Given a case class and companion object like below:
case class Example(a: String)
object Example {
implicit def concat(b: String): Example =
Example(this.a + b)
}
How to make the implicit method compile? In other words, is it possible to refer to the current instance that the implicit method has been called upon?
I think what you want is the following:
object Foo {
implicit class RichExample(val e: Example) {
def concat(b: String): Example = Example(e.a + b)
}
}
or using an anonymous implicit class
object Foo {
implicit def richExample(e: Example) = new {
def concat(b: String): Example = Example(e.a + b)
}
}
Usage
You can then use it like this
import Foo._
Example("foo").concat("bar")
Import and companion object
If the object is called Example, then it becomes the companion object for class Example, and you do not have to import Foo._ to use the extension method.
Related
I have a CoordVector class that accepts Vector[ComplexNumber], where ComplexNumber is a class I defined elsewhere, and I also have it overridden to accept Vector[Double]. But I want the override to instead accept any numeric type in Scala.
Here is my current code
case class RealVector(vector: Vector[Double])
case class ComplexVector(vector: Vector[ComplexNumber])
import scala.language.implicitConversions
implicit def dv(vector: Vector[Double]) = RealVector(vector)
implicit def cv(vector: Vector[ComplexNumber]) = ComplexVector(vector)
object CoordVector {
def apply(components:RealVector):CoordVector = {
new CoordVector(components.vector.map(c => ComplexNumber(c, 0)))
}
}
case class CoordVector(val components:ComplexVector) {
...
}
Unfortunately I can't just replace Double with Numeric, but is there a simple way to do this without having to create a new implicit def and apply for each numeric type?
See if this gets at what you're after.
class ComplexNumber(a:Double, b:Double) // put here just to make the rest compile
case class RealVector[N:Numeric](vector: Vector[N])
case class ComplexVector(vector: Vector[ComplexNumber])
import scala.language.implicitConversions
implicit def dv[N:Numeric](vector: Vector[N]) = RealVector(vector)
implicit def cv(vector: Vector[ComplexNumber]) = ComplexVector(vector)
object CoordVector {
def apply[N:Numeric](components:RealVector[N]):CoordVector = {
new CoordVector(components.vector.map(c =>
new ComplexNumber(implicitly[Numeric[N]].toDouble(c), 0)))
}
}
case class CoordVector(components:ComplexVector) {
???
}
This allows all the underlying number data to be Double but you can create RealVector instances with a constructor parameter of type Vector[Int], or Vector[Long], or Vector[Float], etc.
I have a package foo which contains class FStream. The package object of foo defines a few implicit value classes that provide extender methods for FStream. I would like to move these value classes out of the package object and into their own individual files, but I also want them to always be available when I use FStream (or preferably, when I use anything from foo package. Is it possible to accomplish this? I tried putting implicit value classes into other objects, but I can't extend from objects. Tried putting them in classes or traits, but implicit value classes can only be defined in other objects.
foo/FStream.scala
package foo
class FStream {
def makeFoo(): Unit = ???
}
foo/package.scala
package foo
package object foo {
// I want to move these definitions into separate files:
implicit class SuperFoo(val stream: FStream) extends AnyVal {
def makeSuperFoo(): Unit = ???
}
implicit class HyperFoo(val stream: FStream) extends AnyVal {
def makeHyperFoo(): Unit = ???
}
}
bar/usage.scala
package bar
import foo._ // something nice and short that doesn't reference individual value classes
val x: FStream = ???
x.makeSuperFoo() // should work
x.makeHyperFoo() // should work
I recommend you to read the mandatory tutorial first.
My solution is to use FStream's companion object. So you can just import FStream and get all the functionality. This also uses trait to separate files.
foo/FStream.scala
package foo
class FStream {
def makeFoo(): Unit = ???
}
// companion provides implicit
object FStream extends FStreamOp
foo/FStreamOp.scala
package foo
// value class may not be a member of another class
class SuperFoo(val stream: FStream) extends AnyVal {
def makeSuperFoo(): Unit = ???
}
class HyperFoo(val stream: FStream) extends AnyVal {
def makeHyperFoo(): Unit = ???
}
trait FStreamOp {
// you need to provide separate implicit conversion
implicit def makeSuper(stream: FStream) = new SuperFoo(stream)
implicit def makeHyper(stream: FStream) = new HyperFoo(stream)
}
usage.scala
import foo.FStream
object Main {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val x: FStream = ???
x.makeSuperFoo() // should work
x.makeHyperFoo() // should work
}
}
Just when I thought I understood the basics of Scala's type system... :/
I'm trying to implement a class that reads the contents of a file and outputs a set of records. A record might be a single line, but it could also be a block of bytes, or anything. So what I'm after is a structure that allows the type of Reader to imply the type of the Record, which in turn will imply the correct Parser to use.
This structure works as long as MainApp.records(f) only returns one type of Reader. As soon as it can return more, I get this error:
could not find implicit value for parameter parser
I think the problem lies with the typed trait definitions at the top, but I cannot figure out how to fix the issue...
// Core traits
trait Record[T]
trait Reader[T] extends Iterable[Record[T]]
trait Parser[T] {
def parse(r: Record[T]): Option[Int]
}
// Concrete implementations
class LineRecord[T] extends Record[T]
class FileReader[T](f:File) extends Reader[T] {
val lines = Source.fromFile(f).getLines()
def iterator: Iterator[LineRecord[T]] =
new Iterator[LineRecord[T]] {
def next() = new LineRecord[T]
def hasNext = lines.hasNext
}
}
trait TypeA
object TypeA {
implicit object TypeAParser extends Parser[TypeA] {
def parse(r: Record[TypeA]): Option[Int] = ???
}
}
trait TypeB
object TypeB {
implicit object TypeBParser extends Parser[TypeB] {
def parse(r: Record[TypeB]): Option[Int] = ???
}
}
// The "app"
object MainApp {
def process(f: File) =
records(f) foreach { r => parse(r) }
def records(f: File) = {
if(true)
new FileReader[TypeA](f)
else
new FileReader[TypeB](f)
}
def parse[T](r: Record[T])(implicit parser: Parser[T]): Option[Int] =
parser.parse(r)
}
First off you must import the implicit object in order to use them:
import TypeA._
import TypeB._
That's not enough though. It seems like you're trying to apply implicits dynamically. That's not possible; they have to be found compile time.
If you import the objects as above and change the records so that the compiler finds the correct generic it will run fine:
def records(f: File) = new FileReader[TypeA](f)
But then it may not be what you were looking for ;)
The problem is that the return type of your records method is basically FileReader[_] (since it can return either FileReader[TypeA] or FileReader[TypeB]), and you don't provide an implicit argument of type Parser[Any]. If you remove the if-expression the return type is inferred to FileReader[TypeA], which works fine. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but obviously the compiler can't select implicit argument based upon a type that is only known at runtime.
1) Using type with implicit inside as type parameter - doesn't bind this implicit to the host type, to do this change objects to the traits and mix them instead of generalizing (type-parametrizing):
def records(f: File) = {
if(true)
new FileReader(f) with TypeA
else
new FileReader(f) with TypeB
}
2) The parser should be in scope of function that calls parse. So you may try smthg like that:
def process(f: File) = {
val reader = records(f);
import reader._
reader foreach { r => parse(r) }
}
PlanB) Simpler alternative is to define type-parameter specific implicit methods inside the AppMain (or some trait mixed in), but it will work only if TypeA/TypeB is known on compile time, so records method can return concrete type:
implicit class TypeAParser(r: Record[TypeA]) {
def parse: Option[Int] = ???
}
implicit class TypeBParser(r: Record[TypeB]) {
def parse: Option[Int] = ???
}
def process[T <: TypeAorB](f: File) =
records[T](f).foreach(_.parse)
def recordsA[T <: TypeAorB](f: File) = new FileReader[T](f)
Here is, I think, the full set of modifications you need to do to get where I think you want to go.
import scala.io.Source
import java.io.File
import reflect.runtime.universe._
// Core traits
trait Record[+T]
trait Reader[+T] extends Iterable[Record[T]]
trait Parser[-T] {
def parse(r: Record[T]): Option[Int]
}
// Concrete implementations [unmodified]
class LineRecord[T] extends Record[T]
class FileReader[T](f:File) extends Reader[T] {
val lines = Source.fromFile(f).getLines()
def iterator: Iterator[LineRecord[T]] =
new Iterator[LineRecord[T]] {
def next() = new LineRecord[T]
def hasNext = lines.hasNext
}
}
sealed trait Alternatives
case class TypeA() extends Alternatives
object TypeA {
implicit object TypeAParser extends Parser[TypeA] {
def parse(r: Record[TypeA]): Option[Int] = ???
}
}
case class TypeB() extends Alternatives
object TypeB {
implicit object TypeBParser extends Parser[TypeB] {
def parse(r: Record[TypeB]): Option[Int] = ???
}
}
class ParseAlternator(parserA: Parser[TypeA], parserB: Parser[TypeB]) extends Parser[Alternatives] {
def parse(r: Record[Alternatives]): Option[Int] = r match {
case x: Record[TypeA #unchecked] if typeOf[Alternatives] =:= typeOf[TypeA] => parserA.parse(x)
case x: Record[TypeB #unchecked] if typeOf[Alternatives] =:= typeOf[TypeB] => parserB.parse(x)
}
}
object ParseAlternator {
implicit def parseAlternator(implicit parserA: Parser[TypeA], parserB: Parser[TypeB]): Parser[Alternatives] = new ParseAlternator(parserA, parserB)
}
// The "app"
object MainApp {
import ParseAlternator._
def process(f: File) =
records(f) foreach { r => parse(r) }
def records(f: File): Reader[Alternatives] = {
if(true)
new FileReader[TypeA](f)
else
new FileReader[TypeB](f)
}
def parse[T](r: Record[T])(implicit parser: Parser[T]): Option[Int] =
parser.parse(r)
}
The gist of it is: all of this would be completely classsical if only your parse instance did not have to pattern-match on a generic type but dealt directly with an Alternative instead.
It's this limitation (inherited from the JVM) that scala can't properly pattern-match on an object of a parametric type that requires the reflection & typeOf usage. Without it, you would just have type alternatives for your content (TypeA, TypeB), which you would add to a sealed trait, and which you would dispatch on, in an implicit that produces a Parser for their supertype.
Of course this isn't the only solution, it's just what I think is the meeting point of what's closest to what you're trying to do, with what's most idiomatic.
Using scala 2.10.3, my goal is to make the following work:
object A {
implicit class Imp(i: Int) {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
object B {
implicit class Imp(i: String) {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
import A._
import B._
object MyApp extends App {
3.myPrint()
}
This fails with
value myPrint is not a member of Int
If I give A.Imp and B.Imp different names (for example A.Imp1 and B.Imp2), it works.
Diving a bit deeper into it, there seems to be the same problem with implicit conversions.
This works:
object A {
implicit def Imp(i: Int) = new {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
implicit def Imp(i: String) = new {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
import A._
object MyApp extends App {
3.myPrint()
}
Whereas this doesn't:
object A {
implicit def Imp(i: Int) = new {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
object B {
implicit def Imp(i: String) = new {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
import A._
import B._
object MyApp extends App {
3.myPrint()
}
Why? Is this a bug in the scala compiler? I need this scenario, since my objects A and B derive from the same trait (with a type parameter) which then defines the implicit conversion for its type parameter. In this trait, I can only give one name for the implicit conversion. I want to be able to import more of these objects into my scope. Is there a way to do that?
edit: I can't give the implicit classes different names, since the examples above are only breaking down the problem. My actual code looks more like
trait P[T] {
implicit class Imp(i: T) {
def myPrint() {
...
}
}
}
object A extends P[Int]
object B extends P[String]
import A._
import B._
The implicits just have to be available as a simple name, so you can rename on import.
Just to verify:
scala> import A._ ; import B.{ Imp => BImp, _ }
import A._
import B.{Imp=>BImp, _}
scala> 3.myPrint
3
Actually, it works if you replace
import A._
import B._
with
import B._
import A._
What happens, I think, is that A.Imp is shadowed by B.Imp because it has the same name. Apparently shadowing applies on the function's name and do not take the signature into account.
So if you import A then B, then only B.Imp(i: String) will be available, and if you import B then A, then only A.Imp(i: Int) will be available.
If you need to use both A.Imp and B.Imp, you must rename one of them.
In case anyone else runs into this issue, there is a partial workaround, which I found here:
https://github.com/lihaoyi/scalatags/blob/3dea48c42c5581329e363d8c3f587c2c50d92f85/scalatags/shared/src/main/scala/scalatags/generic/Bundle.scala#L120
That code was written by Li Haoyi, so you can be pretty confident that no better solution exists...
Essentially, one can still use traits to define methods in terms of each other, but it will require boilerplate to copy those implicits into unique names. This example might be easier to follow:
trait Chainable
object Chainable {
implicit val _chainableFromInt = IntChainable.chainable _
implicit val _chainableFromIntTrav = IntChainable.traversable _
implicit val _chainableFromIntOpt = IntChainable.optional _
implicit val _chainableFromIntTry = IntChainable.tried _
implicit val _chainableFromDom = DomChainable.chainable _
implicit val _chainableFromDomTrav = DomChainable.traversable _
implicit val _chainableFromDomOpt = DomChainable.optional _
implicit val _chainableFromDomTry = DomChainable.tried _
private object IntChainable extends ImplChainables[Int] {
def chainable(n:Int) = Constant(n)
}
private object DomChainable extends ImplChainables[dom.Element]{
def chainable(e:Element) = Insertion(e)
}
private trait ImplChainables[T] {
def chainable(t:T):Chainable
def traversable(trav:TraversableOnce[T]):Chainable =
SeqChainable(trav.map(chainable).toList)
def optional(opt:Option[T]):Chainable =
opt match {
case Some(t) => chainable(t)
case None => NoneChainable
}
def tried(tried:Try[T]):Chainable =
optional(tried.toOption)
}
}
In other words, never write:
trait P[T] {
implicit def foo(i: T) = ...
}
object A extends P[X]
Because defining implicits in type parameterized traits will lead to these naming conflicts. Although, incidentally, the trait in mentioned in the link above is parameterized over many types, but idea there is that none of the implementations of that trait are ever needed in the same scope. (JSDom vs Text, and all._ vs short._ for those familiar with Scalatags)
I also recommend reading: http://www.lihaoyi.com/post/ImplicitDesignPatternsinScala.html
It does not address this issue specifically but is an excellent summary of how to use implicits.
However, putting all these pieces together, this still seems to be an issue:
trait ImplChainables[AnotherTypeClass]{
type F[A] = A=>AnotherTypeClass
implicit def transitiveImplicit[A:F](t: A):Chainable
implicit def traversable[A:F](trav: TraversableOnce[A]):Chainable = ...
}
What this trait would allow is:
object anotherImpl extends ImplChainables[AnotherTypeClass] {...}
import anotherImpl._
implicit val string2another: String=>AnotherTypeClass = ...
Seq("x"):Chainable
Because of the type parameter and the context binding (implicit parameter) those cannot be eta-expanded (i.e: Foo.bar _ ) into function values. The implicit parameter part has been fixed in Dotty: http://dotty.epfl.ch/blog/2016/12/05/implicit-function-types.html
I do not know if a complete solution would be possible, needless to say this is a complex problem. So it would be nice if same name implicits just worked and the whole issue could be avoided. And in any case, adding an unimport keyword would make so much more sense than turning off implicits by shadowing them.
Given a trait MyTrait:
trait MyTrait {
def doSomething = println("boo")
}
it can be mixed into a class with extends or with:
class MyClass extends MyTrait
It can also be mixed upon instantiating a new instance:
var o = new MyOtherClass with MyTrait
o.doSomething
But...can the trait (or any other if that makes a difference) be added to an existing instance?
I'm loading objects using JPA in Java and I'd like to add some functionality to them using traits. Is it possible at all?
I'd like to be able to mix in a trait as follows:
var o = DBHelper.loadMyEntityFromDB(primaryKey);
o = o with MyTrait //adding trait here, rather than during construction
o.doSomething
I have a idea for this usage:
//if I had a class like this
final class Test {
def f = println("foo")
}
trait MyTrait {
def doSomething = {
println("boo")
}
}
object MyTrait {
implicit def innerObj(o:MixTest) = o.obj
def ::(o:Test) = new MixTest(o)
final class MixTest private[MyTrait](val obj:Test) extends MyTrait
}
you can use this trait as below:
import MyTrait._
val a = new Test
val b = a :: MyTrait
b.doSomething
b.f
for your example code:
val o = DBHelper.loadMyEntityFromDB(primaryKey) :: MyTrait
o.doSomething
I hope this can help you.
UPDATED
object AnyTrait {
implicit def innerObj[T](o: MixTest[T]):T = o.obj
def ::[T](o: T) = new MixTest(o)
final class MixTest[T] private[AnyTrait](val obj: T) extends MyTrait
}
but this pattern has some restrict, you can't use some implicit helper method that defined already.
val a = new Test
a.f
val b = a :: AnyTrait
b.f1
b.f
val c = "say hello to %s" :: AnyTrait
println(c.intern) // you can invoke String's method
println(c.format("MyTrait")) //WRONG. you can't invoke StringLike's method, though there defined a implicit method in Predef can transform String to StringLike, but implicit restrict one level transform, you can't transform MixTest to String then to StringLike.
c.f1
val d = 1 :: AnyTrait
println(d.toLong)
d.toHexString // WRONG, the same as above
d.f1
An existing runtime object in the JVM has a certain size on the heap. Adding a trait to it would mean altering its size on the heap, and changing its signature.
So the only way to go would be to do some kind of transformation at compile time.
Mixin composition in Scala occurs at compile time. What compiler could potentially do is create a wrapper B around an existing object A with the same type that simply forwards all calls to the existing object A, and then mix in a trait T to B. This, however, is not implemented. It is questionable when this would be possible, since the object A could be an instance of a final class, which cannot be extended.
In summary, mixin composition is not possible on existing object instances.
UPDATED:
Related to the smart solution proposed by Googol Shan, and generalizing it to work with any trait, this is as far as I got. The idea is to extract the common mixin functionality in the DynamicMixinCompanion trait. The client should then create a companion object extending DynamicMixinCompanion for each trait he wants to have the dynamic mixin functionality for. This companion object requires defining the anonymous trait object gets created (::).
trait DynamicMixinCompanion[TT] {
implicit def baseObject[OT](o: Mixin[OT]): OT = o.obj
def ::[OT](o: OT): Mixin[OT] with TT
class Mixin[OT] protected[DynamicMixinCompanion](val obj: OT)
}
trait OtherTrait {
def traitOperation = println("any trait")
}
object OtherTrait extends DynamicMixinCompanion[OtherTrait] {
def ::[T](o: T) = new Mixin(o) with OtherTrait
}
object Main {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val a = "some string"
val m = a :: OtherTrait
m.traitOperation
println(m.length)
}
}
I usually used a implicit to mix in a new method to an existing object.
See, if I have some code as below:
final class Test {
def f = "Just a Test"
...some other method
}
trait MyTrait {
def doSomething = {
println("boo")
}
}
object HelperObject {
implicit def innerObj(o:MixTest) = o.obj
def mixWith(o:Test) = new MixTest(o)
final class MixTest private[HelperObject](obj:Test) extends MyTrait
}
and then you can use MyTrait method with an already existing object Test.
val a = new Test
import HelperObject._
val b = HelperObject.mixWith(a)
println(b.f)
b.doSomething
in your example, you can use like this:
import HelperObject._
val o = mixWith(DBHelper.loadMyEntityFromDB(primaryKey));
o.doSomething
I am thinking out a prefect syntax to define this HelperObject:
trait MyTrait {
..some method
}
object MyTrait {
implicit def innerObj(o:MixTest) = o.obj
def ::(o:Test) = new MixTest(o)
final class MixTest private[MyTrait](obj:Test) extends MyTrait
}
//then you can use it
val a = new Test
val b = a :: MyTrait
b.doSomething
b.f
// for your example
val o = DBHelper.loadMyEntityFromDB(primaryKey) :: MyTrait
o.doSomething
What about an implicit class? It seems easier to me compared to the way in the other answers with a final inner class and a "mixin"-function.
trait MyTrait {
def traitFunction = println("trait function executed")
}
class MyClass {
/**
* This inner class must be in scope wherever an instance of MyClass
* should be used as an instance of MyTrait. Depending on where you place
* and use the implicit class you must import it into scope with
* "import mypackacke.MyImplictClassLocation" or
* "import mypackage.MyImplicitClassLocation._" or no import at all if
* the implicit class is already in scope.
*
* Depending on the visibility and location of use this implicit class an
* be placed inside the trait to mixin, inside the instances class,
* inside the instances class' companion object or somewhere where you
* use or call the class' instance with as the trait. Probably the
* implicit class can even reside inside a package object. It also can be
* declared private to reduce visibility. It all depends on the structure
* of your API.
*/
implicit class MyImplicitClass(instance: MyClass) extends MyTrait
/**
* Usage
*/
new MyClass().traitFunction
}
Why not use Scala's extend my library pattern?
https://alvinalexander.com/scala/scala-2.10-implicit-class-example
I'm not sure what the return value is of:
var o = DBHelper.loadMyEntityFromDB(primaryKey);
but let us say, it is DBEntity for our example. You can take the class DBEntity and convert it to a class that extends your trait, MyTrait.
Something like:
trait MyTrait {
def doSomething = {
println("boo")
}
}
class MyClass() extends MyTrait
// Have an implicit conversion to MyClass
implicit def dbEntityToMyClass(in: DBEntity): MyClass =
new MyClass()
I believe you could also simplify this by just using an implicit class.
implicit class ConvertDBEntity(in: DBEntity) extends MyTrait
I particularly dislike the accepted answer here, b/c it overloads the :: operator to mix-in a trait.
In Scala, the :: operator is used for sequences, i.e.:
val x = 1 :: 2 :: 3 :: Nil
Using it as a means of inheritance feels, IMHO, a little awkward.