import scala.reflect.runtime.{universe => ru}
trait someTrait{
def getType[T: ru.TypeTag](obj: T) = ru.typeOf[T]
def reflect()={
println(getType(this)) // got someTrait type, not A type.
}
}
class A extends someTrait{
}
main(){
new A().reflect()
}
When I run main function, I got someTrait type printed out.
How can I get A type in reflect function?
Using TypeTags or ClassTags, you can't (without doing extra work in every subtype, as Ramesh's answer does). Because the compiler inserts them based on static types only.
When it sees getType(this), it first infers type parameter to getType[someTrait](this), and then turns into getType[someTrait](this)(typeTag[someTrait]). You can see A is never considered and it can't be.
As the scala document says, we cant use java reflectoin since it might cause problem.
No, Scala documentation certainly doesn't say you can't use Java reflection for this. You need to understand its limitations but exactly the same applies to Scala reflection.
Related
I need all the method names in a scala trait I've defined. I know this sounds like a trivial problem but I could not find any answers relating to the trait, they all revolved around classes.
To be specific, I need names for all the abstract methods. But if I can get the name of all methods regardless of abstract or not, that works too.
Say I have this trait A
trait A {
def myDefinedInt: Int = 2
def myAbstractString: String
}
I need a list of all methods (or preferably just the abstract ones)
I'm relatively new to scala so although I get classes and interfaces. Traits are new to me.
Thanks in advance!
You can get all methods with getDeclaredMethods and then just filter for abstract methods:
import java.lang.reflect.Modifier
classOf[A]
.getDeclaredMethods
.filter(m => Modifier.isAbstract(m.getModifiers))
.map(_.getName)
.foreach(println)
It prints: myAbstractString.
Part I
Suppose I have a type class trait Show[T] { def print(t: T): String } with instances for String and Int. Suppose I have a value whose specific type is known only at runtime:
val x: Any = ...
How do I get the appropriate typeclass instance (at runtime, since we don't know the type statically) and do something with it.
Note that it's inadequate to define a method that literally just gives us the typeclass instance:
def instance(x: Any): Show[_]
Since Show.print requires statically known argument type T we still can't do anything with the result of instance. So really, we need to be able to dynamically dispatch to an already-defined function that uses the instance, such as the following:
def display[T](t: T)(implicit show: Show[T]) = "show: " + show.print(t) + "\n"
So assuming display is defined, how do we invoke display, passing along an appropriate Show instance. I.e. something that invokes display(x) properly.
Miles Sabin accomplishes this here using runtime compilation (Scala eval), as an example of "staging", but with only spare documentation as to what's going on:
https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless/blob/master/examples/src/main/scala/shapeless/examples/staging.scala
Can Miles's approach be put into a library? Also, what are the limitations of this approach e.g. with respect to generic types like Seq[T]?
Part II
Now suppose T is bounded by a sealed type (such that it's possible to enumerate all the sub-types):
trait Show[T <: Foo]
sealed trait Foo
case class Alpha(..) extends Foo
case class Beta(..) extends Foo
In this case, can we do it with a macro instead of runtime compilation? And can this functionality be provided in some library?
I mostly care about Scala 2.12, but it's worth mentioning if a solution works in 2.11 or 2.10.
I'm confused on how Scala's Any relates to java.lang.Object. I know that in scala, AnyRef corresponds to object, but it seems to make a difference whether the method (which takes java.lang.Object) is defined in a java class or a scala class):
the java class:
public class JavaClass {
public static void method(Object input) {
}
}
the scala application:
object ScalaObject extends App{
def method(input:java.lang.Object) = {}
val a:Any = null
method(a) // does not work
JavaClass.method(a) // does work
}
So if the method is in a java-Class, then the compiler allows me to pass a variable of type Any, why is that?
The compiler tries to "make up" for the difference between Scala's and Java's type systems. In Scala, Object =:= AnyRef (they're aliases) and AnyRef <: Any. Therefore, a Scala method that takes Object or AnyRef cannot take an Any or an AnyVal. If you wanted a method that worked on everything, well, then you would have written Any, right?
However, Java methods that take Object are normally meant to work on all values, whether they be actual Objects or primitives (int, long, etc.), and they work due to the boxing conversion of primitives into Objects. Primitives and Object do not have a common supertype like they do in Scala. The Java type system is not expressive enough to differentiate "I only want actual objects," from "I will take anything, be they object or primitive."
Therefore, the Scala compiler patches this up by turning Java methods of Object into methods of Any. This feature is simply to ease interop between the languages. It won't apply this transformation to Scala code though, because if you wanted that behavior then you would have actually written Any instead of Object.
The reason for that is that Any can be either AnyRef or AnyVal, while method can only accept objects which are AnyRef. If you modify the a type to be AnyRef, it is going to work:
def method(input: java.lang.Object) = {}
val a: AnyRef = new Object
method(a)
In case of calling the static Java method, the Scala compiler will turn Any into Object, which also includes boxing of AnyVal values.
How can you make code in a Scala library call type-specific code for objects supplied by a caller to that library, where the decision about which type-specific code to call is made at compile-time (statically), not at run-time?
To illustrate the concept, suppose I want to make a library function that prints objects one way if there's a CanMakeDetailedString defined for them, or just as .toString if not. See nicePrint in this example code:
import scala.language.implicitConversions
trait CanMakeDetailedString[A] extends (A => String)
def noDetailedString[A] = new CanMakeDetailedString[A] {
def apply(a: A) = a.toString
}
object Util {
def nicePrint[A](a: A)
(implicit toDetail: CanMakeDetailedString[A] = noDetailedString[A])
: Unit = println(toDetail(a))
def doStuff[A](a: A)
: Unit = { /* stuff goes here */ nicePrint(a) }
}
Now here is some test code:
object Main {
import Util._
case class Rototiller(name: String)
implicit val rototillerDetail = new CanMakeDetailedString[Rototiller] {
def apply(r: Rototiller) = s"The rototiller named ${r.name}."
}
val r = Rototiller("R51")
nicePrint(r)
doStuff(r)
}
Here's the output in Scala 2.11.2:
The rototiller named R51.
Rototiller(R51)
When I call nicePrint from the same scope where rototillerDetail is defined, the Scala compiler finds rototillerDetail and passes it implicitly to nicePrint. But when, from the same scope, I call a function in a different scope (doStuff) that calls nicePrint, the Scala compiler doesn't find rototillerDetail.
No doubt there are good reasons for that. I'm wondering, though, how can I tell the Scala compiler "If an object of the needed type exists, use it!"?
I can think of two workarounds, neither of which is satisfactory:
Supply an implicit toDetail argument to doStuff. This works, but it requires me to add an implicit toDetail argument to every function that might, somewhere lower in the call stack, have a use for a CanMakeDetailedString object. That is going to massively clutter my code.
Scrap the implicit approach altogether and do this in object-oriented style, making Rototiller inherit from CanMakeDetailedString by overriding a special new method like .toDetail.
Is there some technique, trick, or command-line switch that could enable the Scala compiler to statically resolve the right implicit object? (Rather than figuring it out dynamically, when the program is running, as in the object-oriented approach.) If not, this seems like a serious limitation on how much use library code can make of "typeclasses" or implicit arguments. In other words, what's a good way to do what I've done badly above?
Clarification: I'm not asking how this can be done with implicit val. I'm asking how you can get the Scala compiler to statically choose type-appropriate functions in library code, without explicitly listing, in every library function, an implicit argument for every function that might get called lower in the stack. It doesn't matter to me if it's done with implicits or anything else. I just want to know how to write generic code that chooses type-specific functions appropriately at compile-time.
implicits are resolved at compile time so it can't know what A is in doStuff without more information.
That information can be provided through an extra implicit parameter or a base type / interface as you suggested.
You could also use reflection on the A type, use the getType that returns the child type, cast the object to that type, and call a predefined function that has the name of the type that writes the string details for you. I don't really recommend it as any OOP or FP solution is better IMHO.
As far as I understand, implicit conversions can result in potentially hard to understand code, or code suffering from other problems (perhaps even bugs?), which is why they require explicit enabling in order to be used in code without getting warnings.
However, given that implicit conversions are in big part (if not most of the time) used for wrapping an object with an object of another type, and so are implicit classes—I'd appreciate you correcting me if I'm wrong—, why do the former require the import of scala.language.implicitConversions but the latter do not?
object Main extends App {
implicit class StringFoo(x: String) {
def fooWithImplicitClass(): Unit =
println("foo with implicit class")
}
// => silence.
"asd".fooWithImplicitClass()
/************************/
class Foo(x: String) {
def fooWithImplicitDef(): Unit =
println("foo with implicit def")
}
implicit def string2Foo(x: String) = new Foo(x)
// => warning: implicit conversion method string2Foo should be enabled
"asd".fooWithImplicitDef()
}
Implicit classes effectively only add new methods (or traits), and they are only ever used when these added methods are called (or the implicit class is used explicitly, but this rarely happens in practice). Implicit conversions to existing types, on the other hand, can be invoked with less visibility to the programmer.
IMO, there is no fundamental difference between an implicit class and an implicit conversion as regards the confusion they might potentially incur, thus both should have been warned.
But by defining a class as implicit, it's like explicitly suppressing the warning by telling the compiler that "I'm an adult, I know what I'm doing. THIS CLASS IS INTENDED TO BE USED THIS WAY (possibly as an extension wrapper)." Therefore no warnings will be given since you, as the creator of the class, have made it clear that using implicitly is how this class is supposed to work or how the class is allowed to be used, compiler should certainly trust you.
You can, on the other hand, convert an object to whichever class by using implicit conversion, no matter if the target class is intended to be used implicitly. This is the source of many troubles, and also what Scala is trying to prevent.