Does Scala have implicit conversions for objects? For example, if I have a method with the following signature:
object Foo {
def print(message: String) = println(message)
}
class Bar {
val baz = 1
}
How can I call Foo.print(new Bar)?
Can I put a method on the Bar class to implicitly convert Bar instance to a string without having to call toString in the argument?
C# has this and I'm wondering if scala does too.
Let's say we have Scala enum:
object Color extends Enumeration {
type Method = Value
val RED, BLUE, GREEN = Value
}
Then I have a class:
object ColorPrinter {
def print(x: String) = {
println(x)
}
}
ColorPrinter's print method can't be changed.
I want to call into ColorPrinter.print(Color.RED), but I can't do that. I would have to call it like this: ColorPrinter.print(Color.RED.toString).
I want to avoid having to toString
Converting things implicitly to basic types, like String or Int isn't really a very good idea (the implicit conversion may trigger in places where you do not expect it to, creating subtle, hard to debug, issues).
Why not just make it explicit? ?
class Bar {
val baz = 1
def print = Foo.print(toString)
}
new Bar().print
You can put implicit conversions that can be applied automatically without importing into the companion object of the class:
class Bar {
val baz = 1
}
// This should be the companion object of `Bar`, so if in console, use :paste mode
object Bar {
implicit def toString(bar: Bar): String = bar.toString
}
scala> Foo.print(new Bar) // works without `import Bar._`
$line7.$read$$iw$$iw$Bar#280ecc33
For Enumerations you can put conversions into the object itself:
object Color extends Enumeration {
type Method = Value
val RED, BLUE, GREEN = Value
implicit def toString(value: Value): String = value.toString
}
scala> ColorPrinter.print(Color.RED) // works without `import Color._`
RED
You can read more about implicit resolution in Scala in this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5598107/1098230
Here is a typical approach,
yes, Implicit's very similar to C# static methods and its implemented in adhoc way:
object Foo {
def print(message: String) = println(message)
}
class Bar {
val baz = 1
}
object BarToStringMaker {
implicit def barToString(b : Bar) : String = b.baz.toString
}
import BarToStringMaker._
Foo.print(new Bar)
more reading:
http://www.artima.com/pins1ed/implicit-conversions-and-parameters.html
hope that helps,
Related
The following fails to compile on the last line:
// importing implicit class thru two levels
object Foo {
implicit class IntWithSquare(x: Int) {
def square = x*x
}
}
object Bar {
import Foo._
println(4.square) // this works
}
import Bar._
println(5.square) // this fails to compile
How can we force the export of imported implicit class from within Bar? The motivation for this is to keep object Foo neat by defining all implicits in a separate file. Same problem exists for other definitions coming from Foo into Bar. But, a simple re-definition of the top names works in such cases:
// importing regular definitions and types thru two levels
object Foo {
def someBigFunc(): Int = {
42
}
type Word = String
}
object Bar {
import Foo._
val someBigFunc = Foo.someBigFunc _
type Word = Foo.Word
}
import Bar._
someBigFunc()
val w: Word = "word"
The approach used to do what you want to achieve is usually to define traits and have an object extending all wanted traits.
trait Foo {
// Define implicit stuff here
}
trait Fii {
// Define other implicits here
}
object Bar extends Foo with Fii
import Bar._ // will provide the implicits from Foo and Fii
I have few classes which do not derive from any superclass. They all have bunch of same methods defined. For example,
class A {
def getMsgNum = 1
}
class B {
def getMsgNum = 2
}
I would like to write a generic function that will return message num based on object function is called with. So something like,
def getMsgNum[T](t: T) = t.getMsgNum
I think that because of type erasure I cannot expect that to work but I was looking at view bound and context bound with ClassTag but that still does not work.
def getType[T: ClassTag](msg: T) = {
msg.getMsgNum
}
I come from C++ background and I am trying to achieve something to the effect of template compilation for every type.
Thanks for your time!
I personally prefer adhoc polymorphism with TypeClass (http://danielwestheide.com/blog/2013/02/06/the-neophytes-guide-to-scala-part-12-type-classes.html) pattern. I think it will be much more "true scala way" solution for this kind of problem. Also structural typing more expensive at runtime because it use reflection for field access.
class A
class B
trait ToMsgNum[T] {
def getMsgNum: Int
}
implicit object AToMsgNum extends ToMsgNum[A] {
def getMsgNum = 1
}
implicit object BToMsgNum extends ToMsgNum[B] {
def getMsgNum = 2
}
def getMsgNum[T: ToMsgNum](t: T) =
implicitly[ToMsgNum[T]].getMsgNum
println(getMsgNum(new A))
println(getMsgNum(new B))
def getMsgNum[T](t: T)(implicit ev: T => { def getMsgNum: Int }) = t.getMsgNum
where { def getMsgNum: Int } is a structural type. From the documentation:
A structural type is a type of the form Parents { Decls } where Decls contains declarations of new members that do not override any member in Parents.
and
Structural types provide great flexibility because they avoid the need to define inheritance hierarchies a priori
Please note that the above solution uses an implicit reflective call to access the field of the structural type, a language feature that has to be explicitly enabled by adding the import
import scala.language.reflectiveCalls
This is not too different from Eugene's solution but I think it's a bit clearer:
// predefined classes you have no access to
class Foo { def someMethod = "foo" }
class Bar { def someMethod = "bar" }
there's no way in Scala other than reflection or structural types (which is reflection in disguise) to generically call someMethod on these types. The way this can be made to work though, is by defining adapter objects that know how to deal with each type individually, and you then make generic calls on those instead:
trait HasSomeMethod[T] { def someMethod(x: T): String }
object FooHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Foo] { def someMethod(x: Foo) = x.someMethod }
object BarHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Bar] { def someMethod(x: Bar) = x.someMethod }
now you can pass one of those adapter objects into the method that needs generic access to Foo#someMethod and Bar#someMethod:
def invokeSomeMethod[T](x: T)(adapter: HasSomeMethod[T]) =
adapter.someMethod(x)
invokeSomeMethod(new Foo)(FooHasSomeMethod) // returns "foo"
invokeSomeMethod(new Bar)(BarHasSomeMethod) // returns "bar"
(we could have used a single parameter list here but later we'll nede 2 lists anyway)
however, this is obviously not as useful as we'd like as we have to pass in the adapter manually. Let's introduce implicits to make Scala automatically look up the right adapter object and pass that in to our generic but inheritance'less method:
implicit object FooHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Foo] { ... }
implicit object BarHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Bar] { ... }
def invokeSomeMethod[T](x: T)(implicit adapter: HasSomeMethod[T]) =
adapter.someMethod(x)
now these work:
invokeSomeMethod(new Foo) // returns "foo"
invokeSomeMethod(new Bar) // returns "bar"
The above 2 calls get translated automatically to the longer calls in the previous version; Scala looks up suitable values for the implicit adapter parameter automatically from the implicit objects (and also vals and defs, to be precise) available in the "environment" of the call.
You can also define invokeSomeMethod like this, which is just syntactic sugar over the above definition:
def invokeSomeMethod[T: HasSomeMethod](x: T) =
implicitly[HasSomeMethod[T]].someMethod(x)
or, since T: HasSomeMethod auto-generates a second parameter list implicit evidence$1: HasSomeMethod[T], this also works:
def invokeSomeMethod[T: HasSomeMethod](x: T) =
evidence$1.someMethod(x)
The above "pattern" is known as Type Classes. So for example the T: HasSomeMethod bit can be read as "some type T that belongs to the type class HasSomeMethod" (or "...has been made an instance of the type class HasSomeMethod").
For more on Type Classes, see e.g. http://danielwestheide.com/blog/2013/02/06/the-neophytes-guide-to-scala-part-12-type-classes.html.
You can also define the HasSomeMethod type class instance for classes that don't even have someMethod nor bear no other resemblance to Foo and Bar whatsoever, if needed:
implicit object IntHasSomeMethod extends HasSomeMethod[Int] {
def someMethod(x: Int) = "this is an int: " + x
}
invokeSomeMethod(3) // returns "this is an int: 3"
If you need to define an instance of that type class for many classes, you can have a helper (with a name that matches the type class, for niceness):
def HasSomeMethod[T](fn: T => String) = new HasSomeMethod[T] {
def someMethod(x: T) = fn(x)
}
now you can define type class instances (adapters) very concisely:
implicit val FooHasSomeMethod = HasSomeMethod[Foo](_.someMethod)
implicit val BarHasSomeMethod = HasSomeMethod[Bar](_.someMethod)
implicit val IntHasSomeMethod = HasSomeMethod[Int]("this is an int: " + _)
implicit val PersonHasSomeMethod = HasSomeMethod[Person](_.name)
// etc
If you dont want to use structural type (reflection) and implicit, how about create Adaptor on top of it, so you own method getMsgNum will implement based on the Adaptor instead of already existing class.
class A {
def getMsgNum = 1
}
class B {
def getMsgNum = 2
}
class C {
def getMsgNum = 3
}
trait Adaptor[T] {
def getMsgNum: Int
}
class AdaptorA(t: A) extends Adaptor[A] {
def getMsgNum = t.getMsgNum
}
class AdaptorB(t: B) extends Adaptor[B] {
def getMsgNum = t.getMsgNum
}
class AdaptorC(t: C) extends Adaptor[C] {
def getMsgNum = t.getMsgNum
}
def getMsgNum[T](t: Adaptor[T]) = t.getMsgNum
getMsgNum(new AdaptorA(new A)) //1
getMsgNum(new AdaptorB(new B)) //2
getMsgNum(new AdaptorC(new C)) //3
I've seen a number of assertions that Scala Enumeration is not type safe. How is it not type safe? It seems type safe in the obvious way in that you can not pass a value of one Enumeration to a different Enumeration.
What are the pitfalls or things to avoid with Enumeration?
It's semi-safe. That it is type safe is a compiler fiction, so it's easy to break. For example,
trait Parent
class Boy extends Parent { override def toString = "boy" }
class Girl extends Parent { override def toString = "girl" }
def f(g: Girl) = g.toString
scala> f((new Boy).asInstanceOf[Girl])
java.lang.ClassCastException: Boy cannot be cast to Girl
at .<init>(<console>:15)
...
Okay, boys aren't girls.
Now let's try with enumerations:
object Test extends Enumeration { val One, Two = Value }
object Probar extends Enumeration { val Uno, Dos = Value }
def h(tv: Test.Value) = tv.toString
scala> h((Probar.Uno).asInstanceOf[Test.Value])
res0: java.lang.String = Uno
Wait, what?
This fiction leads to other weird behaviors:
def h(pv: Probar.Value) = pv.toString // Add this to the other h in a :paste
method h:(pv: Probar.Value)java.lang.String and
method h:(tv: Test.Value)java.lang.String at line 9
have same type after erasure: (pv: Enumeration#Value)java.lang.String
def h(pv: Probar.Value) = pv.toString
Uh, okay, thanks?
And then since the compiler doesn't really understand Enumeration as its own construct, it can't help you out in ways you might expect:
scala> def oops(tv: Test.Value) = tv match { case Test.One => "okay" }
oops: (tv: Test.Value)java.lang.String
// No incomplete match warning? Okay....
scala> oops(Test.Two)
scala.MatchError: Two (of class scala.Enumeration$Val)
at .oops(<console>:8)
...
So if you use it in relatively limited ways exactly as intended, it provides type safety. But it doesn't have the power and robustness of other patterns, like this one:
// In REPL, :paste the next three lines
sealed trait Foo
object Bar extends Foo
object Baz extends Foo
scala> def safe(f: Foo) = f match { case Bar => "okay" }
<console>:9: warning: match is not exhaustive!
missing combination Baz
def safe(f: Foo) = f match { case Bar => "okay" }
^
Thanks, compiler!
I'm implementing a Java interface with a lot of methods with Object parameters, which in my case are really Strings containing user names:
public interface TwoFactorAuthProvider {
boolean requiresTwoFactorAuth(Object principal);
... //many more methods with the same kind of parameter
}
I'm trying to use implicit conversion to convert these to User objects in my implementation:
class TwoFactorAuthProviderImpl(userRepository: UserRepository)
extends TwoFactorAuthProvider {
def requiresTwoFactorAuth(user: User): Boolean = {
...
}
}
When I define the conversion in the companion object of my class, it is picked up just fine and my class compiles:
object TwoFactorAuthProviderImpl {
implicit def toUser(principal: Any): User = {
null //TODO: do something useful
}
}
However, to be able to do the conversion, I need access to the user repository, which the TwoFactorAuthProviderImpl instance has, but the companion object does not. I thought I could possibly use an implicit parameter to pass it:
implicit def toUser(principal: Any)(implicit repo: UserRepository): User = {
val email = principal.asInstanceOf[String]
repo.findByEmail(email)
}
But with the implicit parameter, the conversion is no longer picked up by the compiler (complaining that I'm not implementing the interface).
Is there a way to get the implicit conversion that I want, or is this outside the scope of what you can do with implicits?
This should work just fine - can you supply the exact compilation error? Not implementing what interface? It looks like you would have to declare as follows:
class TwoFactorAuthProviderImpl(implicit userRepository: UserRepository)
Here's an example for the REPL to show that implicits can have implicits; I'm using paste mode to ensure that module X is the companion object of the class X
scala> :paste
// Entering paste mode (ctrl-D to finish)
case class X(i: Int, s: String)
object X { implicit def Int_Is_X(i: Int)(implicit s: String) = X(i, s) }
// Exiting paste mode, now interpreting.
defined class X
defined module X
scala> val i: X = 4
<console>:9: error: value X is not a member of object $iw
val i: X = 4
^
But if we add an implicit string in scope
scala> implicit val s = "Foo"
s: java.lang.String = Foo
scala> val i: X = 4
i: X = X(4,Foo)
Implicits advice
Don't go overboard with implicit conversions - I think you are going too far in this sense - the principal is implicitly a mechanism by which you can discover a user, it is not implicitly a user itself. I'd be tempted to do something like this instead:
implicit def Principal_Is_UserDiscoverable(p: String) = new {
def findUser(implicit repo: UserRepository) = repo.findUser(p)
}
Then you can do "oxbow".findUser
Thanks to Oxbow's answer, I now have it working, this is only for reference.
First of all, a value that should be passed as an implicit must itself be marked implicit:
class TwoFactorAuthProviderImpl(implicit userRepository: UserRepository) ...
Second, implicit conversions are nice and all, but a method implementation signature must still match the signature of its declaration. So this does not compile, even though there is a conversion from Any to User:
def requiresTwoFactorAuth(principal: User): Boolean = { ... }
But leaving the parameter as Any, as in the declaration, and then using it as a user works just fine:
def requiresTwoFactorAuth(principal: Any): Boolean = {
principal.getSettings().getPhoneUsedForTwoFactorAuthentication() != null
}
Also, the conversion really doesn't have to be in the companion object in this case, so in the end, I left the implicit parameters out.
The full source code:
class TwoFactorAuthProviderImpl(userRepository: UserRepository)
extends TwoFactorAuthProvider {
private implicit def toUser(principal: Any): User = {
val email = principal.asInstanceOf[String]
userRepository.findByEmail(email)
}
def requiresTwoFactorAuth(principal: Any): Boolean = {
//using principal as a User
principal.getSettings().getPhoneUsedForTwoFactorAuthentication() != null
}
...
}
I might be approaching this the wrong way, but I'd like to have an object like this:
class MyDataStructure {
def myClone = {
val clone = new MyDataStructure
// do stuff to make clone the same as this
...
clone
}
}
class MyDataStructureExtended(val foo: String) extends MyDataStructure
Then:
val data = MyDataStructureExtended
val dataClone = data.clone
println(dataClone.foo)
So, the problem is that dataClone is of type MyDataStructure, not MyDataStructureExtended as I'd hoped.
I thought about adding a type T to the super class, that the subclass can specify (e.g. itself), but that didn't seem very promising.
As you have suggested, abstract types, or generic parameters, are what you need. Do you require that MyDataStructure not be a trait or abstract class? The following defines MyDataStructure to be an abstract class, but you can make it a trait as well.
abstract class MyDataStructure {
type T
def myClone: T
}
class MyDataStructureExtended(foo: String) extends MyDataStructure {
type T = MyDataStructureExtended
def myClone = new MyDataStructureExtended(foo)
}
The results from the Scala interpreter show that the myClone method defined in MyDataStructureExtended is the correct type.
scala> val mde = new MyDataStructureExtended("foo")
val mde = new MyDataStructureExtended("foo")
mde: MyDataStructureExtended = MyDataStructureExtended#3ff5d699
scala> val cloned = mde.myClone
val cloned = mde.myClone
cloned: MyDataStructureExtended = MyDataStructureExtended#2e1ed620
You might want to restrict T so that its type can only be that of MyDataStructure subclasses
abstract class MyDataStructure {
type T <: MyDataStructure
def myClone: T
}
I don't know your requirements, but I believe that Scala 2.8 will have some nice functionality with case classes and named arguments that allow one to clone case classes with a copy method.
Assuming you want to minimize amount of ceremony in the subclasses, here is my suggestion:
class A extends Cloneable {
protected[this] def myCloneImpl[T] = {
val justLikeMe = this.clone
// copy values and such.
// Note that the Object.clone method already made a shallow copy, but you may want
// to deepen the copy or do other operations.
justLikeMe.asInstanceOf[T]
}
def myClone = myCloneImpl[A]
}
class B extends A {
override def myClone = myCloneImpl[B]
}
By extending java.lang.Cloneable and calling the Object.clone method, you ensure that your runtime type is the same as the object being cloned. The static type is coerced with a type-cast (asInstanceOf[T]). You will need to override the myClone method in each subclass and specify the type, but it should be a one-liner.
Hard to say whether you're doing it right with such a vague problem description, but it's actually pretty straightforward to do this. You can simply override myclone in MyDataStructureExtended such that it returns the more specific type. When you have a variable of the more specific type, you'll be able to use the more specific clone method as well.
Example code in case that description was unclear:
class A {
def getMe = this
}
class B extends A {
override def getMe = this
def isAnInstanceOfB = true
}
And a corresponding REPL session:
scala> val a = new A
a: A = A#1a6eeab
scala> val b = new B
b: B = B#a36771
scala> a.getMe
res0: A = A#1a6eeab
scala> a.getMe.isAnInstanceOfB
<console>:7: error: value isAnInstanceOfB is not a member of A
a.getMe.isAnInstanceOfB
^
scala> b.isAnInstanceOfB
res2: Boolean = true
scala> b.getMe.isAnInstanceOfB
res3: Boolean = true
I think this could be the solution. This is not inherited and you can do some modification to achieve your thing. Good Luck.
class CloneableClass extends scala.Cloneable {
def myMethod: Unit = println("Inside "+this.getClass)
override def clone(): CloneableClass =super.clone().asInstanceOf[this.type]
}
class CloneableDemo {
val cc = new CloneableClass
val cc1 = cc.clone()
cc1.myMethod
}
object CloneObject extends App {
val cd = new CloneableDemo
}