In Scala I want to create a generic new Map class called MyClass. In this class i want to maintain the generality of types and modify only method ++ for Sequence type.
The ++ method must merge the equal object for the same key in this map.
Example
val map1 = ("a"->Seq(1,2))
val map2 = ("a"->Seq(2,3))
the result must be
map1++map2 = ("a"->Seq(1,2,3))
and not
map1++map2 = ("a"->Seq(2,3))
For all other type MyMap must be the same of "classic" Map class.
As others have pointed out in the comments, you should try something first and then come back if you encounter some specific problem. Here's how you can start, given that you want to implement the Map trait:
class MyClass[A, +B] extends Map[A, B] {
def get(key: A): Option[B] = ???
def iterator: Iterator[(A, B)] = ???
def +[B1 >: B](kv: scala.Tuple2[A, B1]): Map[A, B1] = ???
def -(key: A): Map[A, B] = ???
override def ++[B1 >: B](xs: scala.collection.GenTraversableOnce[scala.Tuple2[A, B1]]) = ???
}
You can also start from an existing Map implementation, such as
class MyClass[A, +B] extends scala.collection.immutable.HashMap[A, B] {
override def ++[B1 >: B](xs: scala.collection.GenTraversableOnce[scala.Tuple2[A, B1]]) = ???
}
However, in that case compiler will warn you that inheritance from existing implementation is unwise because of implementation details.
Related
Suppose I have some function that should take a sequence of Ints or a sequence of Strings.
My attempt:
object Example extends App {
import scala.util.Random
val rand: Random.type = scala.util.Random
// raw data
val x = Seq(1, 2, 3, 4, 5).map(e => e + rand.nextDouble())
val y = Seq("chc", "asas")
def f1[T <: AnyVal](seq: Seq[T]) = {
println(seq(0))
}
// this works fine as expected
f1(x)
// how can i combine
f1(y)
}
How can I add this to also work with strings?
If I change the method signature to:
def f1[T <: AnyVal:String](seq: Seq[T])
But this won't work.
Is there a way to impose my required constraint on the types elegantly?
Note the difference between an upper bound
A <: C
and a context bound
A : C
so type parameter clause [T <: AnyVal : String] does not make much sense. Also types such as String are rarely (or never) used as context bounds.
Here is a typeclass approach
trait EitherStringOrAnyVal[T]
object EitherStringOrAnyVal {
implicit val str: EitherStringOrAnyVal[String] = new EitherStringOrAnyVal[String] {}
implicit def aval[T <: AnyVal]: EitherStringOrAnyVal[T] = new EitherStringOrAnyVal[T] {}
}
def f1[T: EitherStringOrAnyVal](seq: Seq[T]): Unit = {
println(seq(0))
}
f1(Seq(1)) // ok
f1(Seq("a")) // ok
f1(Seq(Seq(1))) // nok
or generelized type constraints approach
object Foo {
private def impl[T](seq: Seq[T]): Unit = {
println(seq(0))
}
def f1[T](seq: Seq[T])(implicit ev: T =:= String): Unit = impl(seq)
def f1[T <: AnyVal](seq: Seq[T]): Unit = impl(seq)
}
import Foo._
f1(Seq(1)) // ok
f1(Seq("a")) // ok
f1(Seq(Seq(1))) // nok
I feel like you should write a separate function for both, but there are other ways to do it:
In Dotty, you can just use union types, which is what I'd recommend here:
Edit: As per Alexey Romanov’s suggestion, replaced Seq[AnyVal | String] with Seq[AnyVal | String], which was wrong,
def foo(seq: Seq[AnyVal] | Seq[String]): Unit = {
println(seq)
}
Scastie
If you're not using Dotty, you can still do this in Scala 2 with a couple reusable implicit defs
class Or[A, B]
implicit def orA[A, B](implicit ev: A): Or[A, B] = new Or
implicit def orB[A, B](implicit ev: B): Or[A, B] = new Or
def foo[T](seq: Seq[T])(implicit ev: Or[T <:< AnyVal, T =:= String]): Unit =
println(seq)
foo(Seq("baz", "waldo"))
foo(Seq(23, 34))
foo(Seq(List(), List())) //This last one fails
Scastie
You can also do it with a typeclass, as Luis Miguel Mejía Suárez suggested, but I wouldn't recommend it for such a trivial task since you still have to define 2 functions for each type, along with a trait, 2 implicit objects, and one function that can use instances of that trait. You probably don't want this pattern to handle just 2 different types.
sealed trait DoSomethingToIntOrString[T] {
def doSomething(t: Seq[T]): Unit
}
implicit object DoSomethingToAnyVal extends DoSomethingToAnyValOrString[AnyVal] {
def doSomething(is: Seq[AnyVal]): Unit = println(is)
}
implicit object DoSomethingToString extends DoSomethingToIntOrString[String] {
def doSomething(ss: Seq[String]): Unit = println(ss)
}
def foo[T](t: Seq[T])(implicit dsis: DoSomethingToIntOrString[T]): Unit = {
dsis.doSomething(t)
}
foo(Seq("foo", "bar"))
foo(Seq(1, 2))
In Scastie
def f1( seq: Seq[Any] ): Unit =
println( seq( 0 ) )
This works, because the least common supertype of Int and String (the 'lowest' type that is a supertype of both) would be Any, since Int is a subtype of AnyVal (i.e. 'the primitives) and String is a subtype of AnyRef (i.e. `the heap objects). f1 does not depends in any way on the contents of the list and is not polymorphic in its return type (Unit), so we don't need a type parameter at all.
let's say I have:
trait Get[F[_], A, B]{
def get(a:A): F[B]
}
I want to be able to map over the result type B, ie I want to be able to do:
val getFoo: Get[IO, String, Foo] = ???
val foo2Bar: Foo => Bar = ???
val getBar: Get[IO, String, Bar] = getFoo.map(foo2Bar)
I understand that I should implement a Functor instance for Get but I am struggling as I don't know what type signature to use.
I tried the following:
implicit val functor:Functor[Get] = ???
implicit val functor: Functor[Lambda[(F[_], K, A) => Get[F, K, A]]] = ???
but they don't seem to be of the right type as I can't seem to use the functor syntax extension as illustrated at the top. What is the right way of expressing the type here? What would be the equivalent type be if I use the kind-projector plugin?
Try
import cats.syntax.functor._
implicit def functor[F[_]: Functor, A]: Functor[Get[F, A, ?]] = new Functor[Get[F, A, ?]] {
override def map[B, B1](fa: Get[F, A, B])(f: B => B1): Get[F, A, B1] = a => fa.get(a).map(f)
}
I often find myself having to perform what is pretty much the same operation on both a value and also a functor of that value. I usually achieve this with two implicit classes, like this:
implicit class Apimped(a: A) {
def doSomething: B = ???
}
implicit class FApimped[F[_]: Functor](fa: F[A]) {
def doSomething: F[B] = Functor[F].map(fa)(a => a.doSomething)
}
So then I can do this, for example:
a.doSomething //B
Option(a).doSomething //Option[B]
However, it seems a bit unwieldy having to write two implicit classes (often for each value type) to do this. My question is, is there anyway to achieve the above with only a single implicit class? That is, the map operation would be implicit in cases when you call doSomething on a functor of the value. Thanks.
I don't know whether it's in Scalaz/Cats (maybe, cannot guarantee that it's not there), but in principle, it does work. Here is a little demo without any dependencies that demonstrates the principle.
Assume you have these typeclasses from either Scalaz or Cats:
import scala.language.higherKinds
trait Functor[F[_]] {
def map[A, B](a: F[A])(f: A => B): F[B]
}
type Id[X] = X
implicit object IdFunctor extends Functor[Id] {
def map[A, B](a: A)(f: A => B): B = f(a)
}
implicit object OptionFunctor extends Functor[Option] {
def map[A, B](a: Option[A])(f: A => B) = a map f
}
you can then either write or find in the library a typeclass that works like the following contraption:
trait EverythingIsAlwaysAFunctor[A, B, F[_]] {
def apply(a: A): F[B]
def functor: Functor[F]
}
object EverythingIsAlwaysAFunctor {
implicit def functorIsFunctor[A, F[_]](implicit f: Functor[F])
: EverythingIsAlwaysAFunctor[F[A], A, F] = {
new EverythingIsAlwaysAFunctor[F[A], A, F] {
def apply(fa: F[A]): F[A] = fa
def functor: Functor[F] = f
}
}
implicit def idIsAlsoAFunctor[A]
: EverythingIsAlwaysAFunctor[A, A, Id] = {
new EverythingIsAlwaysAFunctor[A, A, Id] {
def apply(a: A): Id[A] = a
def functor: Functor[Id] = implicitly[Functor[Id]]
}
}
}
This thing does the following:
If the value A is already of shape F[B] for some functor F, then uses this functor
In all other cases, it pretends that A is actually Id[A]
Now you can write your DoSomething-pimp-my-library-syntax thing with a single doSomething method:
implicit class DoSomething[A, F[_]](a: A)(
implicit eiaaf: EverythingIsAlwaysAFunctor[A, Int, F]
) {
def doSomething: F[String] = eiaaf.functor.map(eiaaf(a))("*" * _)
}
and then it just works in all cases:
val x = Option(42).doSomething
val y = 42.doSomething
println(x)
println(y)
prints:
Some(******************************************)
******************************************
Lets say I have two abstract, unrelated types A and B (sealed traits with no implementation details if it makes any difference). I would like to be able to return As in places that are expecting Bs, and vice-versa.
this:
implicit def aToB(a: A): B = a.asInstanceOf[B]
implicit def bToA(b: B): A = a.asInstanceOf[A]
implicit def convertSeq[T, U](s: Seq[T]): Seq[U] = s.map(_.asInstanceOf[U])
will work because I know that all types that extend A also extend B, but the compiler doesn't know this. Is there a type-safe way to do this?
Edit to add more concrete detail:
trait A
trait B
class X extends A with B
class Y extends A with B
class Z extends A with B
def doSomething(): Seq[A] = Seq(new X(), new Y(), new Z())
def publicFacingMethod1(): Seq[A] = doSomething()
// how can I do this?
def publicFacingMethod2(): Seq[B] = doSomething()
You can write
implicit def convertSeq[T <: A, U >: B](s: Seq[T])(implicit ev: A => B): Seq[U] = s.map(ev)
instead of your definition of convertSeq.
I am trying to understand typeclasses and so far i got to Monoids, which are simple enough:
object AbstractAlgebra {
case class Pair[A,B](a: A, b: B)
trait Monoid[T] {
def times(t1: T, t2: T): T
def unit: T
}
object Monoid {
implicit object MonoidIntPlus extends Monoid[Int] {
def times(i1: Int, i2: Int) = i1 + i2
def unit = 0
}
implicit object StringMonoid extends Monoid[String] {
def times(s1: String, s2: String) = s1 + s2
def unit = ""
}
implicit object PairOfMonoids extends Monoid[Pair[Monoid, Monoid]] = ???
}
}
I suppose my problem is the type Monoid[Pair[Monoid, Monoid]], cause I'm not really dealing with two monoid instances, only two classes that are implicit monoids, but I am not sure how to express that.
Any help or references would be appreciated
Monoid is not a type in itself. It's a type constructor, so Pair[Monoid, Monoid] makes no sense.
What you really want is actually the following: assuming that you have a Monoid type class instance for two given types A and B, then make an instance also for Pair[A, B].
This can be written as follows (the implementation is the most natural one you can derive):
implicit def monoidPair[A, B](implicit A: Monoid[A], B: Monoid[B]): Monoid[Pair[A, B]] = new Monoid[Pair[A, B]] {
def times(p1: Pair[A, B], p2: Pair[A, B]) =
Pair(A.times(p1.a, p2.a), B.times(p1.b, p2.b))
def unit = Pair(A.unit, B.unit)
}
This will do exactly what I explained before: If implicit instances for types Monoid[A] and Monoid[B] are found, then it puts a new implicit instance of type Monoid[Pair[A, B]] in scope.
Note. Your case class Pair[A, B] is already defined in Predef (although it's been deprecated since 2.11.0) as Tuple2[A, B] or (A, B).
Other note. If you don't like defining implicit instances as def or val, you can do the same with an implicit class:
implicit class MonoidPair[A, B](implicit A: Monoid[A], B: Monoid[B]) extends Monoid[Pair[A, B]] {
... //same body as before
}