I encountered the following code while checking through a Scala code. I'm finding it difficult to understand what it does.
class Foo(val name: String, val age: Int, val sex: Symbol)
object Foo {
def apply(name: String, age: Int, sex: Symbol) = new Foo(name, age, sex)
}
Does it add a constructor method to the Class Foo which was already defined?
Is it possible to add extra methods to classes which are already defined using this syntax?
Does it add a constructor method to the Class Foo which was already
defined?
It adds syntax sugar to the class. Meaning, you can create an instance of Foo like this:
val foo = Foo()
Instead of
val foo = new Foo()
Is it possible to add extra methods to classes which are already
defined using this syntax?
In that regards, apply is special as the compiler knows it and expands Foo() to Foo.apply. This means that any other method you want to invoke, you'll have to call the Foo static object, but they will not apply to the Foo instance.
If you want to externally add methods to Foo, you can do so via an implicit class:
implicit class RichFoo(foo: Foo) extends AnyVal {
def fooDetails(): String = s"{Name: ${foo.name}, Age: ${foo.Age}"
}
Now you can call it on an instance of Foo:
val f = Foo()
println(f.fooDetails())
In the case, you can think of Foo.apply() as a static method.
Realistically, objects in Scala are implemented as Singleton instances.
Here's the documentation on that.
You can invoke any class or object instance in Scala if it has an apply method. What you're doing here is adding a constructor method to Foo's companion object so that when you call it, it will instantiate an instance of Foo.
It is not possible to add methods to an instance with this method. For that, you might be interested in the Scala Pimp My Library pattern which is implemented using implicits.
// the following are equivalent, given your code above
val x = new Foo("Jason", 29, 'Male)
val y = Foo.apply("Jason", 29, 'Male)
val z = Foo("Jason", 29, 'Male)
Please read about companion object: http://docs.scala-lang.org/tutorials/tour/singleton-objects.html hope this helps
It simplifies object creation for this type. Other way will be to create case class.
Looks like as duplicate to me:
Scala: companion object purpose
This pattern is commonly know as static factory methods. The code you provided is not very useful, but consider these additional factory methods (think of them as "named constructors"):
class Foo(val name: String, val age: Int, val sex: Symbol)
object Foo {
def apply(name: String, age: Int, sex: Symbol) = new Foo(name, age, sex)
def newMaleFoo(name:String,age:int) = new Foo(name,age,'male)
def newPeterFoo(age:int) = new Foo("Peter",age,'male)
}
Related
For example, how is this:
class Cat(name: String, val age: Int) {
def this() = this("Garfield", 20)
}
val someCat = new Cat
someCat.age
res0: Int = 20
Different from:
class Cat(name: String = "Garfield", val age: Int = 20)
val someCat = new Cat
someCat.age
res0: Int = 20
Note:
I have seen answers to other questions(e.g here) that discuss the differences between Java & Scala in the implementation for auxiliary constructors. But I am mostly trying to understand why do we need them in Scala, in the first place.
Auxiliary constructors are good for more than just supplying defaults. For example, here's one that can take arguments of different types:
class MyBigInt(x: Int) {
def this(s: String) = this(s.toInt)
}
You can also hide the main constructor if it contains implementation details:
class MyBigInt private(private val data: List[Byte]) {
def this(n: Int) = this(...)
}
This allows you to have data clearly be the backing structure for your class while avoiding cluttering your class with the arguments to one of your auxiliary constructors.
Another use for auxiliary constructors could be migrating Java code to Scala (or refactoring to change a backing type, as in the example above) without breaking dependencies. In general though, it is often better to use a custom apply method in the companion object, as they are more flexible.
A recurring use case I noticed is, as Brian McCutchon already mentioned in his answer "For example, here's one that can take arguments of different types", parameters of Option type in the primary constructor. For example:
class Person(val firstName:String, val middleName:Option[String], val lastName: String)
To create a new instance you need to do:
val person = new Person("Guido", Some("van"), "Rossum")
But with an auxiliary constructor, the whole process will be very pleasant.
class Person(val firstName:String, val middleName:Option[String], val lastName: String){
def this(firstName:String, middleName:String, lastName: String) = this(firstName, Some(middleName), lastName)
}
val person = new Person("Guido", "van", "Rossum")
I have a model class im getting back from an api inside my servcie, and when I return it to some client I want to use my own model to keep it simpler and cleaner for the client.
example :
case class ReturnedModel(succeed: Option[String], reason: Reason, transactionId: List[Int], opId: Option[Int])
case class MyReturnedModel(reason: String)
I might need to do more of those in the future so I thought maybe there is a best practice to do it that I dont know of, thanks!
You can use a companion object with a custom "apply" method:
case class MyReturnedModel(reason: String)
object MyReturnedModel {
def apply(mod: ReturnedModel) = MyReturnedModel(mod.reason.toString)
}
val data: ReturnedModel = ... // Some instance of ReturnedModel
val mr = MyReturnModel(data)
Just note that the case class and its companion object need to be in the same file for this to work.
Depending on your use case:
sealed trait IKnowAReason { def reason:String }
case class ReturnedModel(succeed: Option[String], reason: Reason,
transactionId: List[Int], opId: Option[Int]) extends IKnowAReason
Now replace uses of MyReturnedModel with IKnowAReason. Notice the sealed, it will ensure that there are no other implementations of IKnowAReason outside the same source file.
If you have access to change the ReturnedModel, you could use traits like #pedrofurla has demonstrated.
If you are unable to modify the ReturnedModel, you could declare an implicit function to convert all instance of ReturnedModel to MyReturnedModel like this:
implicit def returnedModelToMyModel(returnedModel: ReturnedModel): MyReturnedModel = {
// Have some logic to convert their model to your model
MyReturnedModel(returnedModel.reason.toString)
}
Then whenever you get a ReturnedModel from the API, you can use it anywhere you are expecting an instance of MyReturnedModel:
def doWork(myReturnedModel: MyReturnedModel) = { /* Logic that needs and instance of MyReturnedModel */ }
// Grab an instance of ReturnModel from the API
val returned: ReturnedModel = ???
// Will get converted when you need it to be an instance of MyReturnedModel
doWork(returned)
The compiler will try to preform implicit conversions when it finds that the type you have passed is not correct, at which point it will look for an implicit conversion to satisfy the type conversion.
What is the difference between defining an object using the new operator vs defining a standalone object by extending the class?
More specifically, given the type class GenericType { ... }, what is the difference between val a = new GenericType and object a extends GenericType?
As a practical matter, object declarations are initialized with the same mechanism as new in the bytecode. However, there are quite a few differences:
object as singletons -- each belongs to a class of which only one instance exists;
object is lazily initialized -- they'll only be created/initialized when first referred to;
an object and a class (or trait) of the same name are companions;
methods defined on object generate static forwarders on the companion class;
members of the object can access private members of the companion class;
when searching for implicits, companion objects of relevant* classes or traits are looked into.
These are just some of the differences that I can think of right of the bat. There are probably others.
* What are the "relevant" classes or traits is a longer story -- look up questions on Stack Overflow that explain it if you are interested. Look at the wiki for the scala tag if you have trouble finding them.
object definition (whether it extends something or not) means singleton object creation.
scala> class GenericType
defined class GenericType
scala> val a = new GenericType
a: GenericType = GenericType#2d581156
scala> val a = new GenericType
a: GenericType = GenericType#71e7c512
scala> object genericObject extends GenericType
defined module genericObject
scala> val a = genericObject
a: genericObject.type = genericObject$#5549fe36
scala> val a = genericObject
a: genericObject.type = genericObject$#5549fe36
While object declarations have a different semantic than a new expression, a local object declaration is for all intents and purpose the same thing as a lazy val of the same name. Consider:
class Foo( name: String ) {
println(name+".new")
def doSomething( arg: Int ) {
println(name+".doSomething("+arg+")")
}
}
def bar( x: => Foo ) {
x.doSomething(1)
x.doSomething(2)
}
def test1() {
lazy val a = new Foo("a")
bar( a )
}
def test2() {
object b extends Foo("b")
bar( b )
}
test1 defines a as a lazy val initialized with a new instance of Foo, while test2 defines b as an object extending Foo.
In essence, both lazily create a new instance of Foo and give it a name (a/b).
You can try it in the REPL and verify that they both behave the same:
scala> test1()
a.new
a.doSomething(1)
a.doSomething(2)
scala> test2()
b.new
b.doSomething(1)
b.doSomething(2)
So despite the semantic differences between object and a lazy val (in particular the special treatment of object's by the language, as outlined by Daniel C. Sobral),
a lazy val can always be substituted with a corresponding object (not that it's a very good practice), and the same goes for a lazy val/object that is a member of a class/trait.
The main practical difference I can think of will be that the object has a more specific static type: b is of type b.type (which extends Foo) while a has exactly the type Foo.
I want to do something like this:
sealed abstract class Base(val myparam:String)
case class Foo(override val myparam:String) extends Base(myparam)
case class Bar(override val myparam:String) extends Base(myparam)
def getIt( a:Base ) = a.copy(myparam="changed")
I can't, because in the context of getIt, I haven't told the compiler that every Base has a 'copy' method, but copy isn't really a method either so I don't think there's a trait or abstract method I can put in Base to make this work properly. Or, is there?
If I try to define Base as abstract class Base{ def copy(myparam:String):Base }, then case class Foo(myparam:String) extends Base results in class Foo needs to be abstract, since method copy in class Base of type (myparam: String)Base is not defined
Is there some other way to tell the compiler that all Base classes will be case classes in their implementation? Some trait that means "has the properties of a case class"?
I could make Base be a case class, but then I get compiler warnings saying that inheritance from case classes is deprecated?
I know I can also:
def getIt(f:Base)={
(f.getClass.getConstructors.head).newInstance("yeah").asInstanceOf[Base]
}
but... that seems very ugly.
Thoughts? Is my whole approach just "wrong" ?
UPDATE I changed the base class to contain the attribute, and made the case classes use the "override" keyword. This better reflects the actual problem and makes the problem more realistic in consideration of Edmondo1984's response.
This is old answer, before the question was changed.
Strongly typed programming languages prevent what you are trying to do. Let's see why.
The idea of a method with the following signature:
def getIt( a:Base ) : Unit
Is that the body of the method will be able to access a properties visible through Base class or interface, i.e. the properties and methods defined only on the Base class/interface or its parents. During code execution, each specific instance passed to the getIt method might have a different subclass but the compile type of a will always be Base
One can reason in this way:
Ok I have a class Base, I inherit it in two case classes and I add a
property with the same name, and then I try to access the property on
the instance of Base.
A simple example shows why this is unsafe:
sealed abstract class Base
case class Foo(myparam:String) extends Base
case class Bar(myparam:String) extends Base
case class Evil(myEvilParam:String) extends Base
def getIt( a:Base ) = a.copy(myparam="changed")
In the following case, if the compiler didn't throw an error at compile time, it means the code would try to access a property that does not exist at runtime. This is not possible in strictly typed programming languages: you have traded restrictions on the code you can write for a much stronger verification of your code by the compiler, knowing that this reduces dramatically the number of bugs your code can contain
This is the new answer. It is a little long because few points are needed before getting to the conclusion
Unluckily, you can't rely on the mechanism of case classes copy to implement what you propose. The way the copy method works is simply a copy constructor which you can implement yourself in a non-case class. Let's create a case class and disassemble it in the REPL:
scala> case class MyClass(name:String, surname:String, myJob:String)
defined class MyClass
scala> :javap MyClass
Compiled from "<console>"
public class MyClass extends java.lang.Object implements scala.ScalaObject,scala.Product,scala.Serializable{
public scala.collection.Iterator productIterator();
public scala.collection.Iterator productElements();
public java.lang.String name();
public java.lang.String surname();
public java.lang.String myJob();
public MyClass copy(java.lang.String, java.lang.String, java.lang.String);
public java.lang.String copy$default$3();
public java.lang.String copy$default$2();
public java.lang.String copy$default$1();
public int hashCode();
public java.lang.String toString();
public boolean equals(java.lang.Object);
public java.lang.String productPrefix();
public int productArity();
public java.lang.Object productElement(int);
public boolean canEqual(java.lang.Object);
public MyClass(java.lang.String, java.lang.String, java.lang.String);
}
In Scala, the copy method takes three parameter and can eventually use the one from the current instance for the one you haven't specified ( the Scala language provides among its features default values for parameters in method calls)
Let's go down in our analysis and take again the code as updated:
sealed abstract class Base(val myparam:String)
case class Foo(override val myparam:String) extends Base(myparam)
case class Bar(override val myparam:String) extends Base(myparam)
def getIt( a:Base ) = a.copy(myparam="changed")
Now in order to make this compile, we would need to use in the signature of getIt(a:MyType) a MyType that respect the following contract:
Anything that has a parameter myparam and maybe other parameters which
have default value
All these methods would be suitable:
def copy(myParam:String) = null
def copy(myParam:String, myParam2:String="hello") = null
def copy(myParam:String,myParam2:Option[Option[Option[Double]]]=None) = null
There is no way to express this contract in Scala, however there are advanced techniques that can be helpful.
The first observation that we can do is that there is a strict relation between case classes and tuples in Scala. In fact case classes are somehow tuples with additional behaviour and named properties.
The second observation is that, since the number of properties of your classes hierarchy is not guaranteed to be the same, the copy method signature is not guaranteed to be the same.
In practice, supposing AnyTuple[Int] describes any Tuple of any size where the first value is of type Int, we are looking to do something like that:
def copyTupleChangingFirstElement(myParam:AnyTuple[Int], newValue:Int) = myParam.copy(_1=newValue)
This would not be to difficult if all the elements were Int. A tuple with all element of the same type is a List, and we know how to replace the first element of a List. We would need to convert any TupleX to List, replace the first element, and convert the List back to TupleX. Yes we will need to write all the converters for all the values that X might assume. Annoying but not difficult.
In our case though, not all the elements are Int. We want to treat Tuple where the elements are of different type as if they were all the same if the first element is an Int. This is called
"Abstracting over arity"
i.e. treating tuples of different size in a generic way, independently of their size. To do it, we need to convert them into a special list which supports heterogenous types, named HList
Conclusion
Case classes inheritance is deprecated for very good reason, as you can find out from multiple posts in the mailing list: http://www.scala-lang.org/node/3289
You have two strategies to deal with your problem:
If you have a limited number of fields you require to change, use an approach such as the one suggested by #Ron, which is having a copy method. If you want to do it without losing type information, I would go for generifying the base class
sealed abstract class Base[T](val param:String){
def copy(param:String):T
}
class Foo(param:String) extends Base[Foo](param){
def copy(param: String) = new Foo(param)
}
def getIt[T](a:Base[T]) : T = a.copy("hello")
scala> new Foo("Pippo")
res0: Foo = Foo#4ab8fba5
scala> getIt(res0)
res1: Foo = Foo#5b927504
scala> res1.param
res2: String = hello
If you really want to abstract over arity, a solution is to use a library developed by Miles Sabin called Shapeless. There is a question here which has been asked after a discussion : Are HLists nothing more than a convoluted way of writing tuples? but I tell you this is going to give you some headache
If the two case classes would diverge over time so that they have different fields, then the shared copy approach would cease to work.
It is better to define an abstract def withMyParam(newParam: X): Base. Even better, you can introduce an abstract type to retain the case class type upon return:
scala> trait T {
| type Sub <: T
| def myParam: String
| def withMyParam(newParam: String): Sub
| }
defined trait T
scala> case class Foo(myParam: String) extends T {
| type Sub = Foo
| override def withMyParam(newParam: String) = this.copy(myParam = newParam)
| }
defined class Foo
scala>
scala> case class Bar(myParam: String) extends T {
| type Sub = Bar
| override def withMyParam(newParam: String) = this.copy(myParam = newParam)
| }
defined class Bar
scala> Bar("hello").withMyParam("dolly")
res0: Bar = Bar(dolly)
TL;DR: I managed to declare the copy method on Base while still letting the compiler auto generate its implementations in the derived case classes. This involves a little trick (and actually I'd myself just redesign the type hierarchy) but at least it goes to show that you can indeed make it work without writing boiler plate code in any of the derived case classes.
First, and as already mentioned by ron and Edmondo1984, you'll get into troubles if your case classes have different fields.
I'll strictly stick to your example though, and assume that all your case classes have the same fields (looking at your github link, this seems to be the case of your actual code too).
Given that all your case classes have the same fields, the auto-generated copy methods will have the same signature which is a good start. It seems reasonable then to just add the common definition in Base, as you did:
abstract class Base{ def copy(myparam: String):Base }
The problem is now that scala won't generate the copy methods, because there is already one in the base class.
It turns out that there is another way to statically ensure that Base has the right copy method, and it is through structural typing and self-type annotation:
type Copyable = { def copy(myParam: String): Base }
sealed abstract class Base(val myParam: String) { this : Copyable => }
And unlike in our earlier attempt, this will not prevent scala to auto-generate the copy methods.
There is one last problem: the self-type annotation makes sure that sub-classes of Base have a copy method, but it does not make it publicly availabe on Base:
val foo: Base = Foo("hello")
foo.copy()
scala> error: value copy is not a member of Base
To work around this we can add an implicit conversion from Base to Copyable. A simple cast will do, as a Base is guaranteed to be a Copyable:
implicit def toCopyable( base: Base ): Base with Copyable = base.asInstanceOf[Base with Copyable]
Wrapping up, this gives us:
object Base {
type Copyable = { def copy(myParam: String): Base }
implicit def toCopyable( base: Base ): Base with Copyable = base.asInstanceOf[Base with Copyable]
}
sealed abstract class Base(val myParam: String) { this : Base. Copyable => }
case class Foo(override val myParam: String) extends Base( myParam )
case class Bar(override val myParam: String) extends Base( myParam )
def getIt( a:Base ) = a.copy(myParam="changed")
Bonus effect: if we try to define a case class with a different signature, we get a compile error:
case class Baz(override val myParam: String, truc: Int) extends Base( myParam )
scala> error: illegal inheritance; self-type Baz does not conform to Base's selftype Base with Base.Copyable
To finish, one warning: you should probably just revise your design to avoid having to resort to the above trick.
In your case, ron's suggestion to use a single case class with an additional etype field seems more than reasonable.
I think this is what extension methods are for. Take your pick of implementation strategies for the copy method itself.
I like here that the problem is solved in one place.
It's interesting to ask why there is no trait for caseness: it wouldn't say much about how to invoke copy, except that it can always be invoked without args, copy().
sealed trait Base { def p1: String }
case class Foo(val p1: String) extends Base
case class Bar(val p1: String, p2: String) extends Base
case class Rab(val p2: String, p1: String) extends Base
case class Baz(val p1: String)(val p3: String = p1.reverse) extends Base
object CopyCase extends App {
implicit class Copy(val b: Base) extends AnyVal {
def copy(p1: String): Base = b match {
case foo: Foo => foo.copy(p1 = p1)
case bar: Bar => bar.copy(p1 = p1)
case rab: Rab => rab.copy(p1 = p1)
case baz: Baz => baz.copy(p1 = p1)(p1.reverse)
}
//def copy(p1: String): Base = reflect invoke
//def copy(p1: String): Base = macro xcopy
}
val f = Foo("param1")
val g = f.copy(p1="param2") // normal
val h: Base = Bar("A", "B")
val j = h.copy("basic") // enhanced
println(List(f,g,h,j) mkString ", ")
val bs = List(Foo("param1"), Bar("A","B"), Rab("A","B"), Baz("param3")())
val vs = bs map (b => b copy (p1 = b.p1 * 2))
println(vs)
}
Just for fun, reflective copy:
// finger exercise in the api
def copy(p1: String): Base = {
import scala.reflect.runtime.{ currentMirror => cm }
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
val im = cm.reflect(b)
val ts = im.symbol.typeSignature
val copySym = ts.member(newTermName("copy")).asMethod
def element(p: Symbol): Any = (im reflectMethod ts.member(p.name).asMethod)()
val args = for (ps <- copySym.params; p <- ps) yield {
if (p.name.toString == "p1") p1 else element(p)
}
(im reflectMethod copySym)(args: _*).asInstanceOf[Base]
}
This works fine for me:
sealed abstract class Base { def copy(myparam: String): Base }
case class Foo(myparam:String) extends Base {
override def copy(x: String = myparam) = Foo(x)
}
def copyBase(x: Base) = x.copy("changed")
copyBase(Foo("abc")) //Foo(changed)
There is a very comprehensive explanation of how to do this using shapeless at http://www.cakesolutions.net/teamblogs/copying-sealed-trait-instances-a-journey-through-generic-programming-and-shapeless ; in case the link breaks, the approach uses the copySyntax utilities from shapeless, which should be sufficient to find more details.
Its an old problem, with an old solution,
https://code.google.com/p/scala-scales/wiki/VirtualConstructorPreSIP
made before the case class copy method existed.
So in reference to this problem each case class MUST be a leaf node anyway, so define the copy and a MyType / thisType plus the newThis function and you are set, each case class fixes the type. If you want to widen the tree/newThis function and use default parameters you'll have to change the name.
as an aside - I've been waiting for compiler plugin magic to improve before implementing this but type macros may be the magic juice. Search in the lists for Kevin's AutoProxy for a more detailed explanation of why my code never went anywhere
So here's the situation. I want to define a case class like so:
case class A(val s: String)
and I want to define an object to ensure that when I create instances of the class, the value for 's' is always uppercase, like so:
object A {
def apply(s: String) = new A(s.toUpperCase)
}
However, this doesn't work since Scala is complaining that the apply(s: String) method is defined twice. I understand that the case class syntax will automatically define it for me, but isn't there another way I can achieve this? I'd like to stick with the case class since I want to use it for pattern matching.
The reason for the conflict is that the case class provides the exact same apply() method (same signature).
First of all I would like to suggest you use require:
case class A(s: String) {
require(! s.toCharArray.exists( _.isLower ), "Bad string: "+ s)
}
This will throw an Exception if the user tries to create an instance where s includes lower case chars. This is a good use of case classes, since what you put into the constructor also is what you get out when you use pattern matching (match).
If this is not what you want, then I would make the constructor private and force the users to only use the apply method:
class A private (val s: String) {
}
object A {
def apply(s: String): A = new A(s.toUpperCase)
}
As you see, A is no longer a case class. I am not sure if case classes with immutable fields are meant for modification of the incoming values, since the name "case class" implies it should be possible to extract the (unmodified) constructor arguments using match.
UPDATE 2016/02/25:
While the answer I wrote below remains sufficient, it's worth also referencing another related answer to this regarding the case class's companion object. Namely, how does one exactly reproduce the compiler generated implicit companion object which occurs when one only defines the case class itself. For me, it turned out to be counter intuitive.
Summary:
You can alter the value of a case class parameter before it is stored in the case class pretty simply while it still remaining a valid(ated) ADT (Abstract Data Type). While the solution was relatively simple, discovering the details was quite a bit more challenging.
Details:
If you want to ensure only valid instances of your case class can ever be instantiated which is an essential assumption behind an ADT (Abstract Data Type), there are a number of things you must do.
For example, a compiler generated copy method is provided by default on a case class. So, even if you were very careful to ensure only instances were created via the explicit companion object's apply method which guaranteed they could only ever contain upper case values, the following code would produce a case class instance with a lower case value:
val a1 = A("Hi There") //contains "HI THERE"
val a2 = a1.copy(s = "gotcha") //contains "gotcha"
Additionally, case classes implement java.io.Serializable. This means that your careful strategy to only have upper case instances can be subverted with a simple text editor and deserialization.
So, for all the various ways your case class can be used (benevolently and/or malevolently), here are the actions you must take:
For your explicit companion object:
Create it using exactly the same name as your case class
This has access to the case class's private parts
Create an apply method with exactly the same signature as the primary constructor for your case class
This will successfully compile once step 2.1 is completed
Provide an implementation obtaining an instance of the case class using the new operator and providing an empty implementation {}
This will now instantiate the case class strictly on your terms
The empty implementation {} must be provided because the case class is declared abstract (see step 2.1)
For your case class:
Declare it abstract
Prevents the Scala compiler from generating an apply method in the companion object which is what was causing the "method is defined twice..." compilation error (step 1.2 above)
Mark the primary constructor as private[A]
The primary constructor is now only available to the case class itself and to its companion object (the one we defined above in step 1.1)
Create a readResolve method
Provide an implementation using the apply method (step 1.2 above)
Create a copy method
Define it to have exactly the same signature as the case class's primary constructor
For each parameter, add a default value using the same parameter name (ex: s: String = s)
Provide an implementation using the apply method (step 1.2 below)
Here's your code modified with the above actions:
object A {
def apply(s: String, i: Int): A =
new A(s.toUpperCase, i) {} //abstract class implementation intentionally empty
}
abstract case class A private[A] (s: String, i: Int) {
private def readResolve(): Object = //to ensure validation and possible singleton-ness, must override readResolve to use explicit companion object apply method
A.apply(s, i)
def copy(s: String = s, i: Int = i): A =
A.apply(s, i)
}
And here's your code after implementing the require (suggested in the #ollekullberg answer) and also identifying the ideal place to put any sort of caching:
object A {
def apply(s: String, i: Int): A = {
require(s.forall(_.isUpper), s"Bad String: $s")
//TODO: Insert normal instance caching mechanism here
new A(s, i) {} //abstract class implementation intentionally empty
}
}
abstract case class A private[A] (s: String, i: Int) {
private def readResolve(): Object = //to ensure validation and possible singleton-ness, must override readResolve to use explicit companion object apply method
A.apply(s, i)
def copy(s: String = s, i: Int = i): A =
A.apply(s, i)
}
And this version is more secure/robust if this code will be used via Java interop (hides the case class as an implementation and creates a final class which prevents derivations):
object A {
private[A] abstract case class AImpl private[A] (s: String, i: Int)
def apply(s: String, i: Int): A = {
require(s.forall(_.isUpper), s"Bad String: $s")
//TODO: Insert normal instance caching mechanism here
new A(s, i)
}
}
final class A private[A] (s: String, i: Int) extends A.AImpl(s, i) {
private def readResolve(): Object = //to ensure validation and possible singleton-ness, must override readResolve to use explicit companion object apply method
A.apply(s, i)
def copy(s: String = s, i: Int = i): A =
A.apply(s, i)
}
While this directly answers your question, there are even more ways to expand this pathway around case classes beyond instance caching. For my own project needs, I have created an even more expansive solution which I have documented on CodeReview (a StackOverflow sister site). If you end up looking it over, using or leveraging my solution, please consider leaving me feedback, suggestions or questions and within reason, I will do my best to respond within a day.
I don't know how to override the apply method in the companion object (if that is even possible) but you could also use a special type for upper case strings:
class UpperCaseString(s: String) extends Proxy {
val self: String = s.toUpperCase
}
implicit def stringToUpperCaseString(s: String) = new UpperCaseString(s)
implicit def upperCaseStringToString(s: UpperCaseString) = s.self
case class A(val s: UpperCaseString)
println(A("hello"))
The above code outputs:
A(HELLO)
You should also have a look at this question and it's answers: Scala: is it possible to override default case class constructor?
For the people reading this after April 2017: As of Scala 2.12.2+, Scala allows overriding apply and unapply by default. You can get this behavior by giving -Xsource:2.12 option to the compiler on Scala 2.11.11+ as well.
It works with var variables:
case class A(var s: String) {
// Conversion
s = s.toUpperCase
}
This practice is apparently encouraged in case classes instead of defining another constructor. See here.. When copying an object, you also keep the same modifications.
Another idea while keeping case class and having no implicit defs or another constructor is to make the signature of apply slightly different but from a user perspective the same.
Somewhere I have seen the implicit trick, but can´t remember/find which implicit argument it was, so I chose Boolean here. If someone can help me out and finish the trick...
object A {
def apply(s: String)(implicit ev: Boolean) = new A(s.toLowerCase)
}
case class A(s: String)
I faced the same problem and this solution is ok for me:
sealed trait A {
def s:String
}
object A {
private case class AImpl(s:String)
def apply(s:String):A = AImpl(s.toUpperCase)
}
And, if any method is needed, just define it in the trait and override it in the case class.
If you're stuck with older scala where you cant override by default or you dont want to add the compiler flag as #mehmet-emre showed, and you require a case class, you can do the following:
case class A(private val _s: String) {
val s = _s.toUpperCase
}
As of 2020 on Scala 2.13, the above scenario of overriding a case class apply method with same signature works totally fine.
case class A(val s: String)
object A {
def apply(s: String) = new A(s.toUpperCase)
}
the above snippet compiles and runs just fine in Scala 2.13 both in REPL & non-REPL modes.
I think this works exactly how you want it to already. Here's my REPL session:
scala> case class A(val s: String)
defined class A
scala> object A {
| def apply(s: String) = new A(s.toUpperCase)
| }
defined module A
scala> A("hello")
res0: A = A(HELLO)
This is using Scala 2.8.1.final