I'm use Scalameta(v1.8.0) annotation to a def declaration:
trait MyTrait {
#MyDeclDef
def f2(): Int
}
The annotation class defined just return input, as this:
import scala.meta._
class MyDeclDef extends scala.annotation.StaticAnnotation {
inline def apply(defn: Any): Any = meta {
defn match {
case defn: Decl.Def =>
defn
case _ =>
println(defn.structure)
abort("#MyDeclDef most annotate a Decl.Def")
}
}
}
some compiler error encounter:
Error:'=' expected but eof found.
def f2(): Unit
Error:illegal start of simple expression
def f2(): Unit
Besides, If I use Decl.Var to var v2: Int it works fine.
How to right annotate a trait def? Thanks
I didn't work with scala-meta before and tried your example. It looks like we have to implement this method in the macros. For example, if we specify a default implementation:
class MyDeclDef extends scala.annotation.StaticAnnotation {
inline def apply(defn: Any): Any = meta {
defn match {
case defn: Decl.Def =>
val q"def $name(): $tpe" = defn
q"def $name(): $tpe = 1"
we will be able to create an instance of MyTrait and print a value of the f2 method :)
val x = new MyTrait
println(x.f2) // Prints 1
var v2: Int works fine, because it fits to case _ in which we abort the compilation.
Related
I'm trying to extract ClassSymbols for all type parameters' bounds of a method.
The "solution" I came up with:
Macro annotation implementation:
#compileTimeOnly("Compile-time only annotation")
class classSyms extends StaticAnnotation {
def macroTransform(annottees: Any*): Any = macro impl
}
object classSyms {
def impl(c: whitebox.Context)(annottees: c.Tree*) = {
import c.universe._
annottees.toList foreach {
case q"$mods def $templatename[..$typeparams](...$paramss): $tpt = $body" =>
typeparams foreach {
case q"$mods type $name[..$tparams] >: $low <: $high" =>
if (!high.isEmpty) {
//requires FQCN, does not work with imported names
val classSymbol = c.mirror.staticClass(high.toString)
println(classSymbol)
}
}
}
q"..$annottees"
}
}
Example:
package pack.age
trait Test
package another.pack.age
import pack.age._
trait Bar{
#classSyms
def foo[M <: pack.age.Test, T](): Unit //works ok
#classSyms
def baz[M <: Test, T](): Unit //throws scala.ScalaReflectionException: class Test not found.
}
The problem is such requirements of specifying fully-qualified class name as a parameter bound does not make this macro implementation very useful (no one wants to write this long fqcn stuff, especially if the name is imported).
Is it possible to extract ClassSymbol by an imported name?
Try to use c.typecheck.
Replace
val classSymbol = c.mirror.staticClass(high.toString)
with
val classSymbol = c.typecheck(tq"$high", mode = c.TYPEmode).symbol.asClass
I am trying to write a JsonFormat for an abstract class with a generic parameter that looks like something like this:
abstract class Animal[A] {
def data: A
def otherStuff: String = "stuff"
}
case class CatData(catField: String)
case class Cat(data: CatData) extends Animal[CatData]
So far my attempt at this looks like:
object AnimalProtocol extends DefaultJsonProtocol {
implicit val catDataFormat = jsonFormat1(CatData)
implicit val catFormat = jsonFormat1(Cat)
implicit def animalFormat[T <: Animal[T]](t: T)(implicit fmt: JsonWriter[T]) = new RootJsonFormat[Animal[T]] {
def write(obj: Animal[T]) = obj match {
case x: Cat => catFormat.write(x)
}
def read(json: JsValue) = ???
}
Now, if I try to do this:
import AnimalProtocol._
val cat: Animal[CatData] = Cat(CatData("this is cat data"))
I get the compiler error:
Cannot find JsonWriter or JsonFormat type class for Animal[CatData]
How can I make it work? In the end I want to write json with the fields in Animal and with data set to whatever case class applies.
You need to provide a type parameter for both the generic field and the subclass of Animal in your implicit def:
object AnimalProtocol2 extends DefaultJsonProtocol {
implicit val catDataFormat = jsonFormat1(CatData)
implicit def animalFormat[A, T <: Animal[A]](implicit fmt: JsonWriter[A]): RootJsonFormat[T] = new RootJsonFormat[T] {
def write(obj: T) = {
JsObject(
"data" -> obj.data.toJson,
"otherStuff" -> obj.otherStuff.toJson
)
}
def read(json: JsValue) = ???
}
}
That also allows you to get rid of pattern matching on subclasses inside animalFormat.
I don't use spray-json (I've got much more experience with play-json), but I'll try to help by pointing at a few strange things in your code.
I'm not sure you need implicit val catFormat = jsonFormat1(Cat), unless you want it to be applied instead of animalFormat when type is known to be Cat.
You definition of animalFormat looks wrong/strange for the following reasons:
type is strange, T <: Animal[T] doesn't correspond to your types i.e., you don't have CatData <: Animal[CatData]
you don't use t
you don't use fmt (but instead you pattern match on obj)
I would suggest to either define a static animalFormat, something like (not sure about the wildcard type _):
val animalFormat: RootJsonFormat[Animal[_]] = new RootJsonFormat[Animal[_]] {
def write(obj: Animal[_]) = {
JsObject(
"otherStuff" -> JsString(obj.otherStuff),
"data" -> obj match {
case x: Cat => catDataFormat.write(x.data)
}
)
def read(json: JsValue) = ???
}
or, without using pattern matching:
implicit def animalFormat[T](implicit fmt: JsonWriter[T]) = new RootJsonFormat[Animal[T]] {
def write(obj: Animal[T]) =
JsObject(
"otherStuff" -> JsString(obj.otherStuff),
"data" -> fmt.write(obj.data)
)
def read(json: JsValue) = ???
}
Note that with this approach, you won't be able to read a generic Animal as there's no type information in the json.
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.
I'm trying to add an implicit value to (what I believe is) the companion object of a case class, but this implicit value is not found.
I'm trying to achieve something like the following:
package mypackage
object Main {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val caseClassInstance = MyCaseClass("string")
val out: DataOutput = ...
serialize(out, caseClassInstance)
// the above line makes the compiler complain that there is no
// Serializer[MyCaseClass] in scope
}
def serialize[T : Serializer](out: DataOutput, t: T): Unit = {
...
}
}
object MyCaseClass {
// implicits aren't found here
implicit val serializer: Serializer[MyCaseClase] = ...
}
case class MyCaseClass(s: String) {
// some other methods
}
I've explicitly added the package here to show that both the MyCaseClass case class and object should be in scope. I know that the object is actually being constructed because I can get this to compile if I add
implicit val serializer = MyCaseClass.serializer
to main (though notably not if I add import MyCaseClass.serializer).
I'm concerned that the MyCaseClass object is not actually a companion of the case class, because if I explicitly define apply and unapply on the object and then attempt to call MyCaseClass.apply("string") in main, the compiler gives the following error:
ambiguous reference to overloaded definition,
both method apply in object MyCaseClass of type (s: String)mypackage.MyCaseClass
and method apply in object MyCaseClass of type (s: String)mypackage.MyCaseClass
match argument types (String)
val a = InputRecord.apply("string")
^
If it's not possible to take this approach, is there a way to use type classes with case classes without creating an implicit value every time it must be brought into scope?
EDIT: I'm using scala 2.10.3.
EDIT 2: Here's the example fleshed out:
package mypackage
import java.io.{DataOutput, DataOutputStream}
object Main {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val caseClassInstance = MyCaseClass("string")
val out: DataOutput = new DataOutputStream(System.out)
serialize(out, caseClassInstance)
// the above line makes the compiler complain that there is no
// Serializer[MyCaseClass] in scope
}
def serialize[T : Serializer](out: DataOutput, t: T): Unit = {
implicitly[Serializer[T]].write(out, t)
}
}
object MyCaseClass {
// implicits aren't found here
implicit val serializer: Serializer[MyCaseClass] = new Serializer[MyCaseClass] {
override def write(out: DataOutput, t: MyCaseClass): Unit = {
out.writeUTF(t.s)
}
}
}
case class MyCaseClass(s: String) {
// some other methods
}
trait Serializer[T] {
def write(out: DataOutput, t: T): Unit
}
This actually compiles, though. I am getting this issue when using Scoobi's WireFormat[T] instead of Serializer, but can't provide a concise, runnable example due to complexity and the Scoobi dependency. I will try to create a more relevant example, but it seems as though the issue is not as general as I thought.
It turns out that the type class instances actually need to be implicit values, rather than objects. The MyCaseClass object above works because its serializer is assigned to an implicit value. However, this implementation
object MyCaseClass {
implicit object MyCaseClassSerializer extends Serializer[MyCaseClass] {
override def write(out: DataOutput, t: MyCaseClass): Unit = {
out.writeUTF(t.s)
}
}
}
fails with the error
Main.scala:9: error: could not find implicit value for evidence parameter of type mypackage.Serializer[mypackage.MyCaseClass]
serialize(out, caseClassInstance)
^
In my real code, I was using an auxiliary function to generate the Serializer[T] (see https://github.com/NICTA/scoobi/blob/24f48008b193f4e87b9ec04d5c8736ce0725d006/src/main/scala/com/nicta/scoobi/core/WireFormat.scala#L137). Despite the function having its own explicit return type, the type of the assigned value was not being inferred correctly by the compiler.
Below is the full example from the question with such a Serializer-generator.
package mypackage
import java.io.{DataOutput, DataOutputStream}
object Main {
import Serializer._
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val caseClassInstance = MyCaseClass("string")
val out: DataOutput = new DataOutputStream(System.out)
serialize(out, caseClassInstance)
}
def serialize[T : Serializer](out: DataOutput, t: T): Unit = {
implicitly[Serializer[T]].write(out, t)
}
}
object MyCaseClass {
import Serializer._
// does not compile without Serializer[MyCaseClass] type annotation
implicit val serializer: Serializer[MyCaseClass] =
mkCaseSerializer(MyCaseClass.apply _, MyCaseClass.unapply _)
}
case class MyCaseClass(s: String)
trait Serializer[T] {
def write(out: DataOutput, t: T): Unit
}
object Serializer {
// does not compile without Serializer[String] type annotation
implicit val stringSerializer: Serializer[String] = new Serializer[String] {
override def write(out: DataOutput, s: String): Unit = {
out.writeUTF(s)
}
}
class CaseClassSerializer[T, A : Serializer](
apply: A => T, unapply: T => Option[A]) extends Serializer[T] {
override def write(out: DataOutput, t: T): Unit = {
implicitly[Serializer[A]].write(out, unapply(t).get)
}
}
def mkCaseSerializer[T, A : Serializer]
(apply: A => T, unapply: T => Option[A]): Serializer[T] =
new CaseClassSerializer(apply, unapply)
}
This related, simple code below prints 1.
object A{
implicit def A2Int(a:A)=a.i1
}
case class A(i1:Int,i2:Int)
object Run extends App{
val a=A(1,2)
val i:Int=a
println(i)
}
Suppose I have some abstract value field defined in a trait:
trait Base {
val toBeOverride: String
}
case class Impl(other:Int) extends Base {
override val toBeOverride = "some value"
}
How can I write a function that I can easily get a cloned instance only overriding the toBeOverride value, like this:
// copy only available to case class instance
// v does not have method 'copy'
def overrideBaseValue[T <: Base](v: Base) =
v.copy(toBeOverride = "prefix" + v.toBeOverride)
?
Edit
#som-snytt, I don't think this is a duplicate, just like a Trait is not the same as an Abstract Class. And the answers of that question do not satisfy me, see below.
#Blaisorblade, yes, it is a problem. For instances of each sub case class, the toBeOverride field are the same, so it should not appear in the constructor.
For now all the suggestions are to define an customized copy method in each(!) sub case class and that in my opinion is ugly and shows the incapability of the language.
The simplest solution is to just add the method you want to Base:
trait Base {
val toBeOverride: String
def copyBase(newToBeOverridden: String): Base
}
case class Impl(other:Int, override val toBeOverride: String = "some value") extends Base {
def copyBase(newToBeOverridden: String) = copy(toBeOverride = newToBeOverridden)
}
This also allows to directly create an instance of Impl while specifying the value of toBeOverride (which wasn't possible). The only disadvantage is that now pattern matches using Impl have to change syntax - please update your question and add a comment if that's a problem.
BTW, if you just want to add a prefix (as in your example), that's no problem:
case class Impl(other:Int, override val toBeOverride: String = "some value") extends Base {
def copyBase(newToBeOverridden: String) = copy(toBeOverride = toBeOverride + newToBeOverridden)
}
Here are two mechanisms.
Apparently, in the near future you'll be able to write a macro that can emit the anonymous subclass, but until then, I think this typeclass is not arduous.
Just kicking the tires on Dynamic here.
import scala.language.dynamics
import scala.reflect._
import scala.reflect.runtime.{ currentMirror => cm }
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
trait Base {
def m: String
}
case class Impl(p: Int) extends Base {
override val m = "some value"
}
trait Basic extends Dynamic {
protected def m: String
def selectDynamic(f: String): Any =
if ("m" == f) m else reflecting(this, f)
protected def reflecting(b: Basic, f: String) = {
val im = cm.reflect(b)
val member = im.symbol.typeSignature member newTermName(f)
require(member != NoSymbol, s"No such member $f")
(im reflectMethod member.asMethod)()
}
}
case class Implic(p: Int) extends Basic {
override protected val m = "some value"
}
object Test extends App {
implicit class Copy[A <: Base](val b: A) {
def overriding(overm: String): A = (b match {
case impl: Impl => new Impl(impl.p) { override val m = overm }
case b: Base => new Base { override val m = overm }
}).asInstanceOf[A]
}
implicit class Proxy[A <: Basic : ClassTag](val b: A) {
def proximately(overm: String): Basic = new Basic {
override val m = overm
override def selectDynamic(f: String): Any =
if ("m" == f) overm else reflecting(b, f)
override def toString = b.toString
}
}
// asked for this
//def overriding[T <: Base](v: Base) = v.copy(m = "prefix" + v.m)
/* want something like this
def overriding[T <: Base](v: Base) = new Impl(v.p) {
override val m = "some value"
} */
val a = Impl(5)
val b = a overriding "bee good"
Console println s"$a with ${a.m} ~> $b with ${b.m}"
// or
val c = Implic(7)
val d = c proximately "dynomite"
Console println s"$c with ${c.m} ~> $d with ${d.m}"
}
Since traits don't get copy methods automatically, you can try using a Base case class instead:
case class Base(toBeOverride: String)
case class Impl(other: Int, someVal: String = "some value") extends Base(someVal)
def overrideBaseValue[T <: Base](v: Base) =
v.copy(toBeOverride = "prefix" + v.toBeOverride)
The problem that you're going to run into though, is that copy returns an instance of Base and I don't think that you can convert it back to your original Impl class. For instance, this won't compile:
def overrideBaseValue[T <: Base](v: T): T =
v.copy(toBeOverride = "prefix" + v.toBeOverride)