I am writing a little toy language built on top of expressions. Here is some code to get the idea:
trait Expression[+T] {
def eval: T
}
case class Literal[+T](value: T) extends Expression[T] {
def eval = value
}
The parser builds a tree of expressions which are then evaluated by calling the eval method. Now I want to add a Sum expression that represents the sum of two other expressions:
case class Sum[+T: Numeric](left: Expression[T], right: Expression[T]) {
def eval = implicitly[Numeric[T]].plus(left.eval, right.eval)
}
This works fine if the left and right expression have the same type (as specified by the constructor). But naturally I would like it to work in the following case as well:
Sum(Literal(1.1), Literal(1))
This does not work because the compiler does not find an implicit argument of type Numeric[AnyVal], which makes sense.
I came up with the following code, using type bounds, to try to fix the issue:
case class Sum2[+T: Numeric, L <% T, R <% T](left: Expression[L], right: Expression[R]) extends Expression[T] {
def eval = implicitly[Numeric[T]].plus(left.eval, right.eval)
}
Now the compiler complains that left.eval and right.eval are not of type T. Casting to T using asInstanceOf[T] generates more compiler errors because of ambiguous implicit arguments.
What is the proper way to achieve this?
As it was pointed in the comments, the fact that there is safe conversion from Int to Double for your operation is not enough for the compiler to be able prove that this conversion is valid in all relevant contexts. I'm not aware of any simpler way to achieve what you want than this code (see also online):
trait Expression[+T] {
def eval: T
}
trait TypeConverter[S, T] {
def convert(value: S): T
}
trait TypeConverterLowPriority {
implicit def compose[A, B, C](implicit aToB: TypeConverter[A, B], bToC: TypeConverter[B, C]): TypeConverter[A, C] = new TypeConverter.TypeConverterImpl(a => bToC.convert(aToB.convert(a)))
}
object TypeConverter extends TypeConverterLowPriority {
class TypeConverterImpl[S, T](f: S => T) extends TypeConverter[S, T] {
override def convert(value: S): T = f(value)
}
def sameType[T]: TypeConverter[T, T] = new TypeConverterImpl(identity)
implicit val intToDouble: TypeConverter[Int, Double] = new TypeConverterImpl(_.toDouble)
implicit val shortToInt: TypeConverter[Short, Int] = new TypeConverterImpl(_.toInt)
// add more "primitive" type conversions here
}
case class Literal[+T](value: T) extends Expression[T] {
def eval = value
}
trait BinaryOpImpl[A, B, R] {
protected val numericR: Numeric[R]
protected val aToR: TypeConverter[A, R]
protected val bToR: TypeConverter[B, R]
final def eval(left: A, right: B): R = evalImpl(aToR.convert(left), bToR.convert(right))
protected def evalImpl(left: R, right: R): R
}
trait BinaryOpImplCompanionLowPriority[Ops[_, _, _]] {
protected def build[A, B, R](numericR: Numeric[R], aToR: TypeConverter[A, R], bToR: TypeConverter[B, R]): Ops[A, B, R]
implicit def castLeftToRight[L, R: Numeric](implicit tcl: TypeConverter[L, R]): Ops[L, R, R] = build(implicitly[Numeric[R]], tcl, TypeConverter.sameType)
implicit def castRightToLeft[L: Numeric, R](implicit tcr: TypeConverter[R, L]): Ops[L, R, L] = build(implicitly[Numeric[L]], TypeConverter.sameType, tcr)
}
trait BinaryOpImplCompanion[Ops[_, _, _]] extends BinaryOpImplCompanionLowPriority[Ops] {
implicit def sameType[T: Numeric]: Ops[T, T, T] = build(implicitly[Numeric[T]], TypeConverter.sameType, TypeConverter.sameType)
}
class SumImpl[A, B, R](val numericR: Numeric[R], val aToR: TypeConverter[A, R], val bToR: TypeConverter[B, R]) extends BinaryOpImpl[A, B, R] {
override protected def evalImpl(left: R, right: R): R = numericR.plus(left, right)
}
object SumImpl extends BinaryOpImplCompanion[SumImpl] {
override protected def build[A, B, R](numericR: Numeric[R], aToR: TypeConverter[A, R], bToR: TypeConverter[B, R]): SumImpl[A, B, R] = new SumImpl(numericR, aToR, bToR)
}
case class Sum[+T, L, R](left: Expression[L], right: Expression[R])(implicit impl: SumImpl[L, R, T]) extends Expression[T] {
def eval = impl.eval(left.eval, right.eval)
}
usage example:
def test(): Unit = {
println(Sum(Literal(3), Literal(1)).eval)
println(Sum(Literal(1.1), Literal(1)).eval)
println(Sum(Literal(1), Literal(1.1)).eval)
println(Sum(Literal[Short](1), Literal(1.12)).eval) // composite conversion Short -> Int -> Double
}
Essentially the idea is to have one implicit variable that encapsulates all 3 relevant types instead of having 3 separate implicits. So the code complies if the compiler can build one composite evidence for a triplet LeftArgType-RightArgType-ResultType.
the problem specifically is that Sum(Literal(1.1), Literal(1)) has a Literal[Double] on the left and a Literal[Int] on the right. The LUB of Int and Double is indeed AnyVal as you have seen.
https://scalafiddle.io/sf/ALM9urR/1
works perfectly fine. I also think this is good behavior because adding different types can be a bit iffy but else you could introduce an implicit that lets you do the necessary conversions.
Related
I'm trying to deal with an ambiguous implicits problem, and (relatedly) figure out what best practise should be for parameterizing typeclasses. I have a situation where I am using a typeclass to implement a polymorphic method. I initially tried the approach below:
abstract class IsValidTypeForContainer[A]
object IsValidTypeForContainer {
implicit val IntIsValid = new IsValidTypeForContainer[Int] {}
implicit val DoubleIsValid = new IsValidTypeForContainer[Double] {}
}
abstract class IsContainer[A, B: IsValidTypeForContainer] {
def getElement(self: A, i: Int): B
def get[R](self: A, ref: R)(implicit gets: GetsFromContainerMax[A, R, B]): gets.Out = gets.get(self, ref)
def fromList(self: A, other: List[B]): A = ???
}
implicit class IsContainerOps[A, B: IsValidTypeForContainer](self: A)(implicit
isCont: IsContainer[A, B],
) {
def getElement(i: Int) = isCont.getElement(self, i)
def get[R](ref: R)(implicit gets: GetsFromContainerMax[A, R, B]): gets.Out = isCont.get(self, ref)
def fromList(other: List[B]): A = isCont.fromList(self, other)
}
abstract class GetsFromContainerMax[A, R, B: IsValidTypeForContainer] {
type Out
def get(self: A, ref: R): Out
}
object GetsFromContainerMax {
type Aux[A, R, B, O] = GetsFromContainerMax[A, R, B] { type Out = O }
def instance[A, R, B: IsValidTypeForContainer, O](func: (A, R) => O): Aux[A, R, B, O] = new GetsFromContainerMax[A, R, B] {
type Out = O
def get(self: A, ref: R): Out = func(self, ref)
}
implicit def getsForListInt[A, B: IsValidTypeForContainer](implicit
isCons: IsContainer[A, B],
): Aux[A, List[Int], B, A] = instance(
(self: A, ref: List[Int]) => {
val lst = ref.map(isCons.getElement(self, _)).toList
isCons.fromList(self, lst)
}
)
}
Where I have given the GetsContainerMax typeclass three parameters - one for the IsContainer object, one for the reference and one for the data type of the IsContainer object.
When I then try to use this, I get a compile error:
case class List1[B: IsValidTypeForContainer] (
data: List[B]
)
implicit def list1IsContainer[B: IsValidTypeForContainer] = new IsContainer[List1[B], B] {
def getElement(self: List1[B], i: Int): B = self.data(i)
def fromList(self: List1[B], other: List[B]): List1[B] = ???
}
val l1 = List1[Int](List(1,2,3))
implicitly[IsContainer[List1[Int], Int]].get(l1, List(1,2)) // Works
implicitly[List1[Int] => IsContainerOps[List1[Int], Int]] // Works
l1.get(List(1,2)) // Does not work
If I use the -Xlog-implicits build parameter, it tells me that
ambiguous implicit values: both value IntIsValid in object IsValidTypeForContainer of type example.Test.IsValidTypeForContainer[Int] and value DoubleIsValid in object IsValidTypeForContainer of type example.Test.IsValidTypeForContainer[Double] match expected type example.Test.IsValidTypeForContainer[B]
Which seems to make sense; presumably I am bringing both of these implicits into scope by parameterizing the typeclass with the generic B.
My next thought was therefore to try to reduce the number of generic parameters for IsValidTypeForContainer to the minimum, in order to have only one typeclass in scope per type of R, likeso:
abstract class GetsFromContainerMin[R] {
type Out
def get[A](self: A, ref: R)(implicit isCont: IsContainer[A, _]): Out
}
object GetsFromContainerMin {
type Aux[R, O] = GetsFromContainerMin[R] { type Out = O }
def instance[A, R, O](func: (A, R) => O): Aux[R, O] = new GetsFromContainerMin[R] {
type Out = O
def get(self: A, ref: R)(implicit isCont: IsContainer[A, _]): Out = func(self, ref)
}
implicit def getsForListInt[A](implicit isCons: IsContainer[A, _]): Aux[List[Int], A] = instance(
(self: A, ref: List[Int]) => {
val lst = ref.map(isCons.getElement(self, _)).toList
isCons.fromList(self, lst) // type mismatch - found: List[Any], required: List[_$3]
}
)
}
But this seems to not only not solve the problem, but to generate an additional error in that the compiler can no longer type-check that type B implements IsValidTypeForContainer.
Any help gratefully received.
So I've messed around with this a bit and seem to have found the solution. The typeclass-with-three-parameters approach works, if I use
implicit class IsContainerOps[A, B](self: A)(implicit
isCont: IsContainer[A, B],
)
instead of
implicit class IsContainerOps[A, B: IsValidTypeForContainer](self: A)(implicit
isCont: IsContainer[A, B],
)
I am not exactly sure why this is and if anyone would care to respond I'd be interested to know. Are multiple typeclasses created if you use a context bound like in the original example, one for each implementation of IsValidTypeForContainer?
Regarding GetsFromContainerMin, only type classes without polymorphic methods can have constructor method instance (in companion object) because of the lack of polymorphic functions in Scala 2. In Scala 3 you'll be able to write
def instance[R, O](func: [A] => (A, R) => O): Aux[R, O] = ...
So far you have to write
object GetsFromContainerMin {
type Aux[R, O] = GetsFromContainerMin[R] { type Out = O }
implicit def getsForListInt[A](implicit isCons: IsContainer[A, _]): Aux[List[Int], A] = new GetsFromContainerMin[List[Int]] {
override type Out = A
override def get[A1](self: A1, ref: List[Int])(implicit isCont: IsContainer[A1, _]): Out = {
val lst = ref.map(isCons.getElement(self, _)).toList
// ^^^^
isCons.fromList(self, lst)
// ^^^^
}
}
}
I guess compile errors are pretty clear
type mismatch;
found : self.type (with underlying type A1)
required: A
Regarding your first question,
implicit class IsContainerOps[A, B: IsValidTypeForContainer](self: A)(implicit
isCont: IsContainer[A, B]
)
is desugared to
implicit class IsContainerOps[A, B](self: A)(implicit
ev: IsValidTypeForContainer[B],
isCont: IsContainer[A, B]
)
but order of implicits is significant. If you modify IsContainerOps to
implicit class IsContainerOps[A, B](self: A)(implicit
isCont: IsContainer[A, B],
ev: IsValidTypeForContainer[B],
)
then l1.get(List(1,2)) will compile.
Implicits are resolved from left to right. You want firstly A to be inferred (from self), then IsContainer[A, B] to be resolved, so B to be inferred and IsValidTypeForContainer[B] to be resolved and not vice versa firstly A to be inferred, then IsValidTypeForContainer[B] to be resolved, and at this step B is not restricted, there is no connection between A and B, so possibly B can be not inferred or inferred to be Nothing, so IsContainer[A, B] is not resolved. I'm a little simplifying (not every time when you swap implicits you break resolution) but general strategy of implicit resolution and type inference is as I described.
[ I was unable to explain the problem with less verbosity. The core of the issue is that the compiler infers an underscore (_) type. In particular, [_ >: SomeType <: SomeOtherType]. I am clueless about when, how and why that is possible ]
As a scala exercise, I am trying to encode a vector of elements with a given size.
As a necessary step, I started by copying an existing encoding of natural numbers:
sealed trait Natural extends Product with Serializable {
def +(that: Natural): Natural
}
case object Zero extends Natural {
override def +(that: Natural): Natural = that
}
final case class Suc[N <: Natural](n: N) extends Natural {
override def +(that: Natural): Natural = Suc(n + that)
}
I believe the following diagram is a faithful portrayal of the type relation:
I then attempted to model a vector parameterized by a type on the elements and another type on size. To explain the problem though, I assumed a vector of ints and parameterized only the size of the vector :
import shapeless.=:!=
sealed trait Vector[+Size <: Natural] extends Product with Serializable {
def head: Int
def tail: Vector[Natural]
def plus[OtherSize >: Size <: Natural]
(that: Vector[OtherSize])
(implicit ev: OtherSize =:!= Natural): Vector[OtherSize]
}
case object VectorNil extends Vector[Zero.type] {
override def head: Nothing = throw new Exception("Boom!")
override def tail: Vector[Zero.type] = throw new Exception("Boom")
override def plus[OtherSize >: Zero.type <: Natural]
(that: Vector[OtherSize])
(implicit ev: =:!=[OtherSize, Natural]): Vector[OtherSize] = this
}
final case class VectorCons[N <: Natural](
head: Int,
tail: Vector[N]
) extends Vector[Suc[N]] {
override def plus[OtherSize >: Suc[N] <: Natural]
(that: Vector[OtherSize])
(implicit ev: =:!=[OtherSize, Natural]): Vector[OtherSize] = that
}
Notice that VectorCons[N] is actually a Vector of size Suc[N]. (extends Vector[Suc[N]]).
Method plus should add the elements of two vectors of the same size. I wanted to raise to the type level the verification that you can only sum vectors of the same size.
Notice that the conjunction of the type bounds OtherSize >: Size <: Natural with the implicit evidence should achieve that (see similar example at the bottom), but:
val foo = VectorCons(1, VectorCons(2, VectorNil))
//type -> VectorCons[Suc[Zero.type]]
// note that foo is (can be viewed) as Vector[Suc[Suc[Zero.type]], i.e
// a vector of 2 elements
val bar = VectorCons(3, VectorNil)
//type -> VectorCons[Zero.type]
val baz = foo.plus(bar)
//type -> Vector[Suc[_ >: Suc[Zero.type] with Zero.type <: Natural]] !! How is this possible ?? !!
to my frustration, baz compiles just fine!! The shapeless type constrain doesn't work; well, because OtherSize really is different from Natural; particularly, it is Suc[_ >: Suc[Zero.type] with Zero.type <: Natural].
So, I am very much confused with the type of baz! This is what allows the constraint to be bypassed.
What did the compiler infer for the type of baz/bar?
Is that an existential type ?
Is the compiler allowed to infer such things?
Is that not undesirable behavior ?
At this point, I am not concerned whether or not this is the correct encoding for a vector. Just wanted to understand how can the compiler infer that type for baz ?
p.s
1 - I am aware the return that on the implementation of method plus on VectorCons does not achieve what the plus semantics implies, but that is not important for the question.
###### Extra #######
I suspect this weird (at least for me) behavior has something to to with the natural numbers. The following code works fine!! :
[Disregard the absurd semantics of the code]
sealed trait Animal extends Product with Serializable
case class Dog() extends Animal
case class Cow() extends Animal
case object NoBox extends Animal //Not important
and,
trait Vector[+A <: Animal] {
def head: A
def plus[That >: A <: Animal]
(that: Vector[That])
(implicit ev: =:!=[That, Animal]): Vector[That]
}
case object Nil extends Vector[NoBox.type] {
def head: Nothing = throw new NoSuchElementException("Boom!")
override def plus[That >: NoBox.type <: Animal]
(that: Vector[That])(implicit ev: =:!=[That, Animal]): Vector[That] = this
}
case class Cons[A <: Animal](head: A) extends Vector[A] {
override def plus[That >: A <: Animal]
(that: Vector[That])(implicit ev: =:!=[That, Animal]): Vector[That] = that
}
whereby:
val foo = Cons(Dog())
val bar = Cons(Cow())
// Compiles
val baz = foo.plus(foo)
val baz2 = bar.plus(bar)
// Does not compile (what I would expect)
val baz3 = bar.plus(foo)
val baz4 = foo.plus(bar)
Thank you for your input,
I have a transfomer which is just a scala function, but needs ClassTag for interop with legacy code:
trait Transformer[F, T] extends (F => T) {
implicit def cF: ClassTag[F]
implicit def cT: ClassTag[T]
/**
* Append another transformer to this transformer
*/
def >=>[U: ClassTag](f: Transformer[T, U]): Transformer[F, U] = Transformer(this andThen f)
}
/** Helper to view a function as a transformer */
object Transformer {
def apply[F: ClassTag, T: ClassTag](f: F => T): Transformer[F, T] = new AbstractTransformer[F, T] {
override def apply(x: F): T = f(x)
}
}
abstract class AbstractTransformer[F, T](implicit override val cF: ClassTag[F], override val cT: ClassTag[T]) extends Transformer[F, T]
However, I would like to have the same variance in T and F as scala
Function1 which is
trait Transformer[-F, +T] extends (F => T)
However this results in
contravariant type F occurs in invariant position in type =>
scala.reflect.ClassTag[F] of method cF Transformer.scala
covariant type T occurs in invariant position in type =>
scala.reflect.ClassTag[T] of method cT Transformer.scala
Can I solve this problem somehow?
import scala.annotation.unchecked.uncheckedVariance
...
implicit def cF: ClassTag[F #uncheckedVariance]
implicit def cT: ClassTag[T #uncheckedVariance]
However, you need to be careful using this: there is a reason for the error! For example, consider
val t: Transformer[String, Object] = ...
val t1: Transformer[Object, String] = t // legal by variance
val c1 = t1.cF // the compiler thinks it's a ClassTag[Object], but really it's the ClassTag for String
val c2 = t1.cT // vice versa
I am implementing a data structure. While it doesn't directly mix in any of Scala's standard collection traits, I want to include the to[Col[_]] method which, given a builder factory, can generate standard Scala collections.
Now assume this, copied from GenTraversableOnce:
trait Foo[+A] {
def to[Col[_]](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, A, Col[A]]): Col[A]
}
This fails with error: covariant type A occurs in invariant position.
So how can GenTraversableOnce achieve this? I can see in the source code, that they add an annotation.unchecked.uncheckedVariance...
That looks like a dirty trick. If the typer rejects this normally, how can this be safe and switched off with uncheckedVariance?
Variance checking is a very important part of type checking and skipping it may easily cause a runtime type error. Here I can demonstrate a type populated with an invalid runtime value by printing it. I've not been able to make it crash with an type cast exception yet though.
import collection.generic.CanBuildFrom
import collection.mutable.Builder
import scala.annotation.unchecked.uncheckedVariance
trait Foo[+A] {
def toCol[Col[_]](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, A, Col[A #uncheckedVariance]]): Col[A #uncheckedVariance]
}
object NoStrings extends Foo[String] {
override def toCol[Col[_]](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, String, Col[String]]): Col[String] = {
val res : Col[String] = cbf().result
println("Printing a Col[String]: ")
println(res)
res
}
}
case class ExactlyOne[T](t : T)
implicit def buildExactlyOne = new CanBuildFrom[Nothing, Any, ExactlyOne[Any]] {
def apply() = new Builder[Any, ExactlyOne[Any]] {
def result = ExactlyOne({})
def clear = {}
def +=(x : Any) = this
}
def apply(n : Nothing) = n
}
val noStrings : Foo[Any] = NoStrings
noStrings.toCol[ExactlyOne]
Here println(res) with res : Col[String] prints ExactlyOne(()). However, ExactlyOne(()) does not have a type of Col[String], demonstrating a type error.
To solve the problem while respecting variance rules we can move the invariant code out of the trait and only keep covariant part, while using implicit conversion to convert from covariant trait to invariant helper class:
import collection.generic.CanBuildFrom
trait Foo[+A] {
def to[R](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, A, R]): R
}
class EnrichedFoo[A](foo : Foo[A]) {
def toCol[Col[_]](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, A, Col[A]]): Col[A] =
foo.to[Col[A]]
}
implicit def enrich[A](foo : Foo[A]) = new EnrichedFoo(foo)
case class Bar[A](elem: A) extends Foo[A] {
def to[R](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, A, R]): R = {
val b = cbf()
b += elem
b.result()
}
}
val bar1 = Bar(3)
println(bar1.toCol[Vector])
It can because it is using the #uncheckedVariance annotation to circumpass the type system and ignore variance checking.
Simply import scala.annotation.unchecked.uncheckedVariance and annotate the type for which you want the variance checking disabled:
def to[Col[_]](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, A, Col[A #uncheckedVariance]]): Col[A #uncheckedVariance]
See a more complete explanation in the related answer.
I read the link to the other question mentioned by #axel22. It still doesn't appear to be the actual reason, though (allowing GenTraversableOnce to function both for variant and invariant collections—it is covariant in A).
For example, the following works correctly without coercing the typer:
import collection.generic.CanBuildFrom
trait Foo[+A] {
def to[A1 >: A, Col[_]](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, A1, Col[A1]]): Col[A1]
}
case class Bar[A](elem: A) extends Foo[A] {
def to[A1 >: A, Col[_]](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Nothing, A1, Col[A1]]): Col[A1]= {
val b = cbf()
b += elem
b.result()
}
}
This would in my opinion be the correct signature. But then of course, it gets ugly:
val b = Bar(33)
b.to[Int, Vector]
So, my interpretation of the use of #uncheckedVariance is merely to avoid having to repeat the element type (as upper bound) in the to signature.
That still doesn't answer, though, if we can imagine a case which results in a runtime error from neglecting the variance?
I would like to exploit Scala's type system to constrain operations in a system where there are versioned references to some values. This is all happening in some transactional context Ctx which has a version type V attached to it. Now there is a Factory to create reference variables. They get created with a creation version attached them (type parameter V1), corresponding to the version of the context in which the factory was called.
Now imagine that some code tries to access that reference in a later version, that is using a different Ctx. What I want to achieve is that it is prohibited to call access on that Ref in any version (Ctx's V type field) that doesn't match the creation version, but that you are allowed to resolve the reference by some substitution mechanism that returns a new view of the Ref which can be accessed in the current version. (it's ok if substitute is called with an invalid context, e.g. one that is older than the Ref's V1 -- in that case a runtime exception could be thrown)
Here is my attempt:
trait Version
trait Ctx {
type V <: Version
}
object Ref {
implicit def access[C <: Ctx, R, T](r: R)(implicit c: C, view: R => Ref[C#V, T]): T =
view(r).access(c)
implicit def substitute[C <: Ctx, T](r: Ref[_ <: Version, T])
(implicit c: C): Ref[C#V, T] = r.substitute(c)
}
trait Ref[V1 <: Version, T] {
def access(implicit c: { type V = V1 }): T // ???
def substitute[C <: Ctx](implicit c: C): Ref[C#V, T]
}
trait Factory {
def makeRef[C <: Ctx, T](init: T)(implicit c: C): Ref[C#V, T]
}
And the problem is to define class method access in a way that the whole thing compiles, i.e. the compound object's access should compile, but at the same time that I cannot call this class method access with any Ctx, only with one whose version matches the reference's version.
Preferably without structural typing or anything that imposes performance issues.
FYI, and to close the question, here is another idea that I like because the client code is fairly clutter free:
trait System[A <: Access[_]] {
def in[T](v: Version)(fun: A => T): T
}
trait Access[Repr] {
def version: Version
def meld[R[_]](v: Version)(fun: Repr => Ref[_, R]): R[this.type]
}
trait Version
trait Ref[A, Repr[_]] {
def sub[B](b: B): Repr[B]
}
object MyRef {
def apply[A <: MyAccess](implicit a: A): MyRef[A] = new Impl[A](a)
private class Impl[A](a: A) extends MyRef[A] {
def sub[B](b: B) = new Impl[B](b)
def schnuppi(implicit ev: A <:< MyAccess) = a.gagaism
}
}
trait MyRef[A] extends Ref[A, MyRef] {
// this is how we get MyAccess specific functionality
// in here without getting trapped in more type parameters
// in all the traits
def schnuppi(implicit ev: A <:< MyAccess): Int
}
trait MyAccess extends Access[MyAccess] {
var head: MyRef[this.type]
var tail: MyRef[this.type]
def gagaism: Int
}
def test(sys: System[MyAccess], v0: Version, v1: Version): Unit = {
val v2 = sys.in(v0) { a => a.tail = a.meld(v1)(_.head); a.version }
val a3 = sys.in(v2) { a => a }
val (v4, a4) = sys.in(v1) { a =>
a.head = a.head
println(a.head.schnuppi) // yes!
(a.version, a)
}
// a3.head = a4.head // forbidden
}
The following seems to work:
trait Version
trait Ctx[+V1 <: Version] {
type V = V1
}
type AnyCtx = Ctx[_ <: Version]
type AnyRf[T] = Ref[_ <: Version, T]
object Ref {
implicit def access[C <: AnyCtx, R, T](r: R)(
implicit c: C, view: R => Ref[C#V, T]): T = view(r).access(c)
implicit def substitute[C <: AnyCtx, T](r: AnyRf[T])(implicit c: C): Ref[C#V, T] =
r.substitute( c )
}
trait Ref[V1 <: Version, T] {
def access(implicit c: Ctx[V1]): T
def substitute[C <: AnyCtx](implicit c: C): Ref[C#V, T]
}
trait Factory {
def makeVar[C <: AnyCtx, T](init: T)(implicit c: C): Ref[C#V, T]
}
// def shouldCompile1(r: AnyRf[String])(implicit c: AnyCtx): String = r
def shouldCompile2(r: AnyRf[String])(implicit c: AnyCtx): String = {
val r1 = Ref.substitute(r)
r1.access(c)
}
// def shouldFail(r: AnyRf[String])(implicit c: AnyCtx): String = r.access(c)
So the follow-up questions are
why I need a redundancy of the type
parameter for Ctx to achieve this. I hate that these type
parameters accumulate like rabbits in my code.
why shouldCompile1 doesn't compile
—can i get the implicits to work as planned?
EDIT:
This is wrong, too. The variance annotation is wrong. Because now the following compiles although it shouldn't:
def versionStep(c: AnyCtx): AnyCtx = c // no importa
def shouldFail3[C <: AnyCtx](f: Factory, c: C): String = {
val r = f.makeVar("Hallo")(c)
val c2 = versionStep(c)
r.access(c2)
}