scala-for-csharp-programmers.disabled.html

---
layout: overview
title: A Scala Tutorial for C# Programmers

disqus: true
---

By Ivan Towlson

## Introduction

Scala is a hybrid of functional and object-oriented languages. 
Its functional aspects make it very expressive when writing algorithmic 
code, and play nicely with the brave new world of concurrency; its 
object-oriented aspects keep it familiar and convenient when creating 
business objects or other stateful models.

## The same concepts

Scala shares many features and concepts with C#, as well as introducing
many that are new.  In fact, some of the capabilities that people talk
about a lot in Scala introductions or Java-to-Scala guides are very
familiar to C# programmers.  For example, as a C# programmer, you don't
need to be gently walked through the idea of function types -- you've
been using delegates and lambdas for years.

However, some Scala features and behaviours are quite different from C#,
and even those which are common usually have different syntax or work
in slightly different ways.  So let's start out by covering some Scala
basics from a C# programmer's point of view.

### Classes

The basic concept of classes is the same in Scala as in C#.  A class
bundles up a bunch of state (member fields) and hides it behind an
interface (member methods).  The syntax for declaring classes is just
like C#:

    class Widget {
    }

### Fields

The syntax for declaring fields is like this:

    class Widget {
      val serialNumber = 123
      private var usageCount = 0
    }

You can probably figure out what's going on here, but let's just note
a few differences from C#:

* Fields are public by default, rather than private by default.
* You don't need to put a semicolon after a field declaration.  You can
  write semicolons if you want (or if your muscle memory makes you),
  but if you don't, Scala will figure it out for you.
* Scala automatically figures out the type of the field from its initial
  value, just like the C# `var` keyword.  (Don't be fooled by the appearance
  of the second field though -- the Scala `var` keyword doesn't mean the
  same thing as the C# `var` keyword.)

Now, why is one of these fields introduced as `val` and the other as
`var`?  In C#, fields are mutable by default.  That is, by default,
any code that can access a field can modify it.  You can specify *readonly*
to make a field immutable, so that it can't be changed once the object
has been constructed.

Scala doesn't have a default setting for mutability.  You have to engage
brain, and decide whether each field is mutable or immutable.  `val` means
a field is immutable (readonly in C#) and `var` means it's mutable
(a normal field in C#).

So the class above is equivalent to the C#:

    class Widget {
      public readonly int serialNumber = 123;
      private int usageCount = 0;
    }

Notice that C# makes you write extra code to make things immutable,
and Scala doesn't.  This may seem like a small thing, but it's
going to be a really important theme.

### Methods

The syntax for declaring methods is like this:

    class Widget {
      def reticulate(winding: Int): String = "some value"
    }

This is a more dramatic departure from C# so let's pick it apart.

The `def` keyword means we're declaring a method rather than a field.
There isn't a direct equivalent to this in C#, which figures out whether
something is a method or a field from context.  As with fields,
methods are public by default.

The method name is reassuringly language-independent.

Method arguments go in brackets after the method name, just as in C#.
However, the way Scala specifies the argument types is different from C#.
In C# you would write `int winding`; in Scala you write `winding: Int`.

This is a general principle: in Scala, when you want to specify the
type of something, you write the type after the something, separated
by a colon.  (Whereas in C# you write the type before the something,
separated by a space.)

You can see the same principle in action for the return type of the
function. `reticulate` returns a `String`.

Finally, the body of the method has been placed after an equals sign, 
rather than inside braces. (Braces are only necessary when the method 
body consists of multiple expressions/statements.) What's more, 
the body of the method is an expression -- that
is, something with a value -- rather than a set of statements amongst which
is a `return`.  I'll come back to this when we look at a more realistic
example, but for the time being, let's focus on the trivial example and
translate it into C# syntax:

    class Widget {
      public string Reticulate(int winding) {
        return "some value";
      }
    }

### Classes and Structs

In C#, when you define a type, you can decide whether to make it a
reference type (a class) or a value type (a struct).  Scala doesn't
allow you to create custom value types.  It has only classes, not
structs.  This restriction comes from Scala targeting the Java
Virtual Machine.  Unlike .NET, the JVM doesn't really have the concept
of value types.  Scala tries to disguise this as best it can, but the
lack of custom value types is one place where the implementation
leaks through.  Fortunately, Scala makes it easy to define immutable
reference types, which are nearly as good.

### Base Types

Scala's base types are pretty much the same as C#'s, except that they
are named with initial capitals, e.g. `Int` instead of `int`. (In fact 
every type in Scala starts with an uppercase letter.) There are
no unsigned variants, and booleans are called `Boolean` instead of `bool`.

Scala's name for `void` is `Unit`, but unlike `void`, `Unit` is a real type.
We'll see why this is important in a moment.

### Function Types

In C#, you can have variables that refer to functions instead of data.
These variables have delegate types, such as *Predicate<T>` or
`Func<T, TResult>` or `KeyEventHandler` or `Action<T1, T2>`.

Scala has the same concept, but the function types are built into the
language, rather than being library types.  Function types are
spelled `(T1, T2, ...) => TR`.  For example, a predicate of integers 
would be type `(Int) => Boolean`. If there is only one input type, 
the parens can be left out like this: `Int => Boolean`.

Effectively, Scala gets rid of all those weird custom delegate types
like `Predicate<T>` and `Comparer<T>` and has a single family of
function types like the C# `Func<...>` family.

What if you want to refer to a method that doesn't have a return value?
In C#, you can't write `Func<T, void>` because void isn't a valid
type; you have to write `Action<T>` instead.  But Scala doesn't have
different families of delegate types, it just has the built-in
function types.  Fortunately, in Scala, `Unit` is a real type, so you
can write `(Int) => Unit` for a function which takes an integer
and doesn't return a useful value.  This means you can pass `void` methods
interchangeably with non-`void` methods, which is a Good Thing.

### Implementing Methods

I showed a method above, but only to illustrate the declaration syntax.
Let's take a look at a slightly more substantial method.

    def power4(x: Int): Int = {
      var square = x * x  // usually wouldn't write this - see below
      square * square
    }

This looks pretty similar to C#, except that:

* We're allowed to leave out semicolons, as mentioned above.
* We don't need a return statement.  The method body consists of
  an expression, square * square, with some preliminary bits
  to define the components of the expression.
  The return value of the method is the value of the expression.

In order to make this method look like C#, I used the `var` keyword
to declare the local variable `square`.  But as with fields, the
Scala `var` keyword doesn't work quite the same as the C# `var` keyword:

In C#, `var` means "work out the type of the variable from the
right hand side".  But Scala does that automatically -- you don't
need to ask for it.  In Scala, `var` means "allow me to change this
variable (or field) after initialisation".  As with fields, you can
also use `val` to mean 'don't allow me to change this variable
after initialisation.'  And in fact since we don't need to change
`square` after initialisation, we'd be better off using val:

    def power4(x: Int): Int = {
      val square = x * x  // val not var
      square * square
    }

Incidentally, if you do ever want to explicitly indicate the type
of a variable, you can do it the same way as with function arguments:

    def power4(x: Int): Int = {
      val square : Int = x * x
      square * square
    }

Notice that you still need `val` or `var`.  Telling Scala the type
of the variable is independent of deciding whether the variable should
be mutable or immutable.

### Tuples

Everybody hates out parameters.  We all know that code like this just 
isn't nice:

    Widget widget;
    if (widgetDictionary.TryGetValue(widgetKey, out widget))
    {
      widget.ReticulateSplines();
    }

And once you start composing higher-level functions into the mix, it gets 
positively nasty. Suppose I want to make a HTTP request.  Well, that's 
going to produce two outputs in itself, the success code and the response 
data. But now suppose I want to time it. Writing the timing code isn't a 
problem, but now I have *three* outputs, and to paraphrase *Was Not Was*, 
I feel worse than Jamie Zawinski.

You can get around this in specific situations by creating custom types 
like `DictionaryLookupResult` or `TimedHttpRequestResult`, but eventually 
the terrible allure wears off, and you just want it to work.

Enter tuples. A tuple is just a small number of values -- a single value, 
a pair of values, a triplet of values, that sort of thing. You can tell 
that tuples were named by mathematicians because the name only makes sense 
when you look at the cases you hardly ever use (quadruple, quintuple, 
sextuple, etc.). Using tuples, our timed HTTP request might look like this:

    public Tuple<bool, Stream, TimeSpan> Time(Func<Tuple<bool, Stream>> action)
    {
      StartTimer();
      var result = action();
      TimeSpan howLong = StopTimer();
      return Tuple.Create(result.First, result.Second, howLong);
    }
    
    var result = Time(() => MakeRequest(uri));
    var succeeded = result.First;
    var response = result.Second;
    var howLong = result.Third.
    Console.WriteLine("it took " + howLong);

The reason this keeps getting verbose on us is that C# doesn’t provide any 
syntatical support for tuples. To C#, a `Tuple<>` is just another generic 
type. To us, the readers, a `Tuple<>` is just another generic type with 
particularly unhelpful member names.

Really, what we're really trying to articulate by returning a `Tuple<>` is, 
"this method has several outputs." So what do we want to do with those 
outputs?  We want to access them, for example to stash them in variables, 
without having to construct and pick apart the tuple one value at a time. 
That means the language has to provide some kind of syntax-level support 
for tuples, instead of treating them like every other class the compiler 
doesn’t know about.

Many functional languages have exactly this kind of syntactical support, 
and Scala is no exception.  Here’s how the above pseudo-C# looks in Scala:

    def time(action: => (Boolean, Stream)): (Boolean, Stream, TimeSpan) = {
      startTimer()
      val (succeeded, response) = action
      (succeeded, response, stopTimer())
    }
    
    val (succeeded, response, timeTaken) = time(makeRequest)
    Console.WriteLine("it took " + timeTaken)

Notice the multiple variables on the left hand side of the time call? 
Notice the `(Boolean, Stream, TimeSpan)` return type of the time method? 
That return value is effectively a tuple type, but instead of having to 
capture the returned tuple in a `Tuple<>` variable and extract its various 
bits by hand, we are getting the Scala compiler to (in the time function) 
compose the tuple implicitly for us, without us having to write the 
constructor call, and (in the calling code) unpick the tuple into 
meaningful, named variables for us without us having to explicitly copy 
the values one by one and by name.

(By the way, a proper implementation of the `time()` method wouldn’t be 
restricted to `(Boolean, Stream)` results: we’d be looking to write a 
method that could time anything. I’ve skipped that because it would 
distract from the point at hand.)

How would this play with the dictionary example?

    val (found, widget) = widgetDictionary.getValue(key)
    if (found)
      widget.reticulateSplines()

We don’t actually save any lines of code, what with having to now capture 
the “found” value into a variable and test it separately; and it’s not as 
if the original C# version was horribly unreadable anyway. So maybe this is 
a matter of taste, but I find this a lot easier to read and to write: all 
the outputs are on the left of the equals sign where they belong, instead 
of being spread between the assignment result and the parameter list, and 
we don’t have that odd Widget declaration at the top.

## New and different concepts

Scala's primary platform is the Java virtual machine, and some of the 
interest in Scala comes from Java programmers' interest in features such 
as type inference, comprehensions and lambdas, with which C# programmers 
are already familiar. So what's left that might be of interest 
specifically to C# programmers?

### Mixins and Traits

#### Motivation

Interfaces in C# and Java play a dual role. 
First, they are a set of capabilities that an implementer has to, well, 
implement. Second, they are a feature set that a client can use. 

These two roles can be conflicting: The first means that interfaces want 
to be minimal, so that implementers don't have to implement a whole lot 
of superfluous and redundant guff. The second means that interfaces want 
to be maximal, so that clients don't have to clog themselves up with 
boilerplate utility methods.

Consider, for example, `IEnumerable` (and its sister interface `IEnumerator`).
This is a very minimal interface: implementers just need to be able to 
produce values in sequence. But this minimalism means that clients of 
`IEnumerable` need to write the same old boilerplate again and again and 
again: foreach loops to filter, foreach loops to call a method on each 
element of the sequence, foreach loops to aggregate, foreach loops to 
check whether all elements meet a criterion, or to find the first member 
that meets a criterion, or...  

This is frustrating because the implementations of "filter," "apply", 
"aggregate," and so on are always the same. Of course, we could put 
these methods into concrete types (`List<T>` includes several), but then 
those concrete types will contain duplicate code, and users who only have 
an `IEnumerable` will still miss out.  And yet we can't put these methods 
into the interface because then every implementer of `IEnumerable` would 
have to implement them -- and they'd end up writing the same boilerplate, 
just now in all the zillions of `IEnumerable` classes instead of their clients.

#### The C# and Scala Solutions

We could resolve this tension if we had a way for interfaces to contain 
implementation: for example, if `IEnumerable` required the implementer 
to provide the class-specific iteration functionality, but then provided 
the standard implementations of "filter," "apply", "aggregate" and so on 
automatically:

    public pseudo_interface IEnumerable
    {
      IEnumerator GetEnumerator();  // must be implemented
      IEnumerable Filter(Predicate predicate)  // comes for free
      {
        foreach (object o in this)
         if (predicate(o))
        yield return o;
      }
    }

C# 3 addresses this using extension methods: the methods mentioned above 
are all in fact included as extension methods on `IEnumerable<T>` as 
part of LINQ.  

This has some advantages over the approach described above: specifically, 
the "standard methods" aren't bound up in the interface, so you can add 
your own methods instead of being limited to the ones that the interface 
author has included.

On the other hand, it means that method implementations have to be packaged 
in a different class from the interface, which feels less than modular.

Scala takes a different approach. A Scala trait can contain a mix of 
abstract methods without implementation as well as concrete methods with 
an implementation. (It can also be a pure interface, with only abstract 
members.)

Here's a Scala trait that represents objects that can be compared 
and ordered:

    trait Ord {
      def < (that: Any): Boolean
      def <=(that: Any): Boolean = (this < that) || (this == that)
      def > (that: Any): Boolean = !(this <= that)
      def >=(that: Any): Boolean = !(this < that)
    }

Orderable objects can extend `Ord`, but only need to implement the 
method `<`. They then get the other operators for free, implemented 
automatically by Ord in terms of `<`.

    class Date extends Ord {
      def < (that: Any): Boolean = /* implementation */
    }
    
    // can now write: myDate >= yourDate

A similar trait, called `Ordered` already exists in Scala, so there is no
need to actually define my trait.

#### Scala Traits vs. C# Extension Methods

Okay, so Scala has a different way of packaging standard implementations 
from C#'s extension methods. It's different, but why is it interesting? 
Well, there are a couple of things that you can do with Scala traits that 
don't fall nicely out of the extension methods approach.

First, you can override the default implementations of trait members, 
to take advantage of additional information or capabilities available 
in the implementing type.

Let's look at another `IEnumerable` example, recast as a Scala trait:

    trait Enumerable {
      def getEnumerator(): Enumerator
      def count: Int = {
        // Shockingly bad style; for illustrative purposes only
        var c = 0
        val e = getEnumerator()
        while (e.moveNext()) c = c + 1
        c
      }
    }

This (ignoring style issues for now) is the only fully general 
implementation we can provide for count: it will work with any `Enumerable`. 
But for collections that know their sizes, such as `arrays` or `List<T>`, 
it's gruesomely inefficient. It iterates over the entire collection, 
counting elements one by one, when it could just consult the `size` member 
and return that. 

Let's fix that:

    class MyList extends Enumerable {
      private var _size;
      def getEnumerator(): Enumerator = /* ... */
      override def count: Int = _size
    }

The `count` member of the `Enumerable` trait works like a virtual method: 
it can be overridden in classes which implement/derive from `Enumerable`.

Compare this to the `Count()` extension method on `IEnumerable<T>` in LINQ. 
This achieves the same effect by trying to cast to `ICollection`, which is 
fine as far as it goes but isn't extensible. 

Suppose you create an enumerable class that can count itself quickly but 
isn't a collection -- for example a natural numbers range object. 
With a Scala trait, the `NumberRange` type could provide an efficient 
override of `count`, just like any other virtual method; with C# extension 
methods, `Enumerable.Count()` would have to somehow know about the 
`NumberRange` type in advance, or fall back on counting elements one by one.

Second, with Scala you can choose a trait implementation when you 
instantiate an object, rather than having it baked in at the class level 
once and for all. This is called mixin-composition.

Suppose you're creating a `MyList` instance, but you want it to puff itself 
up to look bigger so as to frighten other `MyList` instances off its territory. 
(This example would probably work better with fish, but we're stuck with 
`Enumerable`s now.  Work with me here.) In C#, you'd need to create a 
`PuffedUpMyList` class and override the `Count` property. 
In Scala, you can just mix in a `PuffedUp` version of the trait:

    trait PuffedUp extends Enumerable {
      override def count: Int = super.count + 100
    }
    
    val normal = new MyList
    Console.WriteLine(normal.count)  // meh
    val puffedUp = new MyList with PuffedUp
    Console.WriteLine(puffedUp.count)  // eek!

As you can imagine this gives us much better granularity and composability 
of traits and implementations than we get from the extension methods 
approach, or indeed from single implementation inheritance type systems 
in general.

So Scala traits have some distinct advantages over extension methods. 
The only downside appears to be the inability for clients to add their 
own methods to a trait after the fact. 

Fortunately, you can work around this in Scala using so-called implicit 
conversions. They enable Scala programmers to enrich existing types with new
functionality.

### Singletons

In C#, if you want to create a singleton object, you have to create a class, 
then stop evildoers creating their own instances of that class, then create 
and provide an instance of that class yourself.

While this is hardly a Burma Railway of the programming craft, it does 
feel like pushing against the grain of the language. Nor is it great for 
maintainers, who have to be able to recognise a singleton by its pattern 
(private constructor, public static readonly field, ...), or for clients, 
who have to use a slightly clumsy multipart syntax to refer to the 
singleton (e.g. `Universe.Instance`).

What would be easier for all concerned would be if you could just declare 
objects *as* singletons. That is, instead of writing class `Universe` and a 
`public static readonly` instance of it, you could just write `object Universe`.

And that's exactly what Scala allows you to do:

    object Universe {
      def contains(obj: Any): Boolean = true
    }
    
    val v = Universe.contains(42)

What's going on behind the scenes here?  It pretty much goes without saying 
that the Scala compiler is creating a new type for the singleton object. 
In fact it creates two types, one for the implementation and one for the 
interface. The interface looks like a .NET static class (actually, the 
.NET 1.x equivalent, a sealed class with only static members). 
Thus, a C# program would call the example above as `Universe.contains(42)`.

Singleton objects are first-class citizens in Scala, so they can for 
example derive from classes. This is a nice way of creating special values 
with custom behaviour: you don't need to create a whole new type, you just 
define an instance and override methods in it:

    abstract class Cat {
      def humiliateSelf()
    }
    
    object Slats extends Cat {
      def humiliateSelf() { savage(this.tail) }
    }

Obviously this is a frivolous example, but "special singletons" turn out to 
be an important part of the functional idiom, for example for bottoming out 
recursion. *Scala by Example (PDF)* describes an implementation of a Set class 
which is implemented as a tree-like structure ("left subset - member - right 
subset"), and methods such as `contains()` work by recursing down to the 
child sets. For this to work requires an `EmptySet` whose implementation 
(state) and behaviour are quite different from non-empty sets -- e.g. 
`contains()` just returns `false` instead of trying to delegate to 
non-existent child sets. Since `EmptySet` is logically unique it is both 
simpler and more efficient to represent it as a singleton: i.e. to declare 
`object EmptySet` instead of `class EmptySet`.

In fact the whole thing can become alarmingly deep: *Scala by Example* 
also includes a description of `Boolean` as an `abstract class`, and 
`True` and `False` as singleton objects which extend `Boolean` and provide 
appropriate implementations of the `ifThenElse` method. 

And fans of Giuseppe Peano should definitely check out the hypothetical 
implementation of `Int`...

### Pass by Name

> You're only on chapter 3 and you're already reduced to writing about 
> *calling conventions*?  You suck!  Do another post about chimney sweeps 
> being hunted by jars of marmalade!"

Silence, cur.  Pass by name is not as other calling conventions are. 
Pass by name, especially in conjunction with some other rather 
theoretical-sounding Scala features, is your gateway to the wonderful 
world of language extensibility.

#### What is Passing By Name?

First, let's talk about what we mean by *calling convention*. A calling 
convention describes how stuff gets passed to a method by its caller. 
In the good old days, this used to mean exciting things like which 
arguments got passed in registers and who was responsible for resetting 
the stack pointer. Sadly, the days of being able to refer to "naked fun 
calls" are consigned to history: In modern managed environments, the 
runtime takes care of all this guff and the main distinction is pass 
data by value or by reference. (The situation on the CLR is slightly 
complicated by the need to differentiate passing values by value, values 
by reference, references by value and references by reference, but I'm 
not going to go into that because (a) it's irrelevant to the subject at 
hand and (b) that's 
[Jon Skeet](http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/parameters.html)'s turf 
and I don't want him to shank me. Again.)

In *pass by value*, the called method gets a copy of whatever the caller 
passed in. Arguments passed by value therefore work like local variables 
that are initialised before the method runs: when you do anything to them, 
you're doing it to your own copy.

In *pass by reference*, the called method gets a reference to the caller's 
value.  When you do anything to a pass-by-reference argument, you're doing 
it to the caller's data. 

In *pass by name*, the called method gets... well, it's a bit messy to 
explain what the called method gets. But when the called method does 
anything to the argument, the argument gets evaluated and the "anything" 
is done to that.  Crucially, evaluation happens every time the argument 
gets mentioned, and only when the argument gets mentioned.

#### Not Just Another Calling Convention

Why does this matter? It matters because there are functions you can't 
implement using pass by value or pass by reference, but you can implement 
using pass by name.

Suppose, for example, that C# didn't have the `while` keyword. 
You'd probably want to write a method that did the job instead:

    public static void While(bool condition, Action body)
    {
      if (condition)
      {
        body();
        While(condition, body);
      }
    }

What happens when we call this?

    long x = 0;
    While(x < 10, () => x = x + 1);

C# evaluates the arguments to `While` and invokes the `While` method with 
the arguments `true` and `() => x = x + 1`.  After watching the CPU sit 
on 100% for a while you might check on the value of `x` and find it's 
somewhere north of a trillion. *Why?* Because the condition argument was 
*passed by value*, so whenever the `While` method tests the value of 
condition, it's always `true`. The `While` method doesn't know that 
condition originally came from the expression `x < 10`; all `While` knows 
is that condition is `true`.

For the `While` method to work, we need it to re-evaluate `x < 10` every 
time it hits the condition argument.  While needs not the value of the 
argument at the call site, nor a reference to the argument at the call 
site, but the actual expression that the caller wants it to use to generate 
a value.

Same goes for short-circuit evaluation. If you want short-circuit 
evaluation in C#, your only hope if to get on the blower to Anders 
Hejlsberg and persuade him to bake it into the language:

    bool result = (a > 0 && Math.Sqrt(a) < 10);
    double result = (a < 0 ? Math.Sqrt(-a) : Math.Sqrt(a));

You can't write a function like `&&` or `?:` yourself, because C# will 
always try to evaluate all the arguments before calling your function. 

Consider a VB exile who wants to reproduce his favourite keywords in C#:

    bool AndAlso(bool condition1, bool condition2)
    {
      return condition1 && condition2;
    }

    T IIf<T>(bool condition, T ifTrue, T ifFalse)
    {
      if (condition)
        return ifTrue;
      else
        return ifFalse;
    }

But when C# hits one of these:

    bool result = AndAlso(a > 0, Math.Sqrt(a) < 10);
    double result = IIf(a < 0, Math.Sqrt(-a), Math.Sqrt(a));

it would try to evaluate all the arguments at the call site, and pass the 
results of those evaluations to `AndAlso` or `IIf`.  There's no 
short-circuiting. So the `AndAlso` call would crash if a were negative, 
and the `IIf` call if a were anything other than 0. Again, what you want is 
for the `condition1`, `condition2`, `ifTrue` and `ifFalse` arguments to be 
evaluated by the callee if it needs them, not for the caller to evaluate 
them before making the call.

And that's what *pass by name* does. A parameter passed by name is not 
evaluated when it is passed to a method.  It is evaluated -- and 
re-evaluated -- when the called method evaluates the parameter; 
specifically when the called method requests the value of the parameter by 
mentioning its name. This might sound weird and academic, but it's the key 
to being able to define your own control constructs.

#### Using Pass By Name in Scala

Let's see the custom while implementation again, this time with Scala 
*pass by name* parameters:

    def myWhile(condition: => Boolean)(body: => Unit): Unit =
      if (condition) {
        body
        myWhile(condition)(body)
      }

We can call this as follows:

    var i = 0
    myWhile (i < 10) {
      println(i)
      i += 1
    }

Unlike the C# attempt, this prints out the numbers from 0 to 9 and then 
terminates as you'd wish.

Pass by name also works for short-circuiting:

    import math._
    
    def andAlso(condition1: => Boolean, condition2: => Boolean): Boolean =
      condition1 && condition2
    
    val d = -1.234
    val result = andAlso(d > 0, sqrt(d) < 10)

The `andAlso` call returns `false` rather than crashing, because 
`sqrt(d) < 10` never gets evaluated.

What's going on here?  What's the weird colon-and-pointy-sticks syntax? 
What is actually getting passed to `myWhile` and `andAlso` to make this work?

The answer is a bit surprising. Nothing is going on here. This is the 
normal Scala function parameter syntax. There is no *pass by name* in Scala.

Here's a bog-standard *pass by value* Scala function declaration:

    def myFunc1(i: Int): Unit = ...

Takes an integer, returns void: easy enough. Here's another:

    def myFunc2(f: Int => Boolean): Unit = ...

Even if you've not seen this kind of expression before, it's probably not 
too hard to guess what this means. This function takes a *function from 
`Int` to `Boolean`* as its argument. In C# terms, 
`void MyFunc2(Func<int, bool> f)`. We could call this as follows:

    myFunc2 { (i: Int) => i > 0 }

So now you can guess what this means:

    def myFunc3(f: => Boolean) : Unit = ...

Well, if `myFunc2` took an *Int-to-Boolean* function, `myFunc3` must be 
taking a "blank-to-Boolean" function -- a function that takes no arguments 
and returns a `Boolean`.  In short, a conditional expression. So we can 
call `myFunc3` as follows:

    val j = 123
    myFunc3 { j > 0 }

The squirly brackets are what we'd expect from an anonymous function, and 
because the function has no arguments Scala doesn't make us write 
`{ () => j > 0 }`, even though that's what it means really.  The anonymous 
function has no arguments because `j` is a captured local variable, not an 
argument to the function. But there's more. Scala also lets us call 
`myFunc3` like this:

    val j = 123
    myFunc3(j > 0)

This is normal function call syntax, but the Scala compiler realises that 
`myFunc3` expects a nullary function (a function with no arguments) rather 
than a `Boolean`, and therefore treats `myFunc3(j > 0)` as shorthand for 
`myFunc3(() => j > 0)`. This is the same kind of logic that the C# compiler 
uses when it decides whether to compile a lambda expression to a delegate 
or an expression tree.

You can probably figure out where it goes from here:

    def myFunc4(f1: => Boolean)(f2: => Unit): Unit = ...

This takes two functions: a conditional expression, and a function that 
takes no arguments and returns no value (in .NET terms, an `Action`). 
Using our powers of anticipation, we can imagine how this might be called 
using some unholy combination of the two syntaxes we saw for calling 
`myFunc3`:

    val j = 123;
    myFunc4(j > 0) { println(j); j -= 1; }

We can mix and match the `()` and `{}` bracketing at whim, except that we 
have to use `{}` bracketing if we want to batch up multiple expressions. 
For example, you could legally equally well write the following:

    myFunc4 { j > 0 } { println(j); j -= 1; }
    myFunc4 { println(j); j > 0 } (j -= 1)
    myFunc4 { println(j); j > 0 } { j -= 1 }

And we'll bow to the inevitable by supplying a body for this function:

    def myFunc5(f1: => Boolean)(f2: => Unit): Unit =
      if (f1()) {
      f2()
      myFunc5(f1)(f2)
    }

Written like this, it's clear that `f1` is getting evaluated each time we 
execute the if statement, but is getting passed (as a function) when 
`myFunc5` recurses. But Scala allows us to leave the parentheses off 
function calls with no arguments, so we can write the above as:

    def myFunc5(f1: => Boolean)(f2: => Unit): Unit =
      if (f1) {
        f2
        myFunc5(f1)(f2)
      }

Again, type inference allows Scala to distinguish the *evaluation of 
`f1`* in the if statement from the *passing of `f1`* in the `myFunc5` 
recursion.

And with a bit of renaming, that's `myWhile`.  There's no separate 
*pass by name* convention: just the usual closure behaviour of capturing 
local variables in an anonymous method or lambda, a bit of syntactic sugar 
for nullary functions (functions with no arguments), just like C#'s 
syntactic sugar for property getters, and the Scala compiler's ability to 
recognise when a closure is required instead of a value.

In fact, armed with this understanding of the Scala "syntax," we can 
easily map it back to C#:

    void While(Func<bool> condition, Action body)
    {
      if (condition())
      {
        body();
        While(condition, body);
      }
    }
    
    int i = 0;
    While(() => i < 10, () =>
    {
      Console.WriteLine(i);
      ++i;
    });

The implementation of the `While` method in C# is, to my eyes, a bit 
clearer than the Scala version.  However, the syntax for *calling* the 
`While` method in C# is clearly way more complicated and less natural than 
the syntax for calling `myWhile` in Scala.  Calling `myWhile` in Scala was 
like using a native language construct. Calling While in C# required a 
great deal of clutter at the call site to prevent C# from trying to treat 
`i < 10` as a once-and-for-all value, and to express the body at all.

So that's so-called "pass by name" demystified: The Scala Web site, with 
crushing mundanity, demotes it to "automatic type-dependent closure 
construction," which is indeed exactly how it works. As we've seen, 
however, this technical-sounding feature is actually essential to 
creating nice syntax for your own control constructs.  We'll shortly see 
how this works together with other Scala features to give you even more 
flexibility in defining your construct's syntax.

### Implicits

Scala implicits offer some features which will be familiar to the C# 
programmer, but are much more general in nature and go far beyond what can 
be done in C#.

#### Enriching types in C# and Scala

Scala, like C#, is statically typed: a class’ methods are compiled into the 
class definition and are not open for renegotiation. You cannot, as you 
might in Ruby or Python, just go ahead and declare additional methods on an 
existing class.

This is of course very inconvenient. You end up declaring a load of 
`FooHelper` or `FooUtils` classes full of static methods, and having to 
write verbose calling code such as `if (EnumerableUtils.IsEmpty(sequence))` 
rather than the rather more readable `if (sequence.IsEmpty())`.

C# 3 tries to address this problem by introducing extension methods. 
Extension methods are static methods in a `FooHelper` or `FooUtils` kind 
of class, except you’re allowed to write them using member syntax. 
By defining `IsEmpty` as an extension method on `IEnumerable`, you can 
write `if (sequence.IsEmpty())` after all.

Scala disapproves of static classes and global methods, so it plumps for 
an alternative approach. You’ll still write a `FooHelper` or `FooUtils` 
kind of class, but instead of taking the `Foo` to be Helped or Utilised as 
a method parameter, your class will wrap `Foo` and enrich it with 
additional methods. Let’s see this in action as we try to add a method to 
the `Double` type:

    class RicherDouble(d : Double) { 
      def toThe(exp: Double): Double = System.Math.Pow(d, exp)
    }

(We call the class `RicherDouble` because Scala already has a `RichDouble` 
class defined which provides further methods to `Double`.)

Notice that `toThe` is an instance method, and that `RicherDouble` takes a 
`Double` as a constructor parameter. This seems pretty grim, because we’d 
normally have to access the function like this:

    val result = new DoubleExtensions(2.0).toThe(7.0)

Hardly readable. To make it look nice, Scala requires us to define an 
*implicit conversion* from `Double` to `RicherDouble`:

    object Implicits {
      implicit def richerDouble(d: Double) = new RicherDouble(d)
    }

and to bring that implicit conversion into scope:

    import Implicits._

Now we can write this:

    val twoToTheSeven = 2.0.toThe(7.0)

and all will be well. The `Double` type has apparently been successfully 
enriched with the `toThe` method.

This is, of course, just as much an illusion as the C# equivalent. 
C# extension methods don’t add methods to a type, and nor do Scala 
implicit conversions. What has happened here is that the Scala compiler 
has looked around for implicit methods that are applicable to the type of 
`2.0` (namely `Double`), and return a type that has a `toThe` method. 
Our `Implicits.richerDouble` method fits the bill, so the Scala compiler 
silently inserts a call to that method. At runtime, therefore, Scala calls 
`Implicits.richerDouble(2.0)` and calls the `toThe` of the resulting 
`RicherDouble`.

If setting this up seems a bit verbose, well, maybe. C# extension methods 
are designed to be easily – one might even say implicitly – brought into 
scope. That’s very important for operators like the LINQ standard query 
operators, but it can result in unwanted extension methods being dragged 
into scope and causing havoc. Scala requires the caller to be a bit more 
explicit about implicits, which results in a slightly higher setup cost but 
gives the caller finer control over which implicit methods are considered.

But as it happens you can avoid the need for separate definitions of 
`Implicits` and `RicherDouble`, and get back to a more concise 
representation by using an anonymous class. (As you’d expect, Scala 
anonymous classes are fully capable, like Java ones, rather than the 
neutered C# version.) Here’s how it looks:

    object Implicits {
      implicit def doubleToThe(d1 : Double) = new {
        def toThe(d2 : Double) : Double = Math.Pow(d1, d2)
      }
    }

Well, big deal.  Scala can enrich existing types with new methods just like 
C#, but using a different syntax. In related news, Lisp uses a different 
kind of bracket: film at eleven. Why should we be interested in Scala 
implicits if they’re just another take on extension methods?

#### Implicit Parameters

What we saw above was an implicit method – a method which, like a C# 
implicit conversion operator, the compiler is allowed to insert a call to 
without the programmer writing that call. Scala also has the idea of 
implicit parameters – that is, parameters which the compiler is allowed to 
insert a value for without the programmer specifying that value.

That’s just optional parameters with default values, right? Like C++ and 
Visual Basic have had since “visual” meant ASCII art on a teletype, and 
like C# is about to get?  Well, no.

C++, Visual Basic and C# optional parameters have fixed defaults specified 
by the called function. For example, if you have a method like this:

    public void Fie(int a, int b = 123) { … }

and you call `Fie(456)`, it’s always going to be equivalent to calling 
`Fie(456, 123)`.

A Scala implicit parameter, on the other hand, gets its value from the 
calling context. That allows programmer calling the method to control the 
implicit parameter value, creating an extensibility point that optional 
parameters don’t provide.

This probably all sounds a bit weird, so let’s look at an example. Consider 
the following `Concatenate` method:

    public T Concatenate<T>(IEnumerable<T> sequence, T seed, Func<T, T, T> concatenator);

We pass this guy a sequence, a start value and a function that combines two 
values into one, and it returns the result of calling that function across 
the sequence. For example, you could pass a sequence of strings, a start 
value of `String.Empty`, and `(s1, s2) => s1 + s2`, and it would return you 
all the strings concatenated together:

    IEnumerable<string> sequence = new string[] { “mog”, “bites”, “man” };
    string result = Concatenate(sequence, String.Empty, (s1, s2) => s1 + s2);
    // result is “mogbitesman”

But this is a unpleasantly verbose. We’re having to pass in `String.Empty` 
and `(s1, s2) => s1 + s2` every time we want to concatenate a sequence of 
strings. Not only is this tedious, it also creates the opportunity for 
error when the boss decides to “help” and passes the literal 
`"String.Empty"` as the seed value instead. (“Oh, and I upgraded all the 
semi-colons to colons while I was in there. No, don’t thank me!”)  We’d 
like to just tell the Concatenate function, “Look, this is how you 
concatenate strings,” once and for all.

Let’s start out by redefining the `Concatenate` method in Scala. 
I’m going to factor out the seed and the concatenator method into a trait 
because we’ll typically be defining them together.

    trait Concatenator[T] {
      def startValue: T
      def concat(x: T, y: T): T
    }
    
    object implicitParameters {
      def concatenate[T](xs: List[T])(c: Concatenator[T]): T =
        if (xs.isEmpty) c.startValue
        else c.concat(xs.head, concatenate(xs.tail)(c))
    }

We can call this as follows:

    object stringConcatenator extends Concatenator[String] {
      def startValue: String = ""
      def concat(x: String, y: String) = x.concat(y)
    }
    
    object implicitParameters {
      def main(args: Array[String]) = {
        val result = concatenate(List("mog", "bites", "man"))(stringConcatenator)
        println(result)
      }
    }

So far, this looks like the C# version except for the factoring out of the 
`Concatenator` trait.  We’re still having to pass in the 
`stringConcatenator` at the point of the call. Let’s fix that:

    def concatenate[T](xs: List[T])(implicit c: Concatenator[T]): T =
      if (xs.isEmpty) c.startValue
      else c.concat(xs.head, concatenate(xs.tail))

We’ve changed two things here.  First, we’ve declared c to be an *implicit 
parameter*, meaning the caller can leave it out.  Second, we’ve left 
it out ourselves, in the recursive call to `concatenate(xs.tail)`.

Well, okay, it’s nice that `concatenate` now doesn’t have to pass the 
`Concatenator` explicitly to the recursive call, but we’re still having to 
pass in the `stringConcatenator` object to get things started. If only 
there were some way to make the `stringConcatenator` object itself implicit…

    object Implicits {
      implicit object stringConcatenator extends Concatenator[String] {
        def startValue: String = ""
        def concat(x: String, y: String) = x.concat(y)
      }
    }

Again, we’ve done two things here. First, we’ve declared the 
`stringConcatenator` object implicit. Consequently, we’ve had to move it 
out of the top level, because Scala doesn’t allow implicits at the top 
level (because they’d pollute the global namespace, being in scope even 
without an explicit import statement).

Now we can call `concatenate` like this:

    import Implicits._
    
    object implicitParameters {
      def main(args: Array[String]) = {
        val result = concatenate(List("mog", "bites", "man"))
        println(result)
      }
    }

And we’ll still get “mogbitesman” as the output.

Let’s review what’s going on here.  The implicit parameter of concatenate 
has been set to our `stringConcatenator`, a default value that the 
`concatenate` method knew nothing about when it was compiled. This is 
somewhere north of what classical optional parameters are capable of, 
and we’re not finished yet. Let’s build a `listConcatenator`.

    object Implicits {
      class ListConcatenator[T] extends Concatenator[List[T]] {
        def startValue: List[T] = Nil
        def concat(x: List[T], y: List[T]) = x ::: y
      }
      implicit object stringListConcatenator extends ListConcatenator[String] { }
    }

This is a bit vexing. `List` in Scala is a generic type, and has a generic 
concatenation method called `:::`. But we can’t create a generic object, 
because an object is an instance. And implicit parameters have to be objects. 
So the best we can do is build a generic `ListConcatenator` class, and then 
create trivial implicit objects for each generic parameter type we might 
need.

However, let’s not worry about the implementation, and see how this is used 
at the calling end:

    val result = concatenate(List(
      List("mog", "bites", "man"),
      List("on", "beard")
    ))

This displays `List(mog, bites, man, on, beard)`; that is, it concatenates 
the two `List[String]`s into one. Once again, we have not had to pass 
`stringListConcatenator` explicitly: the Scala compiler has gone and found 
it for us. We can use the exact same calling code to concatenate lists and 
strings.

#### Why Should I Care?

Isn’t this pointless? At the call site, I have access to 
`stringConcatenator` and `listStringConcatenator`. I can easily pass them 
in rather than relying on spooky compiler magic to do it for me.
Aren’t implicit parameters just job security for compiler writers?

Yes, implicit parameters are technically unnecessary. But if we’re going 
to play that game, C# is technically unnecessary. You could write all that 
code in IL. Extension methods are unnecessary because you could write the 
static method out longhand. Optional parameters are unnecessary because 
you could read the documentation and pass them in explicitly. 
Post-It notes are unnecessary because you could fire up Outlook and create 
a Note instead.

Implicit parameters are about convenience and expressiveness. Implicit 
parameters give you a way of describing how a function should handle 
different situations, without needing to bake those situations into the 
function logic or to specify them every time you call the function.
You don’t want to have to tell the `concatenate` function whether to use 
the `List` or `String` concatenator every time you call it: the compiler 
knows what you’re concatenating; specifying how to concatenate it just 
gives you a chance to get it wrong!

Consequently, implicit parameters – like implicit conversions – contribute 
to Scala’s ability to support internal DSLs. By setting up appropriate 
implicits, you can write code that reads much more naturally than if you 
had to pepper it with function objects or callbacks.

#### Conclusion

Scala’s `implicit` keyword goes beyond C#’s equivalent.  As in C#, it is 
used for implicit conversions; unlike C#, this is the idiomatic way to add 
operations to an existing type, removing the need for the separate 
extension method syntax. Implicit parameters have no equivalent in C#. 
They are like being able to add default values to a method: just as a C# 
using statement bring implicit methods into scope, a Scala import statement 
can bring default values into scope. If implicit conversions are a way of 
extending classes, then implicit parameters are a way of extending methods, 
creating simple, reliable shorthands for complex generic methods, and 
making up another piece of the Scala DSL jigsaw.

#### Method Call Syntax

C#, like most object-oriented programming languages, is pretty strict about 
how you call methods: you use the dot notation, unless the method is a 
special ‘operator’ method such as `operator+`, `operator==` or a conversion 
operator. The special operator methods are predefined by the compiler: you 
can write your own implementation, but you can’t create your own operator 
names.  You can teach the `+` operator how to handle your custom type, but 
you can’t add an exponentiation operator:

    int a = b ** c;

C# has three problems with this: first, it doesn’t like the method name 
`**`; second, it doesn’t like that there’s no `.` before the name; and 
third, it doesn’t like that there’s no brackets around the method argument.

To get around the objection to the name, let’s compromise and call it 
`ToThe` for now. So what C# insists on seeing is `a.ToThe(b)`.

Scala, like many functional languages, isn’t so strict. Scala allows you 
to use any method with a single argument in an infix position. Before we 
can see this in the exponentiation example, we will enrich the `Double` 
type with the `toThe` method as we learned earlier:

    import Implicits._
    import math._
    
    class RicherDouble(d: Double) {
      def toThe(exp: Double): Double = pow(d, exp)
    }
    
    object Implicits {
      implicit def richerDouble(d: Double) = new RicherDouble(d)
    }

Recall that this is just the Scala idiom for extension methods – it’s the 
equivalent of writing 
`public static ToThe(this double first, double second) { … }` in C#. 
(If we were wanting to use infix notation with our own class, we wouldn’t 
need all this malarkey.) So now we can write:

    val raised = 2.0.toThe(7.0)

Okay, so what do we need to do to get this to work in infix position? 
Nothing, it turns out.

    val raised = 2.0 toThe 8.0  // it just works

This still doesn’t look much like a built-in operator, but it turns out 
Scala is less fussy than C# about method names too.

    class DoubleExtensions(d : Double) { 
      def **(exp: Double): Double = Pow(d, exp)
    }
    
    val raised = 2.0 ** 9.0  // it still just works

Much nicer.

This sorta-kinda works for postfix operators too:

    class RicherString(s: String) {
      def twice: String = s + s
    }
    
    val drivel = "bibble" twice

Calling methods in infix and postfix nodadion is obviously fairly simple 
syntactic sugar over normal dot notation. But this seemingly minor feature 
is very important in constructing DSLs, allowing Scala to do in internal 
DSLs what many languages can do only using external tools. For example, 
where most languages do parsing via an external file format and a tool to 
translate that file format into native code (a la `lex` and `yacc`), 
Scala’s parser library makes extensive use of infix and postfix methods to 
provide a “traditional” syntax for describing a parser, but manages it 
entirely within the Scala language.