This question already has answers here:
covariant type A occurs in contravariant position in type A of value a
(5 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I have class
class GenericClass[+T] (var x: T) {}
When I try to compile it I get:
Error:(6, 33) covariant type T occurs in contravariant position in type T of value x_=
class GenericCellImm[+T] (var x: T) {
How to fix it? What is the problem reason?
Covariant generic type means that if you have classes Base and Child that extends Base, then in every context where GenericClass[Base] is a correct type using an object of type GenericClass[Child] will also be correct. As a rough approximation it means that if your GenericClass[T] provides read-only API, you may make +T covariant because it is always safe to return Child instead of Base. However this is not true if you have some writeable API in your GenericClass[T]. Consider following code:
def writeDefault(gc: GenericClass[Base]):Unit = {
gc.x = new Base()
}
This code is safe if gc is really of type GenericClass[Base] but if you let GenericClass[Child] there, you'll write a value of type Base to a field that is typed with Child and this breaks expected type safety. Consider
class Base(){}
class Child(childField:Int) extends Base {}
def bad():Unit = {
val gc = new GenericClass[new Child(1)]
writeDefault(gc)
println(gc.childField) // Oops! there is no childField in Base
}
And this is exactly why the compiler doesn't allow your code with covariance.
If you want get some real suggestion on how to fix it, you should describe the higher-level problem you are trying to solve. Without such a description it is really hard to guess whether just using val instead of var is what you need or whether you just need to remove covariance altogether or if you need a more complicated code.
Related
This question already has answers here:
How to create an instance of type T at runtime with TypeTags
(4 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
In Scala, even if the solution is not elegant, is it possible to instantiate/create a new object of a generic type T? Is it possible to achieve this using reflection?
For example, I am interested in something like the following:
case class Person(name: String, age: Int)
Let's say I wanted to do the following to create an object of type Person:
def createObject[T](fieldValues: Seq[Any]): T = {
... T(fieldValues)
}
val person = createObject[Person](Seq("Bob", 20))
No, it is not possible. T is a parameter. You do not know anything about it. You do not even know if it can be instantiated at all. It might be a trait or an abstract class or a singleton type or a compound type.
That is the whole point of parametric polymorphism. To write code that does not need to know anything about the types it is dealing with.
Just as an example, it is perfectly legal to call your method like this:
val goodLuck = createObject[Nothing](Seq(1, 2))
Well, Nothing is literally defined as "the type which cannot have an instance". How are you going to instantiate this?
Technically speaking it's possible using reflection. You could for example catch runtime class of type T using ClassTag then find proper constructor and create instance:
def createObject[T](fieldValues: Seq[Any])(implicit ct: ClassTag[T]): Option[T] = {
//we lookup for matching constructor using arguments count, you might also consider checking types
ct.runtimeClass.getConstructors.find(_.getParameterCount == fieldValues.size)
.flatMap {constructor =>
Try(constructor.newInstance(fieldValues: _*).asInstanceOf[T]).toOption
}
}
createObject[Person](Seq("Bob", 20)) //Some(Person("Bob", 20))
createObject[Person](Seq(20, 10)) //None
In case there's no constructor matching parameters, that function fails returning None.
It should work, but it'd be best if you can avoid this approach because you lose all type safety.
Sorry I'm not very familiar with Scala, but I'm curious if this is possible and haven't been able to figure out how.
Basically, I want to create some convenience initializers that can generate a random sample of data (in this case a grid). The grid will always be filled with instances of a particular type (in this case a Location). But in different cases I might want grids filled with different subtypes of Location, e.g. Farm or City.
In Python, this would be trivial:
def fillCollection(klass, size):
return [klass() for _ in range(size)]
class City: pass
cities = fillCollection(City, 10)
I tried to do something similar in Scala but it does not work:
def fillGrid[T <: Location](size): Vector[T] = {
Vector.fill[T](size, size) {
T()
}
}
The compiler just says "not found: value T"
So, it it possible to approximate the above Python code in Scala? If not, what's the recommended way to handle this kind of situation? I could write an initializer for each subtype, but in my real code there's a decent amount of boilerplate overlap between them so I'd like to share code if possible.
The best workaround I've come up with so far is to pass a closure into the initializer (which seems to be how the fill method on Vectors already works), e.g.:
def fillGrid[T <: Location](withElem: => T, size: Int = 100): Vector[T] = {
Vector.fill[T](n1 = size, n2 = size)(withElem)
}
That's not a huge inconvenience, but it makes me curious why Scala doesn't support the "simpler" Python-style construct (if it in fact doesn't). I sort of get why having a "fully generic" initializer could cause trouble, but in this case I can't see what the harm would be generically initializing instances that are all known to be subtypes of a given parent type.
You are correct, in that what you have is probably the simplest option. The reason Scala can't do things the pythonic way is because the type system is much stronger, and it has to contend with type erasure. Scala can not guarantee at compile time that any subclass of Location has a particular constructor, and it will only allow you to do things that it can guarantee will conform to the types (unless you do tricky things with reflection).
If you want to clean it up a little bit, you can make it work more like python by using implicits.
implicit def emptyFarm(): Farm = new Farm
implicit def emptyCity(): City = new City
def fillGrid[T <: Location](size: Int = 100)(implicit withElem: () => T): Vector[Vector[T]] = {
Vector.fill[T](n1 = size, n2 = size)(withElem())
}
fillGrid[farm](3)
To make this more usable in a library, it's common to put the implicits in a companion object of Location, so they can all be brought into scope where appropriate.
sealed trait Location
...
object Location
{
implicit def emptyFarm...
implicit def emptyCity...
}
...
import Location._
fillGrid[Farm](3)
You can use reflection to accomplish what you want...
This is a simple example that will only work if all your subclasses have a zero args constructor.
sealed trait Location
class Farm extends Location
class City extends Location
def fillGrid[T <: Location](size: Int)(implicit TTag: scala.reflect.ClassTag[T]): Vector[Vector[T]] = {
val TClass = TTag.runtimeClass
Vector.fill[T](size, size) { TClass.newInstance().asInstanceOf[T] }
}
However, I have never been a fan of runtime reflection, and I hope there could be another way.
Scala cannot do this kind of thing directly because it's not type safe. It will not work if you pass a class without a zero-argument constructor. The Python version throws an error at runtime if you try to do this.
The closure is probably the best way to go.
I have an interface defined using a structural type like this:
trait Foo {
def collection: {
def apply(a: Int) : String
def values() : collection.Iterable[String]
}
}
}
I wanted to have one of the implementers of this interface do so using a standard mutable HashMap:
class Bar {
val collection: HashMap[Int, String] = HashMap[Int, String]()
}
It compiles, but at runtime I get a NoSuchMethod exception when referring a Bar instance through a Foo typed variable. Dumping out the object's methods via reflection I see that the HashMap's apply method takes an Object due to type erasure, and there's some crazily renamed generated apply method that does take an int. Is there a way to make generics work with structural types? Note in this particular case I was able to solve my problem using an actual trait instead of a structural type and that is overall much cleaner.
Short answer is that the apply method parameter is causing you grief because it requires some implicit conversions of the parameter (Int => Integer). Implicits are resolved at compile time, the NoSuchMethodException is likely a result of these missing implicits.
Attempt to use the values method and it should work since there are no implicits being used.
I've attempted to find a way to make this example work but have had no success so far.
I'm seeing something I do not understand. I have a hierarchy of (say) Vehicles, a corresponding hierarchy of VehicalReaders, and a VehicleReader object with apply methods:
abstract class VehicleReader[T <: Vehicle] {
...
object VehicleReader {
def apply[T <: Vehicle](vehicleId: Int): VehicleReader[T] = apply(vehicleType(vehicleId))
def apply[T <: Vehicle](vehicleType VehicleType): VehicleReader[T] = vehicleType match {
case VehicleType.Car => new CarReader().asInstanceOf[VehicleReader[T]]
...
Note that when you have more than one apply method, you must specify the return type. I have no issues when there is no need to specify the return type.
The cast (.asInstanceOf[VehicleReader[T]]) is the reason for the question - without it the result is compile errors like:
type mismatch;
found : CarReader
required: VehicleReader[T]
case VehicleType.Car => new CarReader()
^
Related questions:
Why cannot the compiler see a CarReader as a VehicleReader[T]?
What is the proper type parameter and return type to use in this situation?
I suspect the root cause here is that VehicleReader is invariant on its type parameter, but making it covariant does not change the result.
I feel like this should be rather simple (i.e., this is easy to accomplish in Java with wildcards).
The problem has a very simple cause and really doesn't have anything to do with variance. Consider even more simple example:
object Example {
def gimmeAListOf[T]: List[T] = List[Int](10)
}
This snippet captures the main idea of your code. But it is incorrect:
val list = Example.gimmeAListOf[String]
What will be the type of list? We asked gimmeAListOf method specifically for List[String], however, it always returns List[Int](10). Clearly, this is an error.
So, to put it in words, when the method has a signature like method[T]: Example[T] it really declares: "for any type T you give me I will return an instance of Example[T]". Such types are sometimes called 'universally quantified', or simply 'universal'.
However, this is not your case: your function returns specific instances of VehicleReader[T] depending on the value of its parameter, e.g. CarReader (which, I presume, extends VehicleReader[Car]). Suppose I wrote something like:
class House extends Vehicle
val reader = VehicleReader[House](VehicleType.Car)
val house: House = reader.read() // Assuming there is a method VehicleReader[T].read(): T
The compiler will happily compile this, but I will get ClassCastException when this code is executed.
There are two possible fixes for this situation available. First, you can use existential (or existentially quantified) type, which can be though as a more powerful version of Java wildcards:
def apply(vehicleType: VehicleType): VehicleReader[_] = ...
Signature for this function basically reads "you give me a VehicleType and I return to you an instance of VehicleReader for some type". You will have an object of type VehicleReader[_]; you cannot say anything about type of its parameter except that this type exists, that's why such types are called existential.
def apply(vehicleType: VehicleType): VehicleReader[T] forSome {type T} = ...
This is an equivalent definition and it is probably more clear from it why these types have such properties - T type is hidden inside parameter, so you don't know anything about it but that it does exist.
But due to this property of existentials you cannot really obtain any information about real type parameters. You cannot get, say, VehicleReader[Car] out of VehicleReader[_] except via direct cast with asInstanceOf, which is dangerous, unless you store a TypeTag/ClassTag for type parameter in VehicleReader and check it before the cast. This is sometimes (in fact, most of time) unwieldy.
That's where the second option comes to the rescue. There is a clear correspondence between VehicleType and VehicleReader[T] in your code, i.e. when you have specific instance of VehicleType you definitely know concrete T in VehicleReader[T] signature:
VehicleType.Car -> CarReader (<: VehicleReader[Car])
VehicleType.Truck -> TruckReader (<: VehicleReader[Truck])
and so on.
Because of this it makes sense to add type parameter to VehicleType. In this case your method will look like
def apply[T <: Vehicle](vehicleType: VehicleType[T]): VehicleReader[T] = ...
Now input type and output type are directly connected, and the user of this method will be forced to provide a correct instance of VehicleType[T] for that T he wants. This rules out the runtime error I have mentioned earlier.
You will still need asInstanceOf cast though. To avoid casting completely you will have to move VehicleReader instantiation code (e.g. yours new CarReader()) to VehicleType, because the only place where you know real value of VehicleType[T] type parameter is where instances of this type are constructed:
sealed trait VehicleType[T <: Vehicle] {
def newReader: VehicleReader[T]
}
object VehicleType {
case object Car extends VehicleType[Car] {
def newReader = new CarReader
}
// ... and so on
}
Then VehicleReader factory method will then look very clean and be completely typesafe:
object VehicleReader {
def apply[T <: Vehicle](vehicleType: VehicleType[T]) = vehicleType.newReader
}
Forgive me if the solution to this problem is too obvious or has been resolved already in this forum earlier (in which case, please point me to the post).
I have a class
org.personal.exercises.LengthContentsPair (l: Int, c: String)
{
val length = l
val contents = c
}
Then, in the same source file, I also define an implicit value which defines the way objects
of this type is to be ordered, thus:
object LengthContentsPair {
implicit val lengthContentsPairOrdering = new Ordering [LengthContentsPair] {
def compare (a: LengthContentsPair, b: LengthContentsPair)= {
a.length compare b.length;
}
}
}
following solutions given in this forum.
Now, I want to create a specialized Set which limits the number of elements in the Set to a given number. So, I define a separate class like this:
import scala.collection.immutable.TreeSet;
import org.personal.exercises.LengthContentsPair.lengthContentsPairOrdering;
class FixedSizedSortedSet [LengthContentsPair] extends TreeSet [LengthContentsPair]
{ ..
}
To me, this seems the correct way to subclass a TreeSet. But, the compiler throws the following error:
(1) No implicit Ordering defined for LengthContentsPair.
(2) not enough arguments for constructor TreeSet: (implicit ordering: Ordering[LengthContentsPair])scala.collection.immutable.TreeSet[LengthContentsPair]. Unspecified value parameter ordering.
Have I understood the scoping rules wrongly? It is something quite easy I feel, but I cannot put my hand on it.
You have defined FixedSizedSortedSet wrong. Your implementation has generic type parameter named LengthContentsPair which has nothing to do with your class with that name. In other words, you have shadowed LengthContentsPair class with generic type.
If you need a specialized set that only holds elements of LengthContentsPair, then you probably meant:
class FixedSizedSortedSet extends TreeSet[LengthContentsPair]
{ ..
}
This should work if an instance of Ordering[LengthContentsPair] is visible. But this shouldn't be a problem, since the ordering is defined in companion object of LengthContentsPair and is visible as implicit parameter by default.
But if you rather need a generic extension of TreeSet which can hold elements of any type, then you probably meant this:
class FixedSizedSortedSet[T](implicit ordering: Ordering[T]) extends TreeSet[T]
{ ..
}
Implicit parameter is needed because TreeSet requires an implicit Ordering[T], so we need to forward that requirement to FixedSizedSortedSet
BTW. I'd suggest you to consider replacing your LengthContentsPair class with a case class.