[tastyminerals2]

There is no straighforward elegant way of doing "obj.scalaMethod.myCustomMethod.scalaMethod.myCustomMethod" in Scala. I want to create a method and just inject it into the chain, no fiddling or ducktaping or using some black Scala magic.

"def myFun(a: String, b: Double): Boolean = {...}" and then "obj.mapValues.myFun.forall(_)" or just anything similar.

And yes, Scala is exactly the language when you need safe and maintainable code with far less unit tests required than in Java. But you have to invest into it and sometimes it is simply not worth it. The Scala2 to Scala3 migration situation makes things even worse unfortunately.

[vvillena]

There is a feature in Scala 2 that covers the specific thing you want: implicit classes. You can use them to add custom methods. It's clean and straightforward.

And it will be even easier in Scala 3, where this pattern is coded into an even simpler feature: extensions.

[esarbe]

In the Scala 2.x this can be done with an implicit class.

It's a bit cumbersome and not very use-case oriented (mechanism over intention) and so Scala 3 has introduced extension methods[0].

This gives you exactly what you want.

Since Scala 3 is pretty much completely backwards compatible (and with the use of Tasty you can use Scala 3 code in Scala 2.x projects), so I don't see the migration as a big problem. The Scala team has spent a lot of work to make the transition as painless as possible.

[0] https://dotty.epfl.ch/docs/reference/contextual/extension-me...

[ph2082]

Thank you for URL. Just when I needed. Any idea when "Scala 3" can be production ready ?

[esarbe]

From what I saw in the latest presentation by Martin, we can expect Scala 3 to be released in late Spring/early Summer 2021.

Part of the release testing is building the community release[0], which is a large part of the relevant Scala F/OSS code out there.

Whether you consider that to be production ready you have to decide for yourself, I myself am pretty happy about it.

Keep in mind that for now Scala 2 style code will still be compiled and you can use existing Scala 2 code in your Scala 3 project. The migration should be pretty smooth.

[0] https://github.com/scala/community-build

[shim__]

It's not really black magic https://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/core/implicit-classes.... but I don't really see why having a filter as a method should even be encouraged.

[tastyminerals2]

Implicits are not encouraged in our code base and for a good reason.

This was just an example. It's not about filter at all but the general method chaining.

Here is example from D if I must:

    real[] fun(int[] arr) {
        return arr.map!(a => a.to!double / PI).array;   
    }

    void main()
    {
        int[] arr = 100.iota.array; // [0, 1, 2, 3, ...]
        real[] newArr = arr.map!(a=> a*2).array.fun); // [0, 0.63662, 1.27324, ...]
    }

I don't know how you can chain a custom method "fun" to the output of the "map" in Scala without duck typing. Why is this not possible when all conditions type-wise are met? Why you can chain std methods like map, filter, reduce, fold etc. but not custom ones?

[valenterry]

Ah, I understand what you mean now. You are looking indeed for the thrush operator. I think it should be built into Scala's standard library, but until that happens, you can use the mouse library or build it yourself. Here is an example:

    // Need to define this once somewhere in your project
    implicit class TrushExtension[A](anything: A) {
      def |>[B](function: A => B) = function(anything)
    }
    
    
    // Your application code
    def fun(arr: Iterable[Int]) = arr.map(_.toDouble / Math.PI)
    
    val arr = 0 to 100
    val newArr = arr.map(_*2) |> fun
    
    newArr.foreach(println)  // prints 0, 0.63662, 1.27324, ...

Execute or change the code here: https://scalafiddle.io/sf/WAKhZtJ/0

This is maybe not exactly as convenient, but it comes pretty close.

"someA.someB.someC" becomes "someA |> someB |> someC".

[scns]

If you would call it pipe operator, like it's called in many (Elm, Elixir, F#, OCaml) other languages that have it, people would understand you faster IMHO. It is even discussed for inclusion into JavaScript.

[dwijnand]

https://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/scala/util/ChainingOp...

[valenterry]

Nice I didn't know that! I still like to add |> on top of it.

"foo |> bar |> baz" just visually parses easier than "foo pipe bar pipe baz"

[tastyminerals2]

Looks good! Thanks for the tip.

[vvillena]

Scala is more strict than D for this use case. In Scala, if you want a function to be available to a certain type as if it was a method call, you need to be explicit about it. You have to declare an "implicit class" that takes the base type as an argument, and define the function as a method of the implicit class. You also need to ensure the implicit class is in scope. Once these conditions are met, you can use it as a method.

    val t1 = MyType()
    def fun(t: MyType, argument: Int) = argument

    // can't do this yet
    // t1.fun(42)
    
    // In Scala 2 you use an implicit class to add methods to a type
    implicit class MyEnrichedType(t: MyType) {
      def fun(argument: Int) = fun(t, argument)
    }

    // In Scala 3 you use an extension
    extension (t: MyType)
      def fun(argument: Int) = fun(t, argument)
    
    // now it can be done
    t.fun(42)

Regarding your question about the stdlib methods being able to be chained: they are not special. They are defined for the type the methods return, so they can be used.

Rejecting all kinds of implicits and then complaining about Scala missing features is a bit unfair. "Implicit"is a single keyword, but not a single feature. Implicit arguments, implicit conversions and implicit classes are not the same thing. Fortunately, Scala 3 will clear this misunderstanding.

[valenterry]

Assuming that your object is a list of tuples, then you can do:

    val myFun = (a: String, b: Int) => b % 2 == 0
    List("a" -> 1, "b" -> 2, "c" -> 3).map(myFun.tupled).forall(identity) // false
    List("a" -> 2, "b" -> 4, "c" -> 6).map(myFun.tupled).forall(identity) // true

But I think that's not what you mean... are you maybe looking for the "thrush" / |> operator? Or do you have some example from another language that does a better job and show how it looks there?