I'm just in the process of upgrading from Scala 2.10.x to 2.11.2 and I'm receiving the following warning with the following code:
override def validateKey(key: String): Either[InvalidKeyError, Unit] =
keys.contains(key) match {
case true => Right()
case false => Left(InvalidKeyError(context, key))
}
Adaptation of argument list by inserting () has been deprecated: this
is unlikely to be what you want. signature: Right.apply[A, B](b: B):
scala.util.Right[A,B] given arguments: after adaptation:
Right((): Unit)
I am able to solve this by changing the "true" case statement to:
case true => Right(()) //() is a shortcut to a Unit instance
Is this the proper way to address this warning?
Edit: perhaps a "why we have to do this now" type answer would be appropriate, my cursory investigation seems to indicate that Scala inserting "Unit" when it thinks it needs to causes other problems
Automatic Unit inference has been deprecated in scala 2.11, and the reason behind this is that it can lead to confusing behavior, especially for people learning the language.
Here's an example
class Foo[T](value: T)
val x = new Foo
This should not compile, right? You are calling the constructor with no arguments, where one is required. Surprisingly, until scala 2.10.4 this compiles just fine, with no errors or warnings.
And that's because the compiler inferred a Unit argument, so it actually replaced your code with
val x = new Foo[Unit](()) // Foo[Unit]
As the newly introduced warning message says, this is unlikely to be what you want.
Another famous example is this
scala> List(1,2,3).toSet()
// res1: Boolean = false
calling toSet() should be a compile-time error, since toSet does not take arguments, but the compiler desperately tries to make it compile, ultimately interpreting the code as
scala> List(1,2,3).toSet.apply(())
which means: test whether () belongs to the set. Since it's not the case, you get a false!
So, starting from scala 2.11, you have to be explicit if you want to pass () (aka Unit) as an argument. That's why you have to write:
Right(())
instead of
Right()
examples taken from Simplifying Scala — The Past, Present and Future by Simon Ochsenreither.
Perhaps it should be Right(()). Have you tried that?
My explanation is that since the Right.apply is polymorphic it can take all kind of parameters, doing Right() means passing in a Unit and the compiler simply advise you that maybe that's not what you want, he doesn't know that this is what you actually want.
If you see your deprecate message it states:
... after adaptation: Right((): Unit)
Which means that the compiler has automatically decided that you are passing in a Unit, since this is kinda like void he doesn't really likes it, specifically passing in a Unit like () explicitly tells the compiler that you do want a Unit there. Anyway seems a new deprecation form scala 2.11, I can't reproduce this on 2.10.4.
Related
I'm just in the process of upgrading from Scala 2.10.x to 2.11.2 and I'm receiving the following warning with the following code:
override def validateKey(key: String): Either[InvalidKeyError, Unit] =
keys.contains(key) match {
case true => Right()
case false => Left(InvalidKeyError(context, key))
}
Adaptation of argument list by inserting () has been deprecated: this
is unlikely to be what you want. signature: Right.apply[A, B](b: B):
scala.util.Right[A,B] given arguments: after adaptation:
Right((): Unit)
I am able to solve this by changing the "true" case statement to:
case true => Right(()) //() is a shortcut to a Unit instance
Is this the proper way to address this warning?
Edit: perhaps a "why we have to do this now" type answer would be appropriate, my cursory investigation seems to indicate that Scala inserting "Unit" when it thinks it needs to causes other problems
Automatic Unit inference has been deprecated in scala 2.11, and the reason behind this is that it can lead to confusing behavior, especially for people learning the language.
Here's an example
class Foo[T](value: T)
val x = new Foo
This should not compile, right? You are calling the constructor with no arguments, where one is required. Surprisingly, until scala 2.10.4 this compiles just fine, with no errors or warnings.
And that's because the compiler inferred a Unit argument, so it actually replaced your code with
val x = new Foo[Unit](()) // Foo[Unit]
As the newly introduced warning message says, this is unlikely to be what you want.
Another famous example is this
scala> List(1,2,3).toSet()
// res1: Boolean = false
calling toSet() should be a compile-time error, since toSet does not take arguments, but the compiler desperately tries to make it compile, ultimately interpreting the code as
scala> List(1,2,3).toSet.apply(())
which means: test whether () belongs to the set. Since it's not the case, you get a false!
So, starting from scala 2.11, you have to be explicit if you want to pass () (aka Unit) as an argument. That's why you have to write:
Right(())
instead of
Right()
examples taken from Simplifying Scala — The Past, Present and Future by Simon Ochsenreither.
Perhaps it should be Right(()). Have you tried that?
My explanation is that since the Right.apply is polymorphic it can take all kind of parameters, doing Right() means passing in a Unit and the compiler simply advise you that maybe that's not what you want, he doesn't know that this is what you actually want.
If you see your deprecate message it states:
... after adaptation: Right((): Unit)
Which means that the compiler has automatically decided that you are passing in a Unit, since this is kinda like void he doesn't really likes it, specifically passing in a Unit like () explicitly tells the compiler that you do want a Unit there. Anyway seems a new deprecation form scala 2.11, I can't reproduce this on 2.10.4.
I got nipped by a production bug where I passed an impure 0-ary function to a class that mistakenly expected a a bare result type.
def impureFunc(): Future[Any] = ???
case class MyService(impureDependency: Future[Any] /* should have been () => Future[Any] */)
Effectively, this made MyService immediately invoke impureFunc and cache the first result for the lifetime of the program, which led to a very subtle bug.
Normally, the type system prevents these sort of bugs, but because of the ability to call 0-ary functions without an argument list, the compiler accepted this program.
Obviously, this is a "feature" of Scala, designed to make code look cleaner, but this was a bad gotcha. Is there any way to make this a compiler warning or a linting error? In other words, disapprove the "Empty application" type of implicit method conversion?
From the comments here, it appears this behavior was deprecated with a warning in 2.12 and should become an error in 2.13. So it seems the answer is to use -deprecation -Xfatal-warnings after upgrading.
I'm working on a mapper and wanted a typesafe way to capture class fieldnames for mapping and went with a syntax I'd used in C#:
case class Person(name: String, age: Int)
new Mapping[Person]() {
field(_.age).name("person_age").colType[java.lang.Integer]
field(_.name).name("person_name")
}
where def field(m: T => Unit): FieldMap
This triggers the following warnings:
Warning:(97, 13) a pure expression does nothing in statement position; you may be omitting necessary parentheses
field(_.age).name("person_age").colType[java.lang.Integer]
^
Warning:(98, 13) a pure expression does nothing in statement position; you may be omitting necessary parentheses
field(_.name).name("person_name")
^
So clearly that's not a desirable syntax. Any way I can tweak the signature of field to avoid the warning or is there a more idiomatic scala way of mapping fields in a typesafe manner?
Note: #sjrd's answer indeed gets rid of the warning, but the attempted feature doesn't seem feasible with scala reflection after all. My end goal is a Mapper that allows the specifying of T members in a compile time checked mannner, rather than strings, so it's less vulnerable to typo's and refactoring issues.
The field method takes a T => Unit function as parameter. Hence, the lambda _.age, which is equivalent to x => x.age, is typechecked as returning Unit. The compiler warns that you are using a pure expression (x.age) in statement position (expected type Unit), which basically means that the expression is useless, and might as well be removed.
There is a very simple symptomatic solution to your problem: replace m: T => Unit by m: T => Any. Now your expression x.age is not in statement position anymore, and the compiler is happy.
But your code suggests that there is something wrong a little bit deeper, since you obviously don't use the result of m anywhere. Why is m for anyway?
I have seen the symbol
???
used in scala code, i however don't know if it's meant to be pseudo code or actual scala code, but my eclipse IDE for scala doesn't flag it and the eclipse worksheet actually evaluates it.
I haven't been able to find anything via google search.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks
Yes, this is a valid identifier.
Since Scala 2.10, there is a ??? method in Predef which simply throws a NotImplementedError.
def ??? : Nothing = throw new NotImplementedError
This is intended to be used for quickly sketching the skeleton of some code, leaving the implementations of methods for later, for example:
class Foo[A](a: A) {
def flatMap[B](f: A => Foo[B]): Foo[B] = ???
}
Because it has a type of Nothing (which is a subtype of every other type), it will type-check in place of any value, allowing you to compile the incomplete code without errors. It's often seen in exercises, where the solution needs to be written in place of ???.
To search for method names that are ASCII or unicode strings:
SO search: https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=[scala]+%22%3F%3F%3F%22
finds this thread Scala and Python's pass
scalex covers scala 2.9.1 and scalaz 6.0 http://scalex.org/?q=%3C%3A%3C
I want to come out a way to define a new method in some existing class in scala.
For example, I think the asInstanceOf[T] method has too long a name, I want to replace it with as[T].
A straight forward approach can be:
class WrappedAny(val a: Any) {
def as[T] = a.asInstanceOf[T]
}
implicit def wrappingAny(a: Any): WrappedAny = new WrappedAny(a)
Is there a more natural way with less code?
Also, a strange thing happens when I try this:
scala> class A
defined class A
scala> implicit def toA(x: Any): A = x
toA: (x: Any)A
scala> toA(1)
And the console hang. It seems that toA(Any) should not pass the type checking phase, and it can't when it's not implicit. And putting all the code into a external source code can produce the same problem. How did this happen? Is it a bug of the compiler(version 2.8.0)?
There's nothing technically wrong with your approach to pimping Any, although I think it's generally ill-advised. Likewise, there's a reason asInstanceOf and isInstanceOf are so verbosely named; it's to discourage you from using them! There's almost certainly a better, statically type-safe way to do whatever you're trying to do.
Regarding the example which causes your console to hang: the declared type of toA is Any => A, yet you've defined its result as x, which has type Any, not A. How can this possibly compile? Well, remember that when an apparent type error occurs, the compiler looks around for any available implicit conversions to resolve the problem. In this case, it needs an implicit conversion Any => A... and finds one: toA! So the reason toA type checks is because the compiler is implicitly redefining it as:
implicit def toA(x: Any): A = toA(x)
... which of course results in infinite recursion when you try to use it.
In your second example you are passing Any to a function that must return A. However it never returns A but the same Any you passed in. The compiler then tries to apply the implicit conversion which in turn does not return an A but Any, and so on.
If you define toA as not being implicit you get:
scala> def toA(x: Any): A = x
<console>:6: error: type mismatch;
found : Any
required: A
def toA(x: Any): A = x
^
As it happens, this has been discussed on Scala lists before. The pimp my class pattern is indeed a bit verbose for what it does, and, perhaps, there might be a way to clean the syntax without introducing new keywords.
The bit about new keywords is that one of Scala goals is to make the language scalable through libraries, instead of turning the language into a giant quilt of ideas that passed someone's criteria for "useful enough to add to the language" and, at the same time, making other ideas impossible because they weren't deemed useful and/or common enough.
Anyway, nothing so far has come up, and I haven't heard that there is any work in progress towards that goal. You are welcome to join the community through its mailing lists and contribute to its development.