In Chisel3, I want to create a generic Bundle ParamsBus with parameterized type.
Then I follow the example on the Chisel3 website:
class ParamBus[T <: Data](gen: T) extends Bundle {
val dat1 = gen
val dat2 = gen
override def cloneType = (new ParamBus(gen)).asInstanceOf[this.type]
}
class TestMod[T <: Data](gen: T) extends Module {
val io = IO(new Bundle {
val o_out = Output(gen)
})
val reg_d = Reg(new ParamBus(gen))
io.o_out := 0.U
//io.o_out := reg_d.dat1 + reg_d.dat2
dontTouch(reg_d)
}
However, during code generation, I have the following error:
chisel3.AliasedAggregateFieldException: Aggregate ParamBus(Reg in TestMod) contains aliased fields List(UInt<8>)...
at fpga.examples.TestMod.<init>(test.scala:20)
Moreover, if I exchange the two lines to connect io.o_out, another error appears:
/home/escou64/Projects/fpga-io/src/main/scala/examples/test.scala:23:34: type mismatch;
found : T
required: String
io.o_out := reg_d.dat1 + reg_d.dat2
^
Any idea of the issue ?
Thanks for the help!
The issue you're running into is that the argument gen to ParamBus is a single object that is used for both dat1 and dat2. Scala (and thus Chisel) has reference semantics (like Java and Python), and thus dat1 and dat2 are both referring to the exact same object. Chisel needs the fields of Bundles to be different objects, thus the aliasing error you are seeing.
The easiest way to deal with this is to call .cloneType on gen when using it multiple times within a Bundle:
class ParamBus[T <: Data](gen: T) extends Bundle {
val dat1 = gen.cloneType
val dat2 = gen.cloneType
// Also note that you shouldn't need to implement cloneType yourself anymore
}
(Scastie link: https://scastie.scala-lang.org/mJmSdq8xSqayOceSjxHkRQ)
This is definitely a bit of a wart in the Chisel3 API because we try to hide the need to call .cloneType yourself, but least as of v3.4.3, this remains the case.
Alternatively, you could wrap the uses of gen in Output. It may seem weird to use a direction here but if all directions are Output, it's essentially the same as having no directions:
class ParamBus[T <: Data](gen: T) extends Bundle {
val dat1 = Output(gen)
val dat2 = Output(gen)
}
(Scastie link: https://scastie.scala-lang.org/TWajPNItRX6qOKDGDPnMmw)
A third (and slightly more advanced) technique is to make gen a 0-arity function (ie. a function that takes no arguments). Instead of gen being an object to use as a type template, it's instead a function that will create fresh types for you when called. Scala is a functional programming language so functions can be passed around as values just like objects can:
class ParamBus[T <: Data](gen: () => T) extends Bundle {
val dat1 = gen()
val dat2 = gen()
}
// You can call it like so:
// new ParamBus(() => UInt(8.W))
(Scastie link: https://scastie.scala-lang.org/JQ7D8VZsSCWP2i6DWJ4cLA)
I tend to prefer this final version, but I understand it can be more daunting for new users. Eventually I'd like to fix the issue you're seeing with a more direct use of gen, but these are ways to deal with the issue for the time being.
I noticed that I get the same effect if I define this trivial function:
fun double ( i: Int ) = i*2
and if I define a variable and assign a lambda (with an identical body) to it:
var double = { i : Int -> i*2 }
I get the same result if I call double(a) with either declaration.
This leaves me confused. When is it needed, recommended, advantageous to define a variable as a lambda rather than define a function to it?
When is it needed, recommended, advantageous to define a variable as a lambda rather than define a function to it?
Whenever you have the choice of either, you should use a fun declaration. Even with a fun you can still get a first-class callable object from it by using a function reference.
On the JVM, a fun is significantly more lightweight, both in terms of RAM and invocation overhead. It compiles into a Java method, whereas a val compiles into an instance field + getter + a synthetic class that implements a functional interface + a singleton instance of that class that you must fetch, dereference, and invoke a method on it.
You should consider a function-typed val or var only when something is forcing you to do it. One example is that you can dynamically replace a var and effectively change the definition of the function. You may also receive function objects from the outside, or you may need to comply with an API that needs them.
In any case, if you ever use a function-typed property of a class, you'll know why you're doing it.
First, if I understand you right, your question is "Why are functions first-class citizens in Kotlin -- And when to use them as such?", right?
Kotlin functions are first-class, which means that they can be stored in variables and data structures, passed as arguments to and returned from other higher-order functions. You can operate with functions in any way that is possible for other non-function values. (see here)
As stated in the docs, one use case are higher-order functions. As a first step, I will leave the wikipedia link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_function
Basically, a higher-order function is a function that takes functions as parameters, or returns a function.
This means that a higher-order function has at least one parameter of a function type or returns a value of a function type.
Following a short example of a higher-order function that receives a parameter of function type (Int) -> Boolean:
fun foo(pred: (Int) -> Boolean) : String = if(pred(x)) "SUCCESS" else "FAIL"
This higher-order function can now be called with any (Int) -> Boolean function.
The docs also state ... [can be used] in any way that is possible for other non-function values.
This means that you can, for example, assign different functions to a variable, depending on your current context.
For example:
// This example is verbose on purpose ;)
var checker: (Int) -> Boolean
if (POSITIVE_CHECK) {
checker = { x -> x > 0 } // Either store this function ...
} else {
checker = { x -> x < 0 } // ... or this one ...
}
if (checker(someNumber)) { // ... and use whatever function is now stored in variable "checker" here
print("Check was fine")
}
(Code untested)
You can define variable and assign it lambda when you want change behaviour for some reason. For example, you have different formula for several cases.
val formula: (Int) -> Int = when(value) {
CONDITION1 -> { it*2 }
CONDITION2 -> { it*3 }
else -> { it }
}
val x: Int = TODO()
val result = formula(x)
If you simply need helper function, you should define it as fun.
If you pass a lambda as a parameter of a function it will be stored in a variable. The calling application might need to save that (e.g. event listener for later use). Therefore you need to be able to store it as a variable as well. As said in the answer however, you should do this only when needed!
For me, I would write the Lambda variable as followed:
var double: (Int) -> Int = { i -> //no need to specify parameter name in () but in {}
i*2
}
So that you can easily know that its type is (i: Int) -> Int, read as takes an integer and returns an integer.
Then you can pass it to somewhere say a function like:
fun doSomething(double: (Int) -> Int) {
double(i)
}
Given the following constructs for defining a function in Scala, can you explain what the difference is, and what the implications will be?
def foo = {}
vs.
def foo() = {}
Update
Thanks for the quick responses. These are great. The only question that remains for me is:
If I omit the parenthesis, is there still a way to pass the function around? This is what I get in the repl:
scala> def foo = {}
foo: Unit
scala> def baz() = {}
baz: ()Unit
scala> def test(arg: () => Unit) = { arg }
test: (arg: () => Unit)() => Unit
scala> test(foo)
<console>:10: error: type mismatch;
found : Unit
required: () => Unit
test(foo)
^
scala> test(baz)
res1: () => Unit = <function0>
Update 2012-09-14
Here are some similar questions I noticed:
Difference between function with parentheses and without
Scala methods with no arguments
If you include the parentheses in the definition you can optionally omit them when you call the method. If you omit them in the definition you can't use them when you call the method.
scala> def foo() {}
foo: ()Unit
scala> def bar {}
bar: Unit
scala> foo
scala> bar()
<console>:12: error: Unit does not take parameters
bar()
^
Additionally, you can do something similar with your higher order functions:
scala> def baz(f: () => Unit) {}
baz: (f: () => Unit)Unit
scala> def bat(f: => Unit) {}
bat: (f: => Unit)Unit
scala> baz(foo)
scala> baz(bar)
<console>:13: error: type mismatch;
found : Unit
required: () => Unit
baz(bar)
^
scala> bat(foo)
scala> bat(bar) // both ok
Here baz will only take foo() and not bar. What use this is, I don't know. But it does show that the types are distinct.
Let me copy my answer I posted on a duplicated question:
A Scala 2.x method of 0-arity can be defined with or without parentheses (). This is used to signal the user that the method has some kind of side-effect (like printing out to std out or destroying data), as opposed to the one without, which can later be implemented as val.
See Programming in Scala:
Such parameterless methods are quite common in Scala. By contrast, methods defined with empty parentheses, such as def height(): Int, are called empty-paren methods. The recommended convention is to use a parameterless method whenever there are no parameters and the method accesses mutable state only by reading fields of the containing object (in particular, it does not change mutable state).
This convention supports the uniform access principle [...]
To summarize, it is encouraged style in Scala to define methods that take no parameters and have no side effects as parameterless methods, i.e., leaving off the empty parentheses. On the other hand, you should never define a method that has side-effects without parentheses, because then invocations of that method would look like a field selection.
Terminology
There are some confusing terminology around 0-arity methods, so I'll create a table here:
Programming in Scala
scala/scala jargon
def foo: Int
parameterless methods
nullary method
def foo(): Int
empty-paren methods
nilary method
I sounds cool to say "nullary method", but often people say it wrong and the readers will also be confused, so I suggest sticking with parameterless vs empty-paren methods, unless you're on a pull request where people are already using the jargons.
() is no longer optional in Scala 2.13 or 3.0
In The great () insert, Martin Odersky made change to Scala 3 to require () to call a method defined with (). This is documented in Scala 3 Migration Guide as:
Auto-application is the syntax of calling a nullary method without passing an empty argument list.
Note: Migration document gets the term wrong. It should read as:
Auto-application is the syntax of calling a empty-paren (or "nilary") method without passing an empty argument list.
Scala 2.13, followed Scala 3.x and deprecated the auto application of empty-paren methods in Eta-expand 0-arity method if expected type is Function0. A notable exception to this rule is Java-defined methods. We can continue to call Java methods such as toString without ().
To answer your second question, just add an _:
scala> def foo = println("foo!")
foo: Unit
scala> def test(arg: () => Unit) = { arg }
test: (arg: () => Unit)() => Unit
scala> test(foo _)
res10: () => Unit = <function0>
scala> test(foo _)()
foo!
scala>
I would recommend always start definition with a function like:
def bar {}
and only in cases, when you are forced, to change it to:
def bar() {}
Reason: Let's consider these 2 functions from a point of possible usage. How they can be infoked AND where they can be passed.
I would not call this a function at all:
def bar {}
It can be invoked as:
bar
but not as a function:
bar()
We can use this bar when we define a higher-order function with a call-by-name parameter:
def bat(f: => Unit) {
f //you must not use (), it will fail f()
}
We should remember, that => Unit - is not even a function. You absolutely cannot work with a thunk as if it's a function insofar as you cannot choose to treat it as Function value to be stored or passed around. You can only trigger evaluations of the actual argument expression (any number of them).
Scala: passing function as block of code between curly braces
A function, defined with () has a bigger scope for usage. It can be used exactly, in the same context, as bar:
def foo() = {}
//invokation:
foo
//or as a function:
foo()
It can be passed into a function with a call-by-name parameter:
bat(foo)
Additionally, if we define a higher-order function, that accepts not a call-by-name pamameter, but a real function:
def baz(f: () => Unit) {}
We can also pass foo to the baz:
baz(foo)
As we can see standard functions like foo have a bigger scope for usage. But using a functions defined without () plus defining higher-order functions, that accept call-by-name parameter, let us use more clear syntax.
If you do not try to archive a better, more readable code, or if you need ability to pass your piece of code both to function defined with a call-by-name parameter and to a function defined with a real function, then define your function as standard one:
def foo() {}
If you prefer to write more clear and readable code, AND your function has no side-effects, define a function as:
def bar {}
PLUS try to define your higher-order function to accept a call-by-name parameter, but not a function.
Only when you are forced, only in this case use the previous option.
Related to this thread
I am still unclear on the distinction between these 2 definitions:
val foo = (arg: Type) => {...}
def(arg:Type) = {...}
As I understand it:
1) the val version is bound once, at compile time
a single Function1 instance is created
can be passed as a method parameter
2) the def version is bound anew on each call
new method instance created per call.
If the above is true, then why would one ever choose the def version in cases where the operation(s) to perform are not dependent on runtime state?
For example, in a servlet environment you might want to get the ip address of the connecting client; in this case you need to use a def as, of course there is no connected client at compile time.
On the other hand you often know, at compile time, the operations to perform, and can go with immutable val foo = (i: Type) => {...}
As a rule of thumb then, should one only use defs when there is a runtime state dependency?
Thanks for clarifying
I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by runtime state dependency. Both vals and defs can close over their lexical scope and are hence unlimited in this way. So what are the differences between methods (defs) and functions (as vals) in Scala (which has been asked and answered before)?
You can parameterize a def
For example:
object List {
def empty[A]: List[A] = Nil //type parameter alllowed here
val Empty: List[Nothing] = Nil //cannot create a type parameter
}
I can then call:
List.empty[Int]
But I would have to use:
List.Empty: List[Int]
But of course there are other reasons as well. Such as:
A def is a method at the JVM level
If I were to use the piece of code:
trades filter isEuropean
I could choose a declaration of isEuropean as either:
val isEuropean = (_ : Trade).country.region = Europe
Or
def isEuropean(t: Trade) = t.country.region = Europe
The latter avoids creating an object (for the function instance) at the point of declaration but not at the point of use. Scala is creating a function instance for the method declaration at the point of use. It is clearer if I had used the _ syntax.
However, in the following piece of code:
val b = isEuropean(t)
...if isEuropean is declared a def, no such object is being created and hence the code may be more performant (if used in very tight loops where every last nanosecond is of critical value)
I read Scala Functions (part of Another tour of Scala). In that post he stated:
Methods and functions are not the same thing
But he didn't explain anything about it. What was he trying to say?
Jim has got this pretty much covered in his blog post, but I'm posting a briefing here for reference.
First, let's see what the Scala Specification tell us. Chapter 3 (types) tell us about Function Types (3.2.9) and Method Types (3.3.1). Chapter 4 (basic declarations) speaks of Value Declaration and Definitions (4.1), Variable Declaration and Definitions (4.2) and Functions Declarations and Definitions (4.6). Chapter 6 (expressions) speaks of Anonymous Functions (6.23) and Method Values (6.7). Curiously, function values is spoken of one time on 3.2.9, and no where else.
A Function Type is (roughly) a type of the form (T1, ..., Tn) => U, which is a shorthand for the trait FunctionN in the standard library. Anonymous Functions and Method Values have function types, and function types can be used as part of value, variable and function declarations and definitions. In fact, it can be part of a method type.
A Method Type is a non-value type. That means there is no value - no object, no instance - with a method type. As mentioned above, a Method Value actually has a Function Type. A method type is a def declaration - everything about a def except its body.
Value Declarations and Definitions and Variable Declarations and Definitions are val and var declarations, including both type and value - which can be, respectively, Function Type and Anonymous Functions or Method Values. Note that, on the JVM, these (method values) are implemented with what Java calls "methods".
A Function Declaration is a def declaration, including type and body. The type part is the Method Type, and the body is an expression or a block. This is also implemented on the JVM with what Java calls "methods".
Finally, an Anonymous Function is an instance of a Function Type (ie, an instance of the trait FunctionN), and a Method Value is the same thing! The distinction is that a Method Value is created from methods, either by postfixing an underscore (m _ is a method value corresponding to the "function declaration" (def) m), or by a process called eta-expansion, which is like an automatic cast from method to function.
That is what the specs say, so let me put this up-front: we do not use that terminology! It leads to too much confusion between so-called "function declaration", which is a part of the program (chapter 4 -- basic declarations) and "anonymous function", which is an expression, and "function type", which is, well a type -- a trait.
The terminology below, and used by experienced Scala programmers, makes one change from the terminology of the specification: instead of saying function declaration, we say method. Or even method declaration. Furthermore, we note that value declarations and variable declarations are also methods for practical purposes.
So, given the above change in terminology, here's a practical explanation of the distinction.
A function is an object that includes one of the FunctionX traits, such as Function0, Function1, Function2, etc. It might be including PartialFunction as well, which actually extends Function1.
Let's see the type signature for one of these traits:
trait Function2[-T1, -T2, +R] extends AnyRef
This trait has one abstract method (it has a few concrete methods as well):
def apply(v1: T1, v2: T2): R
And that tell us all that there is to know about it. A function has an apply method which receives N parameters of types T1, T2, ..., TN, and returns something of type R. It is contra-variant on the parameters it receives, and co-variant on the result.
That variance means that a Function1[Seq[T], String] is a subtype of Function1[List[T], AnyRef]. Being a subtype means it can be used in place of it. One can easily see that if I'm going to call f(List(1, 2, 3)) and expect an AnyRef back, either of the two types above would work.
Now, what is the similarity of a method and a function? Well, if f is a function and m is a method local to the scope, then both can be called like this:
val o1 = f(List(1, 2, 3))
val o2 = m(List(1, 2, 3))
These calls are actually different, because the first one is just a syntactic sugar. Scala expands it to:
val o1 = f.apply(List(1, 2, 3))
Which, of course, is a method call on object f. Functions also have other syntactic sugars to its advantage: function literals (two of them, actually) and (T1, T2) => R type signatures. For example:
val f = (l: List[Int]) => l mkString ""
val g: (AnyVal) => String = {
case i: Int => "Int"
case d: Double => "Double"
case o => "Other"
}
Another similarity between a method and a function is that the former can be easily converted into the latter:
val f = m _
Scala will expand that, assuming m type is (List[Int])AnyRef into (Scala 2.7):
val f = new AnyRef with Function1[List[Int], AnyRef] {
def apply(x$1: List[Int]) = this.m(x$1)
}
On Scala 2.8, it actually uses an AbstractFunction1 class to reduce class sizes.
Notice that one can't convert the other way around -- from a function to a method.
Methods, however, have one big advantage (well, two -- they can be slightly faster): they can receive type parameters. For instance, while f above can necessarily specify the type of List it receives (List[Int] in the example), m can parameterize it:
def m[T](l: List[T]): String = l mkString ""
I think this pretty much covers everything, but I'll be happy to complement this with answers to any questions that may remain.
One big practical difference between a method and a function is what return means. return only ever returns from a method. For example:
scala> val f = () => { return "test" }
<console>:4: error: return outside method definition
val f = () => { return "test" }
^
Returning from a function defined in a method does a non-local return:
scala> def f: String = {
| val g = () => { return "test" }
| g()
| "not this"
| }
f: String
scala> f
res4: String = test
Whereas returning from a local method only returns from that method.
scala> def f2: String = {
| def g(): String = { return "test" }
| g()
| "is this"
| }
f2: String
scala> f2
res5: String = is this
function A function can be invoked with a list of arguments to produce a
result. A function has a parameter list, a body, and a result type.
Functions that are members of a class, trait, or singleton object are
called methods. Functions defined inside other functions are called
local functions. Functions with the result type of Unit are called procedures.
Anonymous functions in source code are called function literals.
At run time, function literals are instantiated into objects called
function values.
Programming in Scala Second Edition.
Martin Odersky - Lex Spoon - Bill Venners
Let Say you have a List
scala> val x =List.range(10,20)
x: List[Int] = List(10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Define a Method
scala> def m1(i:Int)=i+2
m1: (i: Int)Int
Define a Function
scala> (i:Int)=>i+2
res0: Int => Int = <function1>
scala> x.map((x)=>x+2)
res2: List[Int] = List(12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
Method Accepting Argument
scala> m1(2)
res3: Int = 4
Defining Function with val
scala> val p =(i:Int)=>i+2
p: Int => Int = <function1>
Argument to function is Optional
scala> p(2)
res4: Int = 4
scala> p
res5: Int => Int = <function1>
Argument to Method is Mandatory
scala> m1
<console>:9: error: missing arguments for method m1;
follow this method with `_' if you want to treat it as a partially applied function
Check the following Tutorial that explains passing other differences with examples like other example of diff with Method Vs Function, Using function as Variables, creating function that returned function
Functions don't support parameter defaults. Methods do. Converting from a method to a function loses parameter defaults. (Scala 2.8.1)
There is a nice article here from which most of my descriptions are taken.
Just a short comparison of Functions and Methods regarding my understanding. Hope it helps:
Functions:
They are basically an object. More precisely, functions are objects with an apply method; Therefore, they are a little bit slower than methods because of their overhead. It is similar to static methods in the sense that they are independent of an object to be invoked.
A simple example of a function is just like bellow:
val f1 = (x: Int) => x + x
f1(2) // 4
The line above is nothing except assigning one object to another like object1 = object2. Actually the object2 in our example is an anonymous function and the left side gets the type of an object because of that. Therefore, now f1 is an object(Function). The anonymous function is actually an instance of Function1[Int, Int] that means a function with 1 parameter of type Int and return value of type Int.
Calling f1 without the arguments will give us the signature of the anonymous function (Int => Int = )
Methods:
They are not objects but assigned to an instance of a class,i.e., an object. Exactly the same as method in java or member functions in c++ (as Raffi Khatchadourian pointed out in a comment to this question) and etc.
A simple example of a method is just like bellow:
def m1(x: Int) = x + x
m1(2) // 4
The line above is not a simple value assignment but a definition of a method. When you invoke this method with the value 2 like the second line, the x is substituted with 2 and the result will be calculated and you get 4 as an output. Here you will get an error if just simply write m1 because it is method and need the input value. By using _ you can assign a method to a function like bellow:
val f2 = m1 _ // Int => Int = <function1>
Here is a great post by Rob Norris which explains the difference, here is a TL;DR
Methods in Scala are not values, but functions are. You can construct a function that delegates to a method via η-expansion (triggered by the trailing underscore thingy).
with the following definition:
a method is something defined with def and a value is something you can assign to a val
In a nutshell (extract from the blog):
When we define a method we see that we cannot assign it to a val.
scala> def add1(n: Int): Int = n + 1
add1: (n: Int)Int
scala> val f = add1
<console>:8: error: missing arguments for method add1;
follow this method with `_' if you want to treat it as a partially applied function
val f = add1
Note also the type of add1, which doesn’t look normal; you can’t declare a variable of type (n: Int)Int. Methods are not values.
However, by adding the η-expansion postfix operator (η is pronounced “eta”), we can turn the method into a function value. Note the type of f.
scala> val f = add1 _
f: Int => Int = <function1>
scala> f(3)
res0: Int = 4
The effect of _ is to perform the equivalent of the following: we construct a Function1 instance that delegates to our method.
scala> val g = new Function1[Int, Int] { def apply(n: Int): Int = add1(n) }
g: Int => Int = <function1>
scala> g(3)
res18: Int = 4
Practically, a Scala programmer only needs to know the following three rules to use functions and methods properly:
Methods defined by def and function literals defined by => are functions. It is defined in page 143, Chapter 8 in the book of Programming in Scala, 4th edition.
Function values are objects that can be passed around as any values. Function literals and partially applied functions are function values.
You can leave off the underscore of a partially applied function if a function value is required at a point in the code. For example: someNumber.foreach(println)
After four editions of Programming in Scala, it is still an issue for people to differentiate the two important concepts: function and function value because all editions don't give a clear explanation. The language specification is too complicated. I found the above rules are simple and accurate.
In Scala 2.13, unlike functions, methods can take/return
type parameters (polymorphic methods)
implicit parameters
dependent types
However, these restrictions are lifted in dotty (Scala 3) by Polymorphic function types #4672, for example, dotty version 0.23.0-RC1 enables the following syntax
Type parameters
def fmet[T](x: List[T]) = x.map(e => (e, e))
val ffun = [T] => (x: List[T]) => x.map(e => (e, e))
Implicit parameters (context parameters)
def gmet[T](implicit num: Numeric[T]): T = num.zero
val gfun: [T] => Numeric[T] ?=> T = [T] => (using num: Numeric[T]) => num.zero
Dependent types
class A { class B }
def hmet(a: A): a.B = new a.B
val hfun: (a: A) => a.B = hmet
For more examples, see tests/run/polymorphic-functions.scala
The difference is subtle but substantial and it is related to the type system in use (besides the nomenclature coming from Object Oriented or Functional paradigm).
When we talk about a function, we talk about the type Function: it being a type, an instance of it can be passed around as input or output to other functions (at least in the case of Scala).
When we talk about a method (of a class), we are actually talking about the type represented by the class it is part of: that is, the method is just a component of a larger type, and cannot be passed around by itself. It must be passed around with the instance of the type it is part of (i.e. the instance of the class).
A method belongs to an object (usually the class, trait or object in which you define it), whereas a function is by itself a value, and because in Scala every value is an object, therefore, a function is an object.
For example, given a method and a function below:
def timesTwoMethod(x :Int): Int = x * 2
def timesTwoFunction = (x: Int) => x * 2
The second def is an object of type Int => Int (the syntactic sugar for Function1[Int, Int]).
Scala made functions objects so they could be used as first-class entities. This way you can pass functions to other functions as arguments.
However, Scala can also treat methods as functions via a mechanism called Eta Expansion.
For example, the higher-order function map defined on List, receives another function f: A => B as its only parameter. The next two lines are equivalent:
List(1, 2, 3).map(timesTwoMethod)
List(1, 2, 3).map(timesTwoFunction)
When the compiler sees a def given in a place where a function is needed, it automatically converts the method into an equivalent function.
A method operates on an object but a function doesn't.
Scala and C++ has Fuction but in JAVA, you have to imitate them with static methods.