Implicit not found when omitting empty argument list - scala

I have the following (simplified) code:
case class Value[T](value: T)
trait Absable[In,Out] {
def absoluteValue(in: In): Out
}
implicit class AbsValue[In, Out](in: Value[In]) {
def abs()(implicit ev: Absable[In, Out]): Value[Out] = Value(ev.absoluteValue(in.value))
}
implicit def AbsNumeric[A : Numeric] = new Absable[A, A] {
def absoluteValue(in: A) = implicitly[Numeric[A]].abs(in)
}
Now I want to use the abs function on a Value:
scala> Value(-3).abs()
res3: Value[Int] = Value(3)
scala> Value(-3).abs
<console>:14: error: could not find implicit value for parameter ev: Absable[Int,Nothing]
Value(-3).abs
^
I added an empty argument list in front of the implicit arguments to give callers more flexibility, but now when I omit the empty list at the call site the compiler can't find the implicit... So now instead of more flexibility callers get confusing compile errors.
I don't understand how leaving off the argument list can affect the type inference or implicit resolution.
I am using scala 2.11.6

Related

Implicit class resolution for parameterized types

In the following example, it seems that the Scala compiler only recognizes an implicit class when it is defined to take the higher-kinded representation of Wrapper. Why is that?
scala> case class Nested(n: Int)
defined class Nested
scala> case class Wrapper[A <: Product](nested: A)
defined class Wrapper
scala> implicit class I1[W <: Wrapper[A], A <: Product](underlying: W) {
| def ok1() = true
| }
defined class I1
scala> Wrapper(Nested(5)).ok1()
<console>:26: error: value ok1 is not a member of Wrapper[Nested]
Wrapper(Nested(5)).ok1()
^
scala> implicit class I2[W <: Wrapper[_]](underlying: W) {
| def ok2() = true
| }
defined class I2
scala> Wrapper(Nested(5)).ok2()
res1: Boolean = true
Is there a workaround for implicit resolution that maintains full information about the nested type, allowing typeclass evidence, e.g., TypeTag, to be attached to it?
Note: the example above shows Nested and Wrapper to be case classes but that's not integral to the question. It's simply a convenience for a shorter and simpler console session.
This is happening because of a limitation in Scala's type inference. See SI-2272.
The implicit fails to resolve because the compiler cannot properly infer A. We can see this if we enable -Xlog-implicits. Notice that A is inferred as Nothing:
I1 is not a valid implicit value for Test.w.type => ?{def ok: ?} because:
inferred type arguments [Wrapper[Nested],Nothing] do not conform to method I1's type parameter bounds [W <: Wrapper[A],A <: Product]
The same thing happens if we try to instantiate I1 manually:
scala> val w = Wrapper(Nested(5))
w: Wrapper[Nested] = Wrapper(Nested(5))
scala> new I1(w)
<console>:21: error: inferred type arguments [Wrapper[Nested],Nothing] do not conform to class I1's type parameter bounds [W <: Wrapper[A],A <: Product]
new I1(w)
^
<console>:21: error: type mismatch;
found : Wrapper[Nested]
required: W
new I1(w)
^
Now, the work-arounds.
First, Wrapper is a case class, so there shouldn't be a reason for it to have sub-types. You can remove the W type parameter, and change underlying to a Wrapper[A]:
implicit class I1[A <: Product](underlying: Wrapper[A]) {
def ok = true
}
If you still wish to require two type parameters, you can also require implicit evidence that W <:< Wrapper[A], while removing the upper-bound on the type parameter W:
implicit class I1[W, A <: Product](underlying: W)(implicit ev: W <:< Wrapper[A]) {
def ok = true
}
Everything Michael said is true. Here is some extra perspective on this issue.
Because of the way you wrote your implicit class it looks like you want the implicit class to work on all subtypes of Wrapper and have as specific information about all types involved as possible. (99% of the time it's a bad idea to extend case classes, but it is possible, and these tricks also work for non case classes).
The trick basically is to make sure that all the type parameters that you want inferred are present somewhere in the value parameter lists. Another thing to keep in mind is this:
scala> trait Foo[A]; trait Bar extends Foo[Int]
defined trait Foo
defined trait Bar
scala> implicitly[Bar with Foo[Int] =:= Bar]
res0: =:=[Bar with Foo[Int],Bar] = <function1>
Take these two pieces of knowledge and you can rewrite your implicit class like this:
implicit class I1[Y, A <: Product](underlying: Y with Wrapper[A]) {
def ok1(): (Y, A) = ???
}
And see it at work:
scala> :paste
// Entering paste mode (ctrl-D to finish)
case class Nested(n: Int)
case class Wrapper[A <: Product](nested: A)
class Crazy(override val nested: Nested) extends Wrapper[Nested](nested)
implicit class I1[Y, A <: Product](underlying: Y with Wrapper[A]) {
def ok1(): (Y, A) = ???
}
// Exiting paste mode, now interpreting.
scala> :type Wrapper(Nested(5)).ok1()
(Wrapper[Nested], Nested)
scala> :type new Crazy(Nested(5)).ok1()
(Crazy, Nested)
Note that the last solution Michael gave is based on the same thing: by moving the upper bound to the implicit parameter list, A is now present in the value parameter lists and can be inferred by the compiler.

Making Typeclass Instance with `implicit def`?

Given:
scala> trait Resource[A] { def f: String }
defined trait Resource
scala> case class Foo(x: String)
defined class Foo
And then an implicit:
scala> implicit def fooToResource(foo: Foo): Resource[Foo] =
new Resource[Foo] { def f = foo.x }
The following works:
scala> implicitly[Resource[Foo]](Foo("foo")).f
res2: String = foo
I defined a function:
scala> def f[A](x: A)(implicit ev: Resource[A]): String = ev.f
f: [A](x: A)(implicit ev: Resource[A])String
However, the following code fails to compile:
scala> f(Foo("foo"))
<console>:17: error: could not find implicit value for parameter ev: Resource[Foo]
f(Foo("foo"))
Secondly, then I tried:
scala> f2(Foo("bippy"))
<console>:17: error: could not find implicit value for parameter ev: Resource[Foo]
f2(Foo("bippy"))
^
Lastly, I attempted:
scala> def g(foo: Foo)(implicit ev: Resource[Foo]): String = ev.f
g: (foo: Foo)(implicit ev: Resource[Foo])String
scala> g(Foo("5"))
<console>:17: error: could not find implicit value for parameter ev: Resource[Foo]
g(Foo("5"))
^
However, it failed too. How can I fix f?
Ok with Peter Neyens' answer, this is not a typeclass, this is an implicit conversion, which you should avoid - there should have been some warning, asking that you import scala.language.implicitConversions.
As a complement, here is why the first implicitly works:
Implicitly is just:
def implicitly[T](implicit ev: T): T = e
When you write implicitly[T] without supplying a parameter, it will look for an implicit of type T in scope and return it. However, you call implicitly with a parameter (I believe there is no legitimate reason to do that, ever), so it would just return your parameter, Foo("foo"), an instance of Foo. Except that you explicitly stated that T should be Resource[Foo]. If you had written a type ascription, such as (Foo("foo"): Resource[Foo]), it would have worked the same way. implicitly is not relevant here.
The point is that Foo("foo") is not of the expected type Resource[Foo], but just a Foo. The compiler would reject that, except that at this point, the implicit conversion you defined above kicks in, and your Foo instance is transformed into a Resource[Foo]. Then, you can call f.
Next, you call your f(Foo("foo")). There is an implicit parameter, however this time, you don't supply it. So the compiler looks for one (while it did no such thing the first time), and as there is no such instance, fails.
The implicit def fooToResource is not a type class instance, but does return one if you supply a Foo, that's the reason the following line works :
implicitly[Resource[Foo]](Foo("foo")).f
A solution would be to change the Resource.f function to take a parameter of type A :
trait Resource[A] {
def f(a: A): String
}
You then could define a Resource type class instance for Foo as follows:
case class Foo(x: String)
implicit val fooResource = new Resource[Foo] {
def f(foo: Foo) = foo.x
}
We can rewrite f to use the changed Resource :
def f[A](a: A)(implicit resA: Resource[A]): String = resA.f(a)
Which does what (I think) you need :
f(Foo("hello world")) // String = hello world

Explicit parameters out of scope in constructor's implicit parameter list?

When defining a function, I can make an implicit parameter list that refers to a variable in the preceding explicit parameter list, but not when defining a class. Am I doing something wrong?
To illustrate, let's make a few objects. The intent here is to make a hierarchy of phantom types to "tag" a hierarchy of objects. I want the implicit ev to guarantee that an object comes from the right hierarchy.
trait Token {
type Phantom
}
object TopToken extends Token {
trait Phantom
}
object SubToken extends Token {
trait Phantom <: TopToken.Phantom
}
object ForeignToken extends Token {
trait Phantom // doesn't extend TopToken.Phantom
}
def f(t: Token)(implicit ev: t.Phantom <:< TopToken.Phantom) { println(t) }
The function f works fine:
scala> f(SubToken)
$line5.$read$$iw$$iw$SubToken$#76c2539f
scala> f(ForeignToken) // This should fail.
<console>:12: error: Cannot prove that ForeignToken.Phantom <:< TopToken.Phantom.
f(ForeignToken)
^
But watch what happens when I use the same argument lists to define a class:
scala> class F(t: Token)(implicit ev: t.Phantom <:< TopToken.Phantom)
<console>:9: error: not found: value t
class F(t: Token)(implicit ev: t.Phantom <:< TopToken.Phantom)
^
I'm running Scala 2.11.2.
Update Further experimentation has revealed that the implicit makes no difference.
If you parameterize the F class you can achieve this with the following syntax.
class F[T <: Token](t: T)(implicit ev: T#Phantom <:< TopToken.Phantom) { }
The class now takes a type parameter which must be a sub type of Token. The implicit evidence can then refer to the Phantom type within the concrete Token via the type parameter when restricting the types of Token allowed.
scala> class F[T <: Token](t: T)(implicit ev: T#Phantom <:< TopToken.Phantom) { }
defined class F
scala> new F(SubToken)
res1: F[SubToken.type] = F#6d26561b
scala> new F(ForeignToken)
<console>:15: error: Cannot prove that ForeignToken.Phantom <:< TopToken.Phantom.
new F(ForeignToken)
^

Type mismatch when using higher-kinded types

In a library, there is a class with a higher-kinded type taking one type parameter. I want to give it a type that takes two type parameters, so I use a type expression to fix the other parameter.
But it doesn't turn out like I expect.
The code reduces to this:
object Main {
class Bar[T[_]] {
def bar[A]: Option[T[A]] = None
}
def foo[A] = {
type T[B] = Map[A, B]
new Bar[T]
}
val f: Option[Map[String, Int]] = foo[String].bar[Int]
}
I get an error when compiling (Scala 2.11.4):
test.scala:12: error: type mismatch;
found : Option[T[Int]]
(which expands to) Option[scala.collection.immutable.Map[A,Int]]
required: Option[Map[String,Int]]
val f: Option[Map[String, Int]] = foo[String].bar[Int]
^
one error found
Why is there a type error?
Type labmdas should help:
class Bar[T[_]] {
def bar[A]: Option[T[A]] = None
}
def foo[A] = {
new Bar[({type M[B] = Map[A, B]})#M]
}
val f: Option[Map[String, Int]] = foo[String].bar[Int]
However I can't answer why type T doesn't work in this case.

Can I use a view bound in a Scala value class?

While dealing with some Java code, I wanted to find a way to reduce a Raw Set to include its parameterized type.
I also wanted it to work for Scala sets as well, so I did the following
implicit class Harden[S <% mutable.Set[_]](val set: S) extends AnyVal {
def cast[T] = set.map(_.asInstanceOf[T])
}
That resulted in a compiler error that I didn't expect
Error:(27, 27) field definition is not allowed in value class
implicit class Harden[S <% mutable.Set[_]](val set: S) extends AnyVal {
I didn't find any mention of this type of restriction in the Scala View Bounds or Value Class documentation.
Why is this not allowed? I'm using Scala 2.10.3.
As you can see from this sbt console output:
scala> :type implicit class Harden[S <% mutable.Set[_]](val set: S)
[S]AnyRef {
val set: S
private[this] val set: S
implicit private[this] val evidence$1: S => scala.collection.mutable.Set[_]
def <init>(set: S)(implicit evidence$1: S => scala.collection.mutable.Set[_]): Harden[S]
}
... the actual constructor of Harden desugars behind the scenes to:
def <init>(set: S)(implicit evidence$1: S => scala.collection.mutable.Set[_]): Harden[S]
... (i.e. takes set in one argument list and implicit evidence$1 in another).
As described in value classes limitations here:
must have only a primary constructor with exactly one public, val parameter whose type is not a value class.
... whitch means that Harden violaties this limitation.
You can achieve something similar, howerver. Try to convert your view bound defined on class to implicit evidence on method instead.
Something like this:
scala> implicit class Harden[S](val set: S) extends AnyVal {
| def cast[T](implicit ev: S => scala.collection.mutable.Set[_]) = set.map(_.asInstanceOf[T])
| }
defined class Harden
This will compile:
scala> Set(1,2,3).cast[Any]
res17: scala.collection.mutable.Set[Any] = Set(1, 2, 3)
And this will fail, as expected:
scala> List(1,2,3).cast[Any]
<console>:24: error: No implicit view available from List[Int] => scala.collection.mutable.Set[_].
List(1,2,3).cast[Any]
^
It is not allowed because as structured now, value classes must have exactly one parameter, but
implicit class Foo[A <% B](val a: A)
desugars to
implicit class Foo[A,B](val a: A)(implicit evidence$1: A => B)
which no longer has just a single parameter.