val (xa, xb) = xs partition ( a > )
What is 开发者_运维技巧a >
in above code and how is it different from a > _
? (assume a
is some predefined value)
Any method that expects a function with some argument can be instead passed a one-argument method and, if the types work out, the method will be automatically converted.
So these all are valid:
class C { def go(i: Int) = -i }
val c = new C
List(1,2,3).foreach( println )
List(1,2,3).map( c go )
So, either a
has the method >
defined, or it can be implicitly converted to something with a >
method. For example, this works:
List(1,2,3).partition(2 >)
because (EDIT: one would think this would be true....) there is an implicit conversion from Int
to RichInt
(the same one that gives you .toFloat
and such), and RichInt
has a >
method defined. partition
expects a function that takes Int
and returns Boolean
and 2 >
is a method that takes Int
and returns Boolean
. So the conversion happens automatically.
(EDIT: but as @Lukas Rytz points out, it's even more tricky than that, because the compiler realizes that it can treat primitive ints specially, so even though >
is not really a method on the object 2
, because 2
is not an object, and primitives do not have methods, the compiler recognizes that deferring to RichInt
would be slower. So, in fact, it just writes a method with the correct bytecode.)
Only if the correct conversion does not happen automatically (because of ambiguity, for example, or because you want to assign it to a variable) do you need to use _
to create a function out of a method. (And then it is not always exactly clear whether you are using _
to convert from method to function, or using _
as a placeholder for the input; fortunately, the result is the same either way.)
It is not different at all, it's just a shorter version.
scala> val a = 10
a: Int = 10
scala> val xs = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
xs: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
scala> val (xa, xb) = xs partition ( a > )
xa: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
xb: List[Int] = List(11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
I think it is actually exactly the same.
精彩评论