I've got a function create is going to provide the parameter DSLContext of op: DSLContext => T :
def create[T](op: DSLContext => T)(implicit errorHandler: Throwable => Unit):Option[T] = {
...
op(new DSLContext)
...
}
Then I pass the following function to create:
def query(implicit dsl:DSLContext)
And here is the call
create(query)
I got this compiler error:
could not find implicit value for parameter dsl: org.jooq.DSLContext
[error] create (query)
I can resolve this issue this way : create {implicit dsl => query}
However i wonder why is the compiler unable to resolve the implicit parameter dsl as a given parameter ?
The issue here is that when you pass a method where a function is expected the compiler needs to perform an eta-expansion to convert it.
In other words the method query needs to become a Function1[DSLContext, T].
However, the compiler needs to resolve the implicit parameter in order to be able to apply the eta-expansion. In your case there's no DSLContext in scope, so the compiler fails in doing so.
You can reproduce this behavior with a simpler example, here's a REPL session demonstrating it:
scala> def foo(implicit i: Int) = "hello"
foo: (implicit i: Int)String
scala> foo _
<console>:10: error: could not find implicit value for parameter i: Int
foo _
^
scala> implicit val x = 5
x: Int = 5
scala> foo _
res3: scala.collection.immutable.WrappedString = hello
where _ manually triggers the eta-expansion.
For the record, this is described in the language reference, paragraph 6.26.2.
If the method takes only implicit parameters, implicit arguments are passed following the rules of §7.2.
Related
with Cats, I can write this simple program
def foo(x: Int) = x + 1
val bar = Functor[Future](foo)
and Now I can do a bar(future(1)) and get a Future.Success(2) as a result. Very good.
But suppose my function was
def foo[T](x: T)(implicit m: Manifest[T]) : String = {...}
Now if I try to lift this function
def futureFoo = Functor[Future].lift(foo)
I get a compiler error No Manifest available for T.
So how do I lift this function?
I searched and found this thread (which is for scalaz)
Lifting a function which takes implicit parameter using functor (Scalaz7)
But I still couldn't create anything which worked for me. I tried
val futureFoo = Functor[T].lift2(foo[T] _)
but this doesn't compile
Functions in Scala cannot have implicit parameters, so when you try to eta-expand a method with an implicit parameter into a function, the implicit needs to be resolved before the function itself is applied. That is, at the time of eta-expansion. The compiler doesn't have a generic Manifest[T] in scope, but futureFoo can require one.
def foo[T](x: T)(implicit m: Manifest[T]) : String = ""
scala> def optionFoo[T: Manifest] = Functor[Option].lift(foo[T] _)
optionFoo: [T](implicit evidence$1: Manifest[T])Option[T] => Option[String]
I used Option because I didn't have a Functor[Future] readily available, the the same concept applies. Note that in order to use this, you'll need to supply the type parameter manually for it to return the correct function.
scala> optionFoo[Int].apply(Option(1))
res2: Option[String] = Some()
i'm trying to understand the behavior of the compiler in this situation
object ImplicitTest extends App {
def foo[T](implicit x: (String => T)): T = ???
implicit val bar = (x: String) => x.toInt
foo
}
the code above does not compile and gives the following error:
ambiguous implicit values: both method $conforms in object Predef of
type [A]⇒ <:<[A,A] and value bar in object ImplicitTest of type ⇒ String ⇒
Int match expected type String ⇒ T
as the error says my implicit value is conflicting with another implicit defined in Predef... based on this it seems there is no way to declare an implicit parameter to a function converting a value from a known type to an unknown (generic) type.
Is this due to some technical limitation on the compiler or is just the way it is supposed to work, and i'm violating some constraints i'm not aware of?
You're not providing a type parameter to foo when you call it (and there is no other way to infer it, for the following reason), so the compiler is having trouble finding the right one, and the right implicit.
You have the implicit bar: String => Int in scope, but you also have implicits in Predef that create instances of =:= and <:< which both extend A => B, and create implicit String => As. The compiler is looking for some implicit function String => T for foo, but it's not sure which one, and you have multiple in scope. bar will not take precedence because you haven't specified the specific String => T it's looking for.
This will work:
def foo[T](implicit x: (String => T)): T = ???
implicit val bar = (x: String) => x.toInt
foo[Int]
I have a function like so:
def ifSome[B, _](pairs:(Option[B], B => _)*) {
for((paramOption, setFunc) <- pairs)
for(someParam <- paramOption) setFunc(someParam)
}
and overloaded functions like these:
class Foo{
var b=""
def setB(b:String){this.b = b}
def setB(b:Int){this.b = b.toString}
}
val f = new Foo
then the following line produces an error:
ifSome(Option("hi") -> f.setB _)
<console>:11: error: ambiguous reference to overloaded definition,
both method setB in class Foo of type (b: Int)Unit
and method setB in class Foo of type (b: String)Unit
match expected type ?
ifSome(Option("hi") -> f.setB _)
But the compiler knows that we're looking for a Function1[java.lang.String, _], so why should the presence of a Function1[Int, _] present any confusion? Am I missing something or is this a compiler bug (or perhaps it should be a feature request)?
I was able to workaround this by using a type annotation like so
ifSome(Option("hi") -> (f.setB _:String=>Unit))
but I'd like to understand why this is necessary.
You'll want to try $ scalac -Ydebug -Yinfer-debug x.scala but first you'll want to minimize.
In this case, you'll see how in the curried version, B is solved in the first param list:
[infer method] solving for B in (bs: B*)(bfs: Function1[B, _]*)Nothing
based on (String)(bfs: Function1[B, _]*)Nothing (solved: B=String)
For the uncurried version, you'll see some strangeness around
[infer view] <empty> with pt=String => Int
as it tries to disambiguate the overload, which may lead you to the weird solution below.
The dummy implicit serves the sole purpose of resolving the overload so that inference can get on with it. The implicit itself is unused and remains unimplemented???
That's a pretty weird solution, but you know that overloading is evil, right? And you've got to fight evil with whatever tools are at your disposal.
Also see that your type annotation workaround is more laborious than just specifying the type param in the normal way.
object Test extends App {
def f[B](pairs: (B, B => _)*) = ???
def f2[B](bs: B*)(bfs: (B => _)*) = ???
def g(b: String) = ???
def g(b: Int) = ???
// explicitly
f[String](Pair("hi", g _))
// solves for B in first ps
f2("hi")(g _)
// using Pair instead of arrow means less debug output
//f(Pair("hi", g _))
locally {
// unused, but selects g(String) and solves B=String
import language.implicitConversions
implicit def cnv1(v: String): Int = ???
f(Pair("hi", g _))
}
// a more heavy-handed way to fix the type
class P[A](a: A, fnc: A => _)
class PS(a: String, fnc: String => _) extends P[String](a, fnc)
def p[A](ps: P[A]*) = ???
p(new PS("hi", g _))
}
Type inference in Scala only works from one parameter list to the next. Since your ifSome only has one parameter list, Scala won't infer anything. You can change ifSome as follows:
def ifSome[B, _](opts:Option[B]*)(funs: (B => _)*) {
val pairs = opts.zip(funs)
for((paramOption, setFunc) <- pairs)
for(someParam <- paramOption) setFunc(someParam)
}
leave Foo as it is...
class Foo{
var b=""
def setB(b:String){this.b = b}
def setB(b:Int){this.b = b.toString}
}
val f = new Foo
And change the call to ifSome accordingly:
ifSome(Option("hi"))(f.setB _)
And it all works. Now of course you have to check whether opts and funs have the same length at runtime.
Here is a code snippet that tries to reproduce a problem I am facing while implementing an internal DSL:
object testObj {
implicit def foo1[T <% Function1[Int, Int]](fun: T): String = "foo1"
implicit def foo2[T <% Function2[Int, Int, Int]](fun: T): String = "foo2"
def test(arg: String): Unit = {}
test((x:Int) => 5) //Ambiguous implicit conversion error
test((x:Int, y:Int) => 5) //Ambiguous implicit conversion error
}
I am getting ambiguous implicit conversions errors at the shown locations:
<console>:21: error: type mismatch;
found : Int => Int
required: String
Note that implicit conversions are not applicable because they are ambiguous:
both method foo1 in object testObj of type [T](fun: T)(implicit evidence$1: T => (Int => Int))String
and method foo2 in object testObj of type [T](fun: T)(implicit evidence$2: T => ((Int, Int) => Int))String
are possible conversion functions from Int => Int to String
test((x:Int) => 5) //Ambiguous implicit conversion error
^
However commenting one of the implicits does not solve the problem. I am using view bounds since finally I want to chain the implicits. Note that the code snippet given above does not involve implicit chaining.
I was expecting that foo1 implicit conversion would be applicable for the first test application whereas foo2 implicit conversion would be applicable for the second test application.
I don't understand how both the implicits are applicable to both the testfunction applications. Why is this happening and how to make this work?
Edit:
If I don't use view bounds, it works fine as shown below. But I want to use view bounds since I want to chain the implicits the way it is explained in the post How can I chain implicits in Scala?.
implicit def foo1(fun: Function1[Int, Int]): String = "foo1"
implicit def foo2(fun: Function2[Int, Int, Int]): String = "foo2"
def test(arg: String): Unit = {}
test((x:Int) => 5) //No error
test((x:Int, y:Int) => 5) //No error
I'm afraid this won't work. View bounds are just not taken into account when resolving implicits and thus you can't chain implicits. That is be design, because such chaining could create some very unreadable code. The only option I see is to create a new implicit conversion for each possible chain of conversions.
I would like an explanation of difference for example between this declaration:
class Clazz(param1: String, param2: Integer)
and this one:
class Clazz(param1: String)(param2: Integer)
Does second declaration affect just the way of instantiating the objects or is there any deeper reason I don't know about.
One reason I thought about would be multiple variable length of parameters for example:
class Clazz(param1: String*)(param2: Integer*)
So are there any others?
#1 Type inference. It goes from left to right and is done per parameter list.
scala> class Foo[A](x: A, y: A => Unit)
defined class Foo
scala> new Foo(2, x => println(x))
<console>:24: error: missing parameter type
new Foo(2, x => println(x))
^
scala> class Foo[A](x: A)(y: A => Unit)
defined class Foo
scala> new Foo(2)(x => println(x))
res22: Foo[Int] = Foo#4dc1e4
#2 Implicit parameter list.
scala> class Foo[A](x: A)(implicit ord: scala.Ordering[A]) {
| def compare(y: A) = ord.compare(x, y)
| }
defined class Foo
scala> new Foo(3)
res23: Foo[Int] = Foo#965701
scala> res23 compare 7
res24: Int = -1
scala> new Foo(new {})
<console>:24: error: No implicit Ordering defined for java.lang.Object.
new Foo(new {})
^
In the second version you are declaring a curried primary constructor for Clazz. So the difference between the two versions is the same as difference between "normal" and curried functions in Scala, i.e.
def foo(param1: String, param2: Int)
def foo(param1: String)(param2: Int)
Most of the time both declarations can be used interchangeably but if you often need to curry function then it makes more sense to declare it in curried form. Note you can also convert a normal function or even constructor into a curried form, for e.g you could transform your normal Clazz constructor into curried form using this:
(new Clazz(_, _)).curried
You also need multiple parameter lists if you are passing an implicit value (as the keyword implicit applies to the complete parameter list)