I have two methods to add elements to a customized collection:
class WrappedMap[A, B] {
protected var a2b = Map[A, B]()
def +=(a: A, b: B) = {
a2b += a -> b
this
}
def +=(t: (A,B)): this.type = {
this.+=(t._1, t._2)
}
def ++=(t: Iterable[(A,B)]) = {
(this /: t){ case (b, elem) => b += elem }
}
}
val c = new WrappedMap[Int, Int]
c ++= Seq((1, 2),(2, 4))
It throws a Stackoverflow exception because the call to the += inside ++= calls the +=, which in turns call itself instead of calling the first variant.
How can I change the call in the body of the second += so that it calls the first one?
The problem is the specification of this.type as the return type from the second form of +=. Not sure the exact reason but the compiler does not recognise the first form as returning this.type therefore it can't be used to satisfy the return type of the second form. I recreated it with:
case class Foo[A,B](s: String) {
def bar(a: String, b: String) = {
this.copy(s"a: $a b: $b")
}
def bar(c: (String, String)): this.type = {
this.bar (c._1, c._2)
}
}
val f = Foo("")
f bar (("hello", "world"))
Instead, you can just use the class and type params as the return type:
case class Foo[A, B](s: String) {
def bar(a: String, b: String) : Foo[A,B] = {
this.copy(s"a: $a b: $b")
}
def bar(c: (String, String)): Foo[A, B] = {
this.bar (c._1, c._2)
}
}
val f = Foo[Int, Long]("")
f bar (("hello", "world"))
Or, where inheritance needs to be supported:
class Foo[A, B] {
private var s: String = ""
def bar(a: String, b: String) : this.type = {
s = s"a: $a b: $b"
this
}
def bar(c: (String, String)): this.type = {
this.bar (c._1, c._2)
}
}
case object Foo2 extends Foo[Int, Long]
Foo2 bar (("hello", "world"))
Related
I have some overloaded methods that take in multiple types and return the same type:
def foo(x: Int): Foo = ...
def foo(x: String): Foo = ...
def foo(x: Boolean): Foo = ...
def foo(x: Long): Foo = ...
Now I want to define a single way to call the method, something like:
def bar(x: Int | String | Boolean | Long) = foo(x) // how to do this?
I can do it the "naive" way which I don't like very much:
def bar(x: Any) = x match {
case i:Int => foo(i)
case s:String => foo(s)
case b:Boolean => foo(b)
case l:Long => foo(l)
case _ => throw new Exception("Unsupported type")
}
Is there a better way, perhaps using Scalaz or some other library?
Try type class
trait FooDoer[T] {
def foo(x: T): Foo
}
object FooDoer {
implicit val int: FooDoer[Int] = (x: Int) => foo(x)
implicit val string: FooDoer[String] = (x: String) => foo(x)
implicit val boolean: FooDoer[Boolean] = (x: Boolean) => foo(x)
implicit val long: FooDoer[Long] = (x: Long) => foo(x)
}
def bar[T](x: T)(implicit fooDoer: FooDoer[T]): Foo = fooDoer.foo(x)
bar(1)
bar("a")
bar(true)
bar(1L)
// bar(1.0) // doesn't compile
Also sometimes the following can help
def bar[T](x: T)(implicit ev: (T =:= Int) | (T =:= String) | (T =:= Boolean) | (T =:= Long)) = ???
trait |[A, B]
trait LowPriority_| {
implicit def a[A, B](implicit a: A): A | B = null
}
object | extends LowPriority_| {
implicit def b[A, B](implicit b: B): A | B = null
}
How to define "type disjunction" (union types)?
A typeclass might work like this:
trait CanFoo[T] {
def foo(t: T): Foo
}
object CanFoo {
implicit object intFoo extends CanFoo[Int] {
def foo(i: Int) = Foo(i)
}
implicit object stringFoo extends CanFoo[String] {
def foo(s: String) = Foo(s)
}
implicit object boolFoo extends CanFoo[Boolean] {
def foo(i: Boolean) = Foo(i)
}
implicit object longFoo extends CanFoo[Long] {
def foo(i: Long) = Foo(i)
}
}
def bar[T](x: T)(implicit ev: CanFoo[T]) =
ev.foo(x)
bar(0)
bar("hello")
bar(true)
bar(0.toLong)
Having the following code:
import shapeless.{::, Generic, HList, HNil, Lazy}
object Problem {
trait In {
def bar: Double
}
trait A {
def foo: Int
type I <: In
}
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
final case class A1In(d: Double) extends In {
override def bar: Double = 1.1 + d
}
final case class A1() extends A {
override def foo: Int = 1
override type I = A1In
}
final case class A2In(d: Double) extends In {
override def bar: Double = 1.1 + d
}
final case class A2() extends A {
override def foo: Int = 1
override type I = A2In
}
final case class AListIn[T <: HList](items: T)(implicit ev: isIn[T]) extends In {
override def bar = 1.1
}
final case class AList[T <: HList](items: T)(implicit ev: isA[T]) extends A {
override def foo: Int = 555
override type I = AListIn[???]
}
trait isA[T] {
def aux_foo(value: T): Int
}
trait isIn[T] {
def aux_bar(value: T): Double
}
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
def alloc(a: A): In = ????
def usage() = {
val a1: A1 = A1()
val a2: A2 = A2()
val l: AList[::[A1, ::[A2, ::[A1, HNil]]]] = AList(a1 :: a2 :: a1 :: HNil)
val a1In: A1In = A1In(1.2)
val a2In: A2In = A2In(9.3)
val lIn: AListIn[::[A2In, ::[A1In, HNil]]] = AListIn(a2In :: a1In :: HNil)
}
}
How can I fix it so it works as expected?
E.g how do I get correct type in place of ??? which is a proper type HList being result of applying isA -> isIn type mapping. The mapping must follow the natural association of A -> In mapping defined as type I <: In in trait A
And how to implement alloc function which for any concrete instance of In will produce corresponding instance of A?
Should concrete implementations of In be path dependent types of corresponding As?
Below is the code for isA the code for isIn is analogous
trait isA[T] {
def aux_foo(value: T): Int
}
object isA {
// "Summoner" method
def apply[T](implicit enc: isA[T]): isA[T] = enc
// "Constructor" method
def instance[T](func: T => Int): isA[T] = new isA[T] {
override def aux_foo(value: T): Int = func(value)
}
implicit def a1Encoder: isA[A1] = instance(i => 4)
implicit def a2Encoder: isA[A2] = instance(i => 9)
implicit def hnilEncoder: isA[HNil] = instance(hnil => 0)
implicit def hlistEncoder[H, T <: HList](implicit
hInstance: Lazy[isA[H]],
tInstance: isA[T]
): isA[H :: T] = instance {
case h :: t => hInstance.value.aux_foo(h) + tInstance.aux_foo(t)
}
implicit def genericInstance[A, R](implicit
generic: Generic.Aux[A, R],
rInstance: Lazy[isA[R]]
): isA[A] = instance { value => rInstance.value.aux_foo(generic.to(value)) }
}
I have the code that instance.get returns value, and based on the type I process accordingly.
instance.get match {
case v:Range => {
val sizeInBytes = util.conversion.Util.getBytesForBits(v.size)
val value = v.decode(contentByteArray.slice(index, index + sizeInBytes))
index += sizeInBytes
res(key) = value
}
case v:Encoding => {
val sizeInBytes = util.conversion.Util.getBytesForBits(v.size)
val value = v.decode(contentByteArray.slice(index, index + sizeInBytes))
index += sizeInBytes
res(key) = value
}
...
}
In the code, I have duplication for the Range and Encoding type. How can I merge the two cases?
I tried the | operator, but it doesn't work.
case v:Range | v:Encoding
This can't work, because Range.size and Encoding.size are two completely different methods despite the fact that they are named the same. And same is true for Range.decode and Edncoding.decode.
So, when you write v.size, the type of v has to be known, it has to be either v:Encoding or v:Range, not v:Encoding|v:Range.
How to fix this? Make a common trait like this:
trait SomethingWithDecodeAndSize {
def size: Int
def decode(bytes: Array[Byte]): Whatever
}
And then, change the definitions of Range and Encoding:
class Range extends SomethingWithDecodeAndSize { ... }
class Encoding extends SomethingWithDecodeAndSize { ... }
Now you can just do case v: SomethingWithDecodeAndSize => ... in your match clause.
Also ... Don't do instance.get, that's bad taste. Do instead
instance match {
Some(v: SomethingWithDecodeAndSize) => ...
}
Update
If you cannot modify the definitions of the original classes, you can use an extractor:
object SomethingWithDecodeAndSize {
def unapply(a: Any): Option[SomethingWithDecodeAndSize] = a match {
case r: Range => Some(new SomethingWithDecodeAndSize {
def size = r.size
def decode(bytes: Array[Byte]) = r.decode(bytes)
})
case r: Encoding => Some(new SomethingWithDecodeAndSize {
def size = r.size
def decode(bytes: Array[Byte]) = r.decode(bytes)
})
case _ => None
}
}
Now, you can do case Some(SomethingWithDecodeAndSize(v)) => ... in your match.
An alternate solution to #Dima's in case you can't change definition of Range and Encoding (and there is no supertype with required methods):
trait RangeOrEncoding {
def size: Int
def decode(bytes: Array[Byte]): Whatever
}
implicit def liftRange(r: Range): RangeOrEncoding = new RangeOrEncoding {
def size = r.size
def decode(bytes: Array[Byte]) = r.decode(bytes)
}
// similar conversion for Encoding
// can also be a local def
private def handleRangeOrEncoding(v: RangeOrEncoding) = {
val sizeInBytes = util.conversion.Util.getBytesForBits(v.size)
val value = v.decode(contentByteArray.slice(index, index + sizeInBytes))
index += sizeInBytes
res(key) = value
}
instance match {
case Some(v: Range) => handleRangeOrEncoding(v)
case Some(v: Encoding) => handleRangeOrEncoding(v)
...
}
I remember the cheerleaders in high school asking us, "How loose is your goose?"
scala> class C { def f(i: Int) = 2 * i }
defined class C
scala> class D { def f(i: Int) = 3 * i }
defined class D
scala> def test(x: Any) = x match { case y: { def f(i: Int): Int } => y.f(42) }
<console>:11: warning: a pattern match on a refinement type is unchecked
def test(x: Any) = x match { case y: { def f(i: Int): Int } => y.f(42) }
^
warning: there was one feature warning; re-run with -feature for details
test: (x: Any)Int
scala> test(new C)
res0: Int = 84
scala> test(new D)
res1: Int = 126
scala> test(42)
java.lang.NoSuchMethodException: java.lang.Integer.f(int)
at java.lang.Class.getMethod(Class.java:1786)
at .reflMethod$Method1(<console>:11)
at .test(<console>:11)
... 32 elided
I believe the answer was: "Loose, baby, loose."
Edit:
scala> import reflect.runtime._,universe._,language.reflectiveCalls
import reflect.runtime._
import universe._
import language.reflectiveCalls
scala> class C { def f(i: Int) = 2 * i }
defined class C
scala> class D { def f(i: Int) = 3 * i }
defined class D
scala> def f[A](a: A)(implicit tt: TypeTag[A]) = a match {
| case b: { def f(i: Int): Int }
| if tt.tpe <:< typeOf[{ def f(i: Int): Int }] =>
| b.f(42)
| }
<console>:19: warning: a pattern match on a refinement type is unchecked
case b: { def f(i: Int): Int }
^
f: [A](a: A)(implicit tt: reflect.runtime.universe.TypeTag[A])Int
scala> f(new C)
res0: Int = 84
scala> f(new D)
res1: Int = 126
scala> f(3) // now an ordinary MatchError
scala.MatchError: 3 (of class java.lang.Integer)
at .f(<console>:18)
... 32 elided
So you can express it as an ordinary type bounds:
scala> def f[A <: { def f(i: Int): Int }](a: A) = a.f(42)
f: [A <: AnyRef{def f(i: Int): Int}](a: A)Int
scala> f(new C)
res3: Int = 84
scala> f(17)
<console>:20: error: inferred type arguments [Int] do not conform to method f's type parameter bounds [A <: AnyRef{def f(i: Int): Int}]
f(17)
^
<console>:20: error: type mismatch;
found : Int(17)
required: A
f(17)
^
You still need to accept the cost of the reflective call, of course.
I have following question: having typeclass for ADT derived with LabelledTypeClassCompanion (where both product and coproduct are correctly defined) inside Scala object, why compiler can't find instance for datatype itself (coproduct), but is able to do so for parameters of specific data constructors (product) when called inside the same object and assigned to val?
Below is a snippet for Show typeclass which is mostly borrowed from corresponding Shapeless example:
import shapeless._
object ShowGeneric {
trait Show[T] {
def show(t: T): String
}
object Show extends LabelledTypeClassCompanion[Show] {
implicit def intShow: Show[Int] = new Show[Int] {
override def show(i: Int): String = i.toString
}
implicit def booleanShow: Show[Boolean] = new Show[Boolean] {
override def show(b: Boolean): String = b.toString
}
implicit def listShow[A](implicit showA: Show[A]): Show[List[A]] = new Show[List[A]] {
override def show(l: List[A]): String = l.map(showA.show).mkString("List(", ", ", ")")
}
object typeClass extends LabelledTypeClass[Show] {
override def emptyProduct: Show[HNil] = new Show[HNil] {
override def show(t: HNil): String = ""
}
override def product[H, T <: HList](name: String, sh: Show[H], st: Show[T]): Show[H :: T] = new Show[H :: T] {
override def show(t: H :: T): String = {
val head = s"$name = ${sh.show(t.head)}"
val tail = st.show(t.tail)
if(tail.isEmpty) head else s"$head, $tail"
}
}
override def coproduct[L, R <: Coproduct](name: String, cl: => Show[L], cr: => Show[R]): Show[L :+: R] = new Show[L :+: R] {
override def show(t: L :+: R): String = t match {
case Inl(l) => s"$name(${cl.show(l)})"
case Inr(r) => cr.show(r)
}
}
override def emptyCoproduct: Show[CNil] = new Show[CNil] {
override def show(t: CNil): String = ""
}
override def project[F, G](instance: => Show[G], to: F => G, from: G => F): Show[F] = new Show[F] {
override def show(t: F): String = instance.show(to(t))
}
}
}
implicit class ShowOps[T](t: T)(implicit showT: Show[T]) {
def show: String = showT.show(t)
}
sealed trait Whatever
case class IntBool(i: Int, b: Boolean) extends Whatever
case class BoolInt(b: Boolean, i: Int) extends Whatever
case class BoolListInt(b: Boolean, l: List[Int]) extends Whatever
def showWhatever(whatever: Whatever)(implicit showWhatever: Show[Whatever]): String = {
showWhatever.show(whatever)
}
val stringBoolInt = BoolInt(false, 100).show // Compiles
val stringShowWhatever = showWhatever(BoolInt(false, 100)) // Doesn't compile: could not find implicit value for parameter showWhatever:ShowGeneric.Show[ShowGeneric.Whatever]
}
Thanks in advance for your answers!
The trait TraversableLike[+A, +Repr] allows one to make a collection where some functions will return a Repr, while others continue to return the type parameter That on the function. Is there a way to define a CustomCollection[A] where functions like map, ++, and others will default That as Repr if not inferred otherwise?
Here is a code snippet that hopefully describes what I would like:
case class CustomCollection[A](list: List[A]) extends TraversableLike[A, CustomCollection[A]] {
protected[this] def newBuilder = new CustomCollectionBuilder[A]
def foreach[U](f: (A) => U) {list foreach f}
def seq = list
}
class CustomCollectionBuilder[A] extends mutable.Builder[A, CustomCollection[A]] {
private val list = new mutable.ListBuffer[A]()
def += (elem: A): this.type = {
list += elem
this
}
def clear() {list.clear()}
def result(): CustomCollection[A] = CustomCollection(list.result())
}
object CustomCollection extends App {
val customCollection = CustomCollection(List(1, 2, 3))
println(customCollection filter {x => x == 1}) // CustomCollection(1)
println(customCollection map {x => x + 1}) // non-empty iterator
}
I would like the last line to be CustomCollection(2, 3, 4).
You need to set up a companion object which provides the refined CanBuildFrom instance:
import collection.TraversableLike
import collection.generic.{CanBuildFrom, GenericCompanion, GenericTraversableTemplate,
TraversableFactory}
import collection.mutable.{Builder, ListBuffer}
object CustomCollection extends TraversableFactory[CustomCollection] {
def newBuilder[A] = new CustomCollectionBuilder[A]
implicit def canBuildFrom[A]: CanBuildFrom[Coll, A, CustomCollection[A]] =
new CanBuildFrom[Coll, A, CustomCollection[A]] {
def apply(): Builder[A, CustomCollection[A]] = new CustomCollectionBuilder()
def apply(from: Coll): Builder[A, CustomCollection[A]] = apply()
}
}
case class CustomCollection[A](list: List[A]) extends Traversable[A]
with TraversableLike[A, CustomCollection[A]]
with GenericTraversableTemplate[A, CustomCollection] {
override def companion: GenericCompanion[CustomCollection] = CustomCollection
def foreach[U](f: A => U) { list foreach f }
override def seq = list
}
class CustomCollectionBuilder[A] extends Builder[A, CustomCollection[A]] {
private val list = new ListBuffer[A]()
def += (elem: A): this.type = {
list += elem
this
}
def clear() {list.clear()}
def result(): CustomCollection[A] = CustomCollection(list.result())
}
val customCollection = CustomCollection(List(1, 2, 3))
val f = customCollection filter {x => x == 1} // CustomCollection[Int]
val m = customCollection map {x => x + 1} // CustomCollection[Int]