bang" counterpart. On String objects, for example, there is String#capitalize! (and String#capitalize), String#delete! (and String#delete), String#encode! (and String#encode), .... but no String#to_i! for the reasons discussed above.
In Ruby, there is Object#freeze, which prevents further modifications to the object:
class Kingdom
attr_accessor :weather_conditions
end
arendelle = Kingdom.new
arendelle.frozen? # => false
arendelle.weather_conditions = 'in deep, deep, deep, deep snow'
arendelle.freeze
arendelle.frozen? # => true
arendelle.weather_conditions = 'sun is shining'
# !> RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Kingdom
script = 'Do you want to build a snowman?'.freeze
script[/snowman/] = 'castle of ice'
# !> RuntimeError: can't modify frozen String
However, there is no Object#unfreeze. Is there a way to unfreeze a frozen kingdom?
Update: As of Ruby 2.7 this no longer works!
Yes and no. There isn't any direct way using the standard API. However, with some understanding of what #freeze? does, you can work around it. Note: everything here is implementation details of MRI's current version and might be subject to change.
Objects in CRuby are stored in a struct RVALUE.
Conveniently, the very first thing in the struct is VALUE flags;.
All Object#freeze does is set a flag, called FL_FREEZE, which is actually equal to RUBY_FL_FREEZE. RUBY_FL_FREEZE will basically be the 11th bit in the flags.
All you have to do to unfreeze the object is unset the 11th bit.
To do that, you could use Fiddle, which is part of the standard library and lets you tinker with the language on C level:
require 'fiddle'
class Object
def unfreeze
Fiddle::Pointer.new(object_id * 2)[1] &= ~(1 << 3)
end
end
Non-immediate value objects in Ruby are stored on address = their object_id * 2. Note that it's important to make the distinction so you would be aware that this wont let you unfreeze Fixnums for example.
Since we want to change the 11th bit, we have to work with the 3th bit of the second byte. Hence we access the second byte with [1].
~(1 << 3) shifts 1 three positions and then inverts the result. This way the only bit which is zero in the mask will be the third one and all other will be ones.
Finally, we just apply the mask with bitwise and (&=).
foo = 'A frozen string'.freeze
foo.frozen? # => true
foo.unfreeze
foo.frozen? # => false
foo[/ (?=frozen)/] = 'n un'
foo # => 'An unfrozen string'
No, according to the documentation for Object#freeze:
There is no way to unfreeze a frozen object.
The frozen state is stored within the object. Calling freeze sets the frozen state and thereby prevents further modification. This includes modifications to the object's frozen state.
Regarding your example, you could assign a new string instead:
script = 'Do you want to build a snowman?'
script.freeze
script = script.dup if script.frozen?
script[/snowman/] = 'castle of ice'
script #=> "Do you want to build a castle of ice?"
Ruby 2.3 introduced String#+#, so you can write +str instead of str.dup if str.frozen?
frozen_object = %w[hello world].freeze
frozen_object.concat(['and universe']) # FrozenError (can't modify frozen Array)
frozen_object.dup.concat(['and universe']) # ['hello', 'world', 'and universe']
As noted above copying the variable back into itself also effectively unfreezes the variable.
As noted this can be done using the .dup method:
var1 = var1.dup
This can also be achieved using:
var1 = Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(var1))
I have been using Marshal.load(Marshal.dump( ... )
I have not used .dup and only learned about it through this post.
I do not know what if any differences there are between Marshal.load(Marshal.dump( ... )
If they do the same thing or .dup is more powerful, then stylistically I like .dup better. .dup states what to do -- copy this thing, but it does not say how to do it, whereas Marshal.load(Marshal.dump( ... ) is not only excessively verbose, but states how to do the duplication -- I am not a fan of specifying the HOW part if the HOW part is irrelevant to me. I want to duplicate the value of the variable, I do not care how.
I am looking for a general-purpose way of defining textual expressions which allow a value to be validated.
For example, I have a value which should only be set to 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, or 12.
Its constraint might be defined as: (value >= 1 && value <= 3) || (value >= 10 && value <= 12)
Or another value which can be 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc... would have a constraint like value % 2 == 1 or IsOdd(value).
(To help the user correct invalid values, I'd like to show the constraint - so something descriptive like IsOdd is preferable.)
These constraints would be evaluated both on client-side (after user input) and server-side.
Therefore a multi-platform solution would be ideal (specifically Win C#/Linux C++).
Is there an existing language/project which allows evaluation or parsing of similar simple expressions?
If not, where might I start creating my own?
I realise this question is somewhat vague as I am not entirely sure what I am after. Searching turned up no results, so even some terms as a starting point would be helpful. I can then update/tag the question accordingly.
You may want to investigate dependently typed languages like Idris or Agda.
The type system of such languages allows encoding of value constraints in types. Programs that cannot guarantee the constraints will simply not compile. The usual example is that of matrix multiplication, where the dimensions must match. But this is so to speak the "hello world" of dependently typed languages, the type system can do much more for you.
If you end up starting your own language I'd try to stay implementation-independent as long as possible. Look for the formal expression grammars of a suitable programming language (e.g. C) and add special keywords/functions as required. Once you have a formal definition of your language, implement a parser using your favourite parser generator.
That way, even if your parser is not portable to a certain platform you at least have a formal standard from where to start a separate parser implementation.
You may also want to look at creating a Domain Specific Language (DSL) in Ruby. (Here's a good article on what that means and what it would look like: http://jroller.com/rolsen/entry/building_a_dsl_in_ruby)
This would definitely give you the portability you're looking for, including maybe using IronRuby in your C# environment, and you'd be able to leverage the existing logic and mathematical operations of Ruby. You could then have constraint definition files that looked like this:
constrain 'wakeup_time' do
6 <= value && value <= 10
end
constrain 'something_else' do
check (value % 2 == 1), MustBeOdd
end
# constrain is a method that takes one argument and a code block
# check is a function you've defined that takes a two arguments
# MustBeOdd is the name of an exception type you've created in your standard set
But really, the great thing about a DSL is that you have a lot of control over what the constraint files look like.
there are a number of ways to verify a list of values across multiple languages. My preferred method is to make a list of the permitted values and load them into a dictionary/hashmap/list/vector (dependant on the language and your preference) and write a simple isIn() or isValid() function, that will check that the value supplied is valid based on its presence in the data structure. The beauty of this is that the code is trivial and can be implemented in just about any language very easily. for odd-only or even-only numeric validity again, a small library of different language isOdd() functions will suffice: if it isn't odd it must by definition be even (apart from 0 but then a simple exception can be set up to handle that, or you can simply specify in your code documentation that for logical purposes your code evaluates 0 as odd/even (your choice)).
I normally cart around a set of c++ and c# functions to evaluate isOdd() for similar reasons to what you have alluded to, and the code is as follows:
C++
bool isOdd( int integer ){ return (integer%2==0)?false:true; }
you can also add inline and/or fastcall to the function depending on need or preference; I tend to use it as an inline and fastcall unless there is a need to do otherwise (huge performance boost on xeon processors).
C#
Beautifully the same line works in C# just add static to the front if it is not going to be part of another class:
static bool isOdd( int integer ){ return (integer%2==0)?false:true; }
Hope this helps, in any event let me know if you need any further info:)
Not sure if it's what you looking for, but judging from your starting conditions (Win C#/Linux C++) you may not need it to be totally language agnostic. You can implement such a parser yourself in C++ with all the desired features and then just use it in both C++ and C# projects - thus also bypassing the need to add external libraries.
On application design level, it would be (relatively) simple - you create a library which is buildable cross-platform and use it in both projects. The interface may be something simple like:
bool VerifyConstraint_int(int value, const char* constraint);
bool VerifyConstraint_double(double value, const char* constraint);
// etc
Such interface will be usable both in Linux C++ (by static or dynamic linking) and in Windows C# (using P/Invoke). You can have same codebase compiling on both platforms.
The parser (again, judging from what you've described in the question) may be pretty simple - a tree holding elements of types Variable and Expression which can be Evaluated with a given Variable value.
Example class definitions:
class Entity {public: virtual VARIANT Evaluate() = 0;} // boost::variant may be used typedef'd as VARIANT
class BinaryOperation: public Entity {
private:
Entity& left;
Entity& right;
enum Operation {PLUS,MINUS,EQUALS,AND,OR,GREATER_OR_EQUALS,LESS_OR_EQUALS};
public:
virtual VARIANT Evaluate() override; // Evaluates left and right operands and combines them
}
class Variable: public Entity {
private:
VARIANT value;
public:
virtual VARIANT Evaluate() override {return value;};
}
Or, you can just write validation code in C++ and use it both in C# and C++ applications :)
My personal choice would be Lua. The downside to any DSL is the learning curve of a new language and how to glue the code with the scripts but I've found Lua has lots of support from the user base and several good books to help you learn.
If you are after making somewhat generic code that a non programmer can inject rules for allowable input it's going to take some upfront work regardless of the route you take. I highly suggest not rolling your own because you'll likely find people wanting more features that an already made DSL will have.
If you are using Java then you can use the Object Graph Navigation Library.
It enables you to write java applications that can parse,compile and evaluate OGNL expressions.
OGNL expressions include basic java,C,C++,C# expressions.
You can compile an expression that uses some variables, and then evaluate that expression
for some given variables.
An easy way to achieve validation of expressions is to use Python's eval method. It can be used to evaluate expressions just like the one you wrote. Python's syntax is easy enough to learn for simple expressions and english-like. Your expression example is translated to:
(value >= 1 and value <= 3) or (value >= 10 and value <= 12)
Code evaluation provided by users might pose a security risk though as certain functions could be used to be executed on the host machine (such as the open function, to open a file). But the eval function takes extra arguments to restrict the allowed functions. Hence you can create a safe evaluation environment.
# Import math functions, and we'll use a few of them to create
# a list of safe functions from the math module to be used by eval.
from math import *
# A user-defined method won't be reachable in the evaluation, as long
# as we provide the list of allowed functions and vars to eval.
def dangerous_function(filename):
print open(filename).read()
# We're building the list of safe functions to use by eval:
safe_list = ['math','acos', 'asin', 'atan', 'atan2', 'ceil', 'cos', 'cosh', 'degrees', 'e', 'exp', 'fabs', 'floor', 'fmod', 'frexp', 'hypot', 'ldexp', 'log', 'log10', 'modf', 'pi', 'pow', 'radians', 'sin', 'sinh', 'sqrt', 'tan', 'tanh']
safe_dict = dict([ (k, locals().get(k, None)) for k in safe_list ])
# Let's test the eval method with your example:
exp = "(value >= 1 and value <= 3) or (value >= 10 and value <= 12)"
safe_dict['value'] = 2
print "expression evaluation: ", eval(exp, {"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> expression evaluation: True
# Test with a forbidden method, such as 'abs'
exp = raw_input("type an expression: ")
-> type an expression: (abs(-2) >= 1 and abs(-2) <= 3) or (abs(-2) >= 10 and abs(-2) <= 12)
print "expression evaluation: ", eval(exp, {"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> expression evaluation:
-> Traceback (most recent call last):
-> File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
-> File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
-> NameError: name 'abs' is not defined
# Let's test it again, without any extra parameters to the eval method
# that would prevent its execution
print "expression evaluation: ", eval(exp)
-> expression evaluation: True
# Works fine without the safe dict! So the restrictions were active
# in the previous example..
# is odd?
def isodd(x): return bool(x & 1)
safe_dict['isodd'] = isodd
print "expression evaluation: ", eval("isodd(7)", {"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> expression evaluation: True
print "expression evaluation: ", eval("isodd(42)", {"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> expression evaluation: False
# A bit more complex this time, let's ask the user a function:
user_func = raw_input("type a function: y = ")
-> type a function: y = exp(x)
# Let's test it:
for x in range(1,10):
# add x in the safe dict
safe_dict['x']=x
print "x = ", x , ", y = ", eval(user_func,{"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> x = 1 , y = 2.71828182846
-> x = 2 , y = 7.38905609893
-> x = 3 , y = 20.0855369232
-> x = 4 , y = 54.5981500331
-> x = 5 , y = 148.413159103
-> x = 6 , y = 403.428793493
-> x = 7 , y = 1096.63315843
-> x = 8 , y = 2980.95798704
-> x = 9 , y = 8103.08392758
So you can control the allowed functions that should be used by the eval method, and have a sandbox environment that can evaluate expressions.
This is what we used in a previous project I worked in. We used Python expressions in custom Eclipse IDE plug-ins, using Jython to run in the JVM. You could do the same with IronPython to run in the CLR.
The examples I used in part inspired / copied from the Lybniz project explanation on how to run a safe Python eval environment. Read it for more details!
You might want to look at Regular-Expressions or RegEx. It's proven and been around for a long time. There's a regex library all the major programming/script languages out there.
Libraries:
C++: what regex library should I use?
C# Regex Class
Usage
Regex Email validation
Regex to validate date format dd/mm/yyyy
I want a function that keeps local state in Ruby. Each time I call the function I want to return a result that depends both on a calling argument and on the function's stored state. Here's a simple example:
def inc_mult(factor)
#state ||= 0 # initialize the state the first time.
#state += 1 # adjust the internal state.
factor * #state
end
Note that the state is initialized the first time, but subsequent calls access stored state. This is good, except that #state leaks into the surrounding context, which I don't want.
What is the most elegant way of rewriting this so that #state doesn't leak?
(Note: My actual example is much more
complicated, and initializing the
state is expensive.)
You probably want to encapsulate inc_mult into its own class, since you want to encapsulate its state separately from its containing object. This is how generators (the yield statement) work in Python and C#.
Something as simple as this would do it:
class Foo
state = 0
define_method(:[]) do |factor|
state += 1
factor * state
end
end
Philosophically, I think what you’re aiming for is incompatible with Ruby’s view of methods as messages, rather than as functions that can somewhat stand alone.
Functions are stateless. They are procedural code. Classes contain state as well as procedural code. The most elegant way to do this would be to follow the proper programming paradigm:
Class to maintain state
Function to manipulate state
Since you're using Ruby, it may seem a bit more elegent to you to put these things in a module that can be included. The module can handle maintaining state, and the method could simply be called via:
require 'incmodule'
IncModule::inc_mult(10)
Or something similar
I want a function that keeps local state in Ruby.
That word "function" should immediately raise a big fat red flashing warning sign that you are using the wrong programming language. If you want functions, you should use a functional programming language, not an object-oriented one. In a functional programming language, functions usually close over their lexical environment, which makes what you are trying to do absolutely trivial:
var state;
function incMult(factor) {
if (state === undefined) {
state = 0;
}
state += 1;
return factor * state;
}
print(incMult(2)); // => 2
print(incMult(2)); // => 4
print(incMult(2)); // => 6
This particular example is in ECMAScript, but it looks more or less the same in any functional programming language.
[Note: I'm aware that it's not a very good example, because ECMAScript is actually also an object-oriented language and because it has broken scope semantics that atually mean that state leaks in this case, too. In a language with proper scope semantics (and in a couple of years, ECMAScript will be one of them), this'll work as intended. I used ECMAScript mainly for its familiar syntax, not as an example of a good functional language.]
This is the way that state is encapsulated in functional languages since, well, since there are functional languages, all the way back to lambda calculus.
However, in the 1960s some clever people noticed that this was a very common pattern, and they decided that this pattern was so common that it deserved its own language feature. And thus, the object was born.
So, in an object-oriented language, instead of using functional closures to encapsulate state, you would use objects. As you may have noticed, methods in Ruby don't close over their lexical environment, unlike functions in functional programming languages. And this is precisely the reason: because encapsulation of state is achieved via other means.
So, in Ruby you would use an object like this:
inc_mult = Object.new
def inc_mult.call(factor)
#state ||= 0
#state += 1
factor * #state
end
p inc_mult.(2) # => 2
p inc_mult.(2) # => 4
p inc_mult.(2) # => 6
[Sidenote: This 1:1 correspondence is what functional programmers are talking about when they say "objects are just a poor man's closures". Of course, object-oriented programmers usually counter with "closures are just a poor man's objects". And the funny thing is, both of them are right and neither of them realize it.]
Now, for completeness' sake I want to point out that while methods don't close over their lexical environment, there is one construct in Ruby, which does: blocks. (Interestingly enough, blocks aren't objects.) And, since you can define methods using blocks, you can also define methods which are closures:
foo = Object.new
state = nil
foo.define_singleton_method :inc_mult do |factor|
state ||= 0
state += 1
factor * state
end
p foo.inc_mult(2) # => 2
p foo.inc_mult(2) # => 4
p foo.inc_mult(2) # => 6
It seems like you could just use a global or a class variable in some other class, which would at least allow you to skip over the immediately surrounding context.
Well, you could play around a bit... What about a function that rewrites itself?
def imult(factor)
state = 1;
rewrite_with_state(state+1)
factor*state
end
def rewrite_with_state(state)
eval "def imult(factor); state = #{state}; rewrite_with_state(#{state+1}); factor*state; end;"
end
Warning: This is extremely ugly and should not be used in production code!
you can use lambda.
eg,
$ cat test.rb
def mk_lambda( init = 0 )
state = init
->(factor=1, incr=nil){
state += incr || 1;
puts "state now is: #{state}"
factor * state
}
end
f = mk_lambda
p f[]
p f[1]
p f[2]
p f[100]
p f[100,50]
p f[100]
$ ruby test.rb
state now is: 1
1
state now is: 2
2
state now is: 3
6
state now is: 4
400
state now is: 54
5400
state now is: 55
5500
kind regards -botp
Where can I find a list of Scala's "magic" functions, such as apply, unapply, update, +=, etc.?
By magic-functions I mean functions which are used by some syntactic sugar of the compiler, for example
o.update(x,y) <=> o(x) = y
I googled for some combination of scala magic and synonyms of functions, but I didn't find anything.
I'm not interested with the usage of magic functions in the standard library, but in which magic functions exists.
As far as I know:
Getters/setters related:
apply
update
identifier_=
Pattern matching:
unapply
unapplySeq
For-comprehensions:
map
flatMap
filter
withFilter
foreach
Prefixed operators:
unary_+
unary_-
unary_!
unary_~
Beyond that, any implicit from A to B. Scala will also convert A <op>= B into A = A <op> B, if the former operator isn't defined, "op" is not alphanumeric, and <op>= isn't !=, ==, <= or >=.
And I don't believe there's any single place where all of Scala's syntactic sugars are listed.
In addition to update and apply, there are also a number of unary operators which (I believe) qualify as magical:
unary_+
unary_-
unary_!
unary_~
Add to that the regular infix/suffix operators (which can be almost anything) and you've got yourself the complete package.
You really should take a look at the Scala Language Specification. It is the only authoritative source on this stuff. It's not that hard to read (as long as you're comfortable with context-free grammars), and very easily searchable. The only thing it doesn't specify well is the XML support.
Sorry if it's not exactly answering your question, but my favorite WTF moment so far is # as assignment operator inside pattern match. Thanks to soft copy of "Programming in Scala" I found out what it was pretty quickly.
Using # we can bind any part of a pattern to a variable, and if the pattern match succeeds, the variable will capture the value of the sub-pattern. Here's the example from Programming in Scala (Section 15.2 - Variable Binding):
expr match {
case UnOp("abs", e # UnOp("abs", _)) => e
case _ =>
}
If the entire pattern match succeeds,
then the portion that matched the
UnOp("abs", _) part is made available
as variable e.
And here's what Programming Scala says about it.
That link no longer works. Here is one that does.
I'll also add _* for pattern matching on an arbitrary number of parameters like
case x: A(_*)
And operator associativity rule, from Odersky-Spoon-Venners book:
The associativity of an operator in Scala is determined by its last
character. As mentioned on <...>, any method that ends
in a ‘:’ character is invoked on its right operand, passing in the
left operand. Methods that end in any other character are the other
way around. They are invoked on their left operand, passing in the
right operand. So a * b yields a.*(b), but a ::: b yields b.:::(a).
Maybe we should also mention syntactic desugaring of for expressions which can be found here
And (of course!), alternative syntax for pairs
a -> b //converted to (a, b), where a and b are instances
(as correctly pointed out, this one is just an implicit conversion done through a library, so it's probably not eligible, but I find it's a common puzzler for newcomers)
I'd like to add that there is also a "magic" trait - scala.Dynamic:
A marker trait that enables dynamic invocations. Instances x of this trait allow method invocations x.meth(args) for arbitrary method names meth and argument lists args as well as field accesses x.field for arbitrary field names field.
If a call is not natively supported by x (i.e. if type checking fails), it is rewritten according to the following rules:
foo.method("blah") ~~> foo.applyDynamic("method")("blah")
foo.method(x = "blah") ~~> foo.applyDynamicNamed("method")(("x", "blah"))
foo.method(x = 1, 2) ~~> foo.applyDynamicNamed("method")(("x", 1), ("", 2))
foo.field ~~> foo.selectDynamic("field")
foo.varia = 10 ~~> foo.updateDynamic("varia")(10)
foo.arr(10) = 13 ~~> foo.selectDynamic("arr").update(10, 13)
foo.arr(10) ~~> foo.applyDynamic("arr")(10)
As of Scala 2.10, defining direct or indirect subclasses of this trait is only possible if the language feature dynamics is enabled.
So you can do stuff like
import scala.language.dynamics
object Dyn extends Dynamic {
def applyDynamic(name: String)(a1: Int, a2: String) {
println("Invoked " + name + " on (" + a1 + "," + a2 + ")");
}
}
Dyn.foo(3, "x");
Dyn.bar(3, "y");
They are defined in the Scala Language Specification.
As far as I know, there are just three "magic" functions as you mentioned.
Scalas Getter and Setter may also relate to your "magic":
scala> class Magic {
| private var x :Int = _
| override def toString = "Magic(%d)".format(x)
| def member = x
| def member_=(m :Int){ x = m }
| }
defined class Magic
scala> val m = new Magic
m: Magic = Magic(0)
scala> m.member
res14: Int = 0
scala> m.member = 100
scala> m
res15: Magic = Magic(100)
scala> m.member += 99
scala> m
res17: Magic = Magic(199)