Using scala 2.10.3, my goal is to make the following work:
object A {
implicit class Imp(i: Int) {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
object B {
implicit class Imp(i: String) {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
import A._
import B._
object MyApp extends App {
3.myPrint()
}
This fails with
value myPrint is not a member of Int
If I give A.Imp and B.Imp different names (for example A.Imp1 and B.Imp2), it works.
Diving a bit deeper into it, there seems to be the same problem with implicit conversions.
This works:
object A {
implicit def Imp(i: Int) = new {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
implicit def Imp(i: String) = new {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
import A._
object MyApp extends App {
3.myPrint()
}
Whereas this doesn't:
object A {
implicit def Imp(i: Int) = new {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
object B {
implicit def Imp(i: String) = new {
def myPrint() {
println(i)
}
}
}
import A._
import B._
object MyApp extends App {
3.myPrint()
}
Why? Is this a bug in the scala compiler? I need this scenario, since my objects A and B derive from the same trait (with a type parameter) which then defines the implicit conversion for its type parameter. In this trait, I can only give one name for the implicit conversion. I want to be able to import more of these objects into my scope. Is there a way to do that?
edit: I can't give the implicit classes different names, since the examples above are only breaking down the problem. My actual code looks more like
trait P[T] {
implicit class Imp(i: T) {
def myPrint() {
...
}
}
}
object A extends P[Int]
object B extends P[String]
import A._
import B._
The implicits just have to be available as a simple name, so you can rename on import.
Just to verify:
scala> import A._ ; import B.{ Imp => BImp, _ }
import A._
import B.{Imp=>BImp, _}
scala> 3.myPrint
3
Actually, it works if you replace
import A._
import B._
with
import B._
import A._
What happens, I think, is that A.Imp is shadowed by B.Imp because it has the same name. Apparently shadowing applies on the function's name and do not take the signature into account.
So if you import A then B, then only B.Imp(i: String) will be available, and if you import B then A, then only A.Imp(i: Int) will be available.
If you need to use both A.Imp and B.Imp, you must rename one of them.
In case anyone else runs into this issue, there is a partial workaround, which I found here:
https://github.com/lihaoyi/scalatags/blob/3dea48c42c5581329e363d8c3f587c2c50d92f85/scalatags/shared/src/main/scala/scalatags/generic/Bundle.scala#L120
That code was written by Li Haoyi, so you can be pretty confident that no better solution exists...
Essentially, one can still use traits to define methods in terms of each other, but it will require boilerplate to copy those implicits into unique names. This example might be easier to follow:
trait Chainable
object Chainable {
implicit val _chainableFromInt = IntChainable.chainable _
implicit val _chainableFromIntTrav = IntChainable.traversable _
implicit val _chainableFromIntOpt = IntChainable.optional _
implicit val _chainableFromIntTry = IntChainable.tried _
implicit val _chainableFromDom = DomChainable.chainable _
implicit val _chainableFromDomTrav = DomChainable.traversable _
implicit val _chainableFromDomOpt = DomChainable.optional _
implicit val _chainableFromDomTry = DomChainable.tried _
private object IntChainable extends ImplChainables[Int] {
def chainable(n:Int) = Constant(n)
}
private object DomChainable extends ImplChainables[dom.Element]{
def chainable(e:Element) = Insertion(e)
}
private trait ImplChainables[T] {
def chainable(t:T):Chainable
def traversable(trav:TraversableOnce[T]):Chainable =
SeqChainable(trav.map(chainable).toList)
def optional(opt:Option[T]):Chainable =
opt match {
case Some(t) => chainable(t)
case None => NoneChainable
}
def tried(tried:Try[T]):Chainable =
optional(tried.toOption)
}
}
In other words, never write:
trait P[T] {
implicit def foo(i: T) = ...
}
object A extends P[X]
Because defining implicits in type parameterized traits will lead to these naming conflicts. Although, incidentally, the trait in mentioned in the link above is parameterized over many types, but idea there is that none of the implementations of that trait are ever needed in the same scope. (JSDom vs Text, and all._ vs short._ for those familiar with Scalatags)
I also recommend reading: http://www.lihaoyi.com/post/ImplicitDesignPatternsinScala.html
It does not address this issue specifically but is an excellent summary of how to use implicits.
However, putting all these pieces together, this still seems to be an issue:
trait ImplChainables[AnotherTypeClass]{
type F[A] = A=>AnotherTypeClass
implicit def transitiveImplicit[A:F](t: A):Chainable
implicit def traversable[A:F](trav: TraversableOnce[A]):Chainable = ...
}
What this trait would allow is:
object anotherImpl extends ImplChainables[AnotherTypeClass] {...}
import anotherImpl._
implicit val string2another: String=>AnotherTypeClass = ...
Seq("x"):Chainable
Because of the type parameter and the context binding (implicit parameter) those cannot be eta-expanded (i.e: Foo.bar _ ) into function values. The implicit parameter part has been fixed in Dotty: http://dotty.epfl.ch/blog/2016/12/05/implicit-function-types.html
I do not know if a complete solution would be possible, needless to say this is a complex problem. So it would be nice if same name implicits just worked and the whole issue could be avoided. And in any case, adding an unimport keyword would make so much more sense than turning off implicits by shadowing them.
Related
I have an implicit class defined in a class injected in other classes like this
class A {
implicit class B(s: String) {
def b = ???
}
}
class C(a: A) {}
Is there a way to access implicit class B (and in particular its method b) from the class C, without importing it explicitly? (Please note that class A could not be a trait since it also injects some classes.)
Solution 1 (import a._)
Well, yes, as already noted in the comments, from your requirements it is not obvious why you wouldn't just import a._ in the body of C:
class A {
implicit class B(arg: String) {
def b: String = ???
}
}
class C(a: A) {
import a._
{
println("hello".b)
}
}
This one line really doesn't hurt anyone.
If you still don't like it, then the problem might be elsewhere. Thus my second proposal.
Solution 2 (separating typeclass-like A-interface from .b-syntax)
This other solution is less about the reduction of number of imports in your code, and it doesn't even keep class B inside A. But it might address another issue that you maybe just can't quite articulate: it separates the functionality provided by A from the syntax provided by B.
The structure of the following snippet is inspired by the design of the Scala Cats library, that follows a very clear policy with the implicit declarations, always separating the typeclass defintions from the syntax.
The main idea is that:
Implementations of AIntf provide actual functionality
B provides only some additional "pimp-my-library"-style methods
and that we want to keep these two things separate.
Here is how to separate them, thereby also avoiding import a._ inside of C. First, you define the interface that describes the functionality provided by A:
trait AIntf {
def usefulOperationOnStrings(s: String): String
}
Then you can implement it by a few different A`s:
class A extends AIntf {
def usefulOperationOnStrings(s: String): String = "<foo>" + s + "</foo>"
}
class A2 extends AIntf {
def usefulOperationOnStrings(s: String): String = s.toUpperCase
}
Note that the object B has disappeared from A. Instead, it is moved in a separate syntax-package, and renamed to A_Ops. The method b is also renamed to a:
object syntax /* should be package, object only for script */ {
object a {
class A_Ops(wrapped: String, ai: AIntf) {
def a: String = ai.usefulOperationOnStrings(wrapped)
}
implicit def everyStringHasAOps(s: String)(implicit ai: AIntf): A_Ops = {
new A_Ops(s, ai)
}
}
}
This is how you use it:
You say in the imports that you want to refer to interface A_Intf
You say in the imports that you want to use the syntax syntax.a._
You declare the a-argument of C as implicit
Then you can just use "string".a syntax inside C without further imports.
In code:
import myproject.AIntf
import myproject.syntax.a._
class C(implicit val a: AIntf) {
{
println("hello".a)
}
}
Now the implementations of AIntf and the syntax .a become independent. You can inject A2 instead of A. Or you can change the syntax from "str".a to "str".somethingEntirelyDifferent.
The full code snippet:
import scala.language.implicitConversions
object myproject /* should be package, object only for script */ {
trait AIntf {
def usefulOperationOnStrings(s: String): String
}
object syntax /* should be package, object only for script */ {
object a {
class A_Ops(wrapped: String, ai: AIntf) {
def a: String = ai.usefulOperationOnStrings(wrapped)
}
implicit def everyStringHasAOps(s: String)(implicit ai: AIntf): A_Ops = {
new A_Ops(s, ai)
}
}
}
class A extends AIntf {
def usefulOperationOnStrings(s: String): String = "<foo>" + s + "</foo>"
}
class A2 extends AIntf {
def usefulOperationOnStrings(s: String): String = s.toUpperCase
}
}
import myproject.AIntf
import myproject.syntax.a._
class C(implicit val a: AIntf) {
{
println("hello".a)
}
}
val c1 = new C()(new myproject.A)
val c2 = new C()(new myproject.A2)
// prints:
// <foo>hello</foo>
// HELLO
Unfortunately, I have no clue what guice is going to do with an implicit argument, have not tried it yet. It might force you to write
class C #Inject()(val a: AIntf) {
implicit aintf: AIntf = a
...
}
which then becomes longer then the simple import mentioned in the first part.
as noted in comment, just import a._:
class A {
implicit class B(s: String) {
def b: String = "hello "+ s
}
}
class C(a: A){
import a._
val hello = "world".b
}
val c = new C(new A)
c.hello // "hello world"
Let's say I define some type in a trait, that should implement some type class (like functor):
import cats.Functor
import cats.syntax.functor.toFunctorOps
trait Library {
type T[+A]
implicit val isFunctor: Functor[T]
}
Now, I want to use this library. The following works fine:
trait LibraryUser {
val l: Library
import l._
def use: T[Boolean] = {
val t: T[Int] = ???
t.map(_ => true)
}
}
But when using it in a method with a parameter instead, the import of the implicit isn't working (out commented line doesn't compile) and you have to write the implicit for yourself instead:
object LibraryUser1 {
def use(l: Library): l.T[Boolean] = {
import l._
val t: T[Int] = ???
//t.map(_ => true)
toFunctorOps(t)(isFunctor).map(_ => true)
}
}
Why is this the case / what can be done against it.
This has previously been filed as a bug, specifically SI-9625. Implicits values that are path-dependent and return higher-kinded types fail to resolve. Here is a simplified example using the standard library:
trait TC[F[_]]
trait Foo {
type T[A]
implicit val ta: TC[T]
}
object Bar {
def use(foo: Foo) = {
import foo._
implicitly[TC[T]] // fails to resolve, but `implicitly[TC[T]](ta)` is fine
}
}
Sadly, even the most obvious use of the implicit fails:
object Bar {
def use(foo: Foo) = {
implicit val ta: TC[foo.T] = null
implicitly[TC[foo.T]] // nope!
}
}
Suppose I have a trait Foo with several methods. I want to create a new trait which extends Foo but "wraps" each method call, for example with some print statement (in reality this will be something more complicated / I have a couple of distinct use cases in mind).
trait Foo {
def bar(x: Int) = 2 * x
def baz(y: Int) = 3 * y
}
I can do this manually, by overriding each method. But this seems unnecessarily verbose (and all too easy to call the wrong super method):
object FooWrapped extends FooWrapped
trait FooWrapped extends Foo {
override def bar(x: Int) ={
println("call")
super.bar(x)
}
override def baz(y: Int) ={
println("call")
super.baz(y)
}
}
scala> FooWrapped.bar(3)
call
res3: Int = 6
I was hoping to write a mixin trait, that I would be able to reuse with other traits, and use as:
trait FooWrapped extends Foo with PrintCall
That way I don't have to manually override each method (the mixin would do this for me).
Is it possible to write such a mixin trait in Scala? What would it look like?
Update Here is the macro. It was much less painful than I thought it will be because of quasiquotes. They are awesome. This code does only a little and you probably will have to improve it. It may not account some special situations. Also it assumes that neither parent class nor it's method has type params, it wraps only the methods of the given class or trait, but not it's parents methods, it may not work if you have auxilary constructors etc. Still I hope it will give you an idea of how to do that for your specific needs, making it working for all of the situations unfortunately is too big job for me right now.
object MacrosLogging {
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.blackbox
def log_wrap[T](): T = macro log_impl[T]
def log_impl[T : c.WeakTypeTag](c: blackbox.Context)(): c.Expr[T] = {
import c.universe._
val baseType = implicitly[c.WeakTypeTag[T]].tpe
val body = for {
member <- baseType.declarations if member.isMethod && member.name.decodedName.toString != "$init$"
method = member.asMethod
params = for {sym <- method.paramLists.flatten} yield q"""${sym.asTerm.name}: ${sym.typeSignature}"""
paramsCall = for {sym <- method.paramLists.flatten} yield sym.name
methodName = member.asTerm.name.toString
} yield {
q"""override def ${method.name}(..$params): ${method.returnType} = { println("Method " + $methodName + " was called"); super.${method.name}(..$paramsCall); }"""
}
c.Expr[T] {q""" { class A extends $baseType { ..$body }; new A } """}
}
}
If you do not want to create an instance, but you do want to add logging only for your trait so you could mixin further, you can do this with relatively the same code, but using macro paradise type annotations: http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/macros/annotations These allow you to tag your class definitions and perform modifications right inside the definitions
You could do something like you want with Dynamic, but there is a catch - you can't make it of original type, so it's not a mixin. Dynamic starts to work only if type checks fails, so you can't mixin real type (or I do not know how to do that). The real answer would probably require macros (as #AlexeyRomanov suggested in comments), but I am not sure how to write one, maybe I'll come up with it later. Still Dynamic might work for you if you are not looking for DI here
trait Foo {
def bar(x: Int) = 2 * x
def baz(y: Int) = 3 * y
}
import scala.reflect.runtime.{universe => ru}
import scala.language.dynamics
trait Wrapper[T] extends Dynamic {
val inner: T
def applyDynamic(name: String)(args: Any*)(implicit tt: ru.TypeTag[T], ct: ClassTag[T]) = {
val im = tt.mirror.reflect(inner)
val method = tt.tpe.decl(ru.TermName(name)).asMethod
println(method)
val mm = im.reflectMethod(method)
println(s"$name was called with $args")
mm.apply(args:_*)
}
}
class W extends Wrapper[Foo] {
override val inner: Foo = new Foo() {}
}
val w = new W // Cannot be casted to Foo
println(w.bar(5)) // Logs a call and then returns 10
You can read more about Dynamic here: https://github.com/scala/scala/blob/2.12.x/src/library/scala/Dynamic.scala
I would like to do something which, more or less, boils down to the following:
def foo[S](x: String): S = S(x) // S(x) does not compile
So that if I have:
case class S1(x:String)
case class S2(x:String)
...
case class Sn(x:String)
I can write foo[Sx]("bar") to get Sx("foo").
Is there any way to specify that an instance of a class should be constructible from an instance of another (in this example String) and to actually invoke the constructor in a generic way?
You may use reflection (see #Ben Reich answer for detailed answer)
def foo[S:ClassTag](x: String): S = {
val runtimeClass = implicitly[ClassTag[S]].runtimeClass
val constructor = runtimeClass.<get a constructor with single String argument>
constructor(x) .asInstanceOf[S]
}
Or a type class that can construct an instance:
trait CanConstruct[S] {
def apply(x:String):S
}
def foo[S:CanConstruct](x: String): S = {
val constructor = implicitly[CanConstruct[S]]
constructor(x).asInstanceOf[S]
}
UPD You would need an instance of the type class for every type you wish to construct:
implicit val s1constructor = new CanConstruct[S1] { def apply(x:String) = S1(x) }
...
Also it seems to be the case for conversion functions:
implicit val convertStringToS1 = S1(_)
implicit val convertStringToS2 = S2(_)
...
Using reflection:
import reflect.ClassTag
def foo[S: ClassTag](x: String) = implicitly[ClassTag[S]]
.runtimeClass
.getConstructors
.map(a => a -> a.getParameters)
.collectFirst {
case (constructor, Array(p)) if p.getType == classOf[String]
=> constructor.newInstance(x).asInstanceOf[S]
}
Which will return an Option[S], if the proper constructor is found.
I sort of solved it with a macro:
object Construct {
import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.Context
def construct[A,B](x:B):A = macro constructImpl[A,B]
def constructImpl[A: c.WeakTypeTag,B](c:Context)(x:c.Expr[B]) = {
import c.universe._
c.Expr[A](q"""new ${c.weakTypeOf[A]}(${x.tree})""")
}
}
I now can write things like:
case class Foo(x:String)
case class Bar(x:Int)
construct[Foo,String]("foo")
construct[Bar,Int](42)
It would be nice to find a way to avoid having to write the second type parameter, though.
Just when I thought I understood the basics of Scala's type system... :/
I'm trying to implement a class that reads the contents of a file and outputs a set of records. A record might be a single line, but it could also be a block of bytes, or anything. So what I'm after is a structure that allows the type of Reader to imply the type of the Record, which in turn will imply the correct Parser to use.
This structure works as long as MainApp.records(f) only returns one type of Reader. As soon as it can return more, I get this error:
could not find implicit value for parameter parser
I think the problem lies with the typed trait definitions at the top, but I cannot figure out how to fix the issue...
// Core traits
trait Record[T]
trait Reader[T] extends Iterable[Record[T]]
trait Parser[T] {
def parse(r: Record[T]): Option[Int]
}
// Concrete implementations
class LineRecord[T] extends Record[T]
class FileReader[T](f:File) extends Reader[T] {
val lines = Source.fromFile(f).getLines()
def iterator: Iterator[LineRecord[T]] =
new Iterator[LineRecord[T]] {
def next() = new LineRecord[T]
def hasNext = lines.hasNext
}
}
trait TypeA
object TypeA {
implicit object TypeAParser extends Parser[TypeA] {
def parse(r: Record[TypeA]): Option[Int] = ???
}
}
trait TypeB
object TypeB {
implicit object TypeBParser extends Parser[TypeB] {
def parse(r: Record[TypeB]): Option[Int] = ???
}
}
// The "app"
object MainApp {
def process(f: File) =
records(f) foreach { r => parse(r) }
def records(f: File) = {
if(true)
new FileReader[TypeA](f)
else
new FileReader[TypeB](f)
}
def parse[T](r: Record[T])(implicit parser: Parser[T]): Option[Int] =
parser.parse(r)
}
First off you must import the implicit object in order to use them:
import TypeA._
import TypeB._
That's not enough though. It seems like you're trying to apply implicits dynamically. That's not possible; they have to be found compile time.
If you import the objects as above and change the records so that the compiler finds the correct generic it will run fine:
def records(f: File) = new FileReader[TypeA](f)
But then it may not be what you were looking for ;)
The problem is that the return type of your records method is basically FileReader[_] (since it can return either FileReader[TypeA] or FileReader[TypeB]), and you don't provide an implicit argument of type Parser[Any]. If you remove the if-expression the return type is inferred to FileReader[TypeA], which works fine. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but obviously the compiler can't select implicit argument based upon a type that is only known at runtime.
1) Using type with implicit inside as type parameter - doesn't bind this implicit to the host type, to do this change objects to the traits and mix them instead of generalizing (type-parametrizing):
def records(f: File) = {
if(true)
new FileReader(f) with TypeA
else
new FileReader(f) with TypeB
}
2) The parser should be in scope of function that calls parse. So you may try smthg like that:
def process(f: File) = {
val reader = records(f);
import reader._
reader foreach { r => parse(r) }
}
PlanB) Simpler alternative is to define type-parameter specific implicit methods inside the AppMain (or some trait mixed in), but it will work only if TypeA/TypeB is known on compile time, so records method can return concrete type:
implicit class TypeAParser(r: Record[TypeA]) {
def parse: Option[Int] = ???
}
implicit class TypeBParser(r: Record[TypeB]) {
def parse: Option[Int] = ???
}
def process[T <: TypeAorB](f: File) =
records[T](f).foreach(_.parse)
def recordsA[T <: TypeAorB](f: File) = new FileReader[T](f)
Here is, I think, the full set of modifications you need to do to get where I think you want to go.
import scala.io.Source
import java.io.File
import reflect.runtime.universe._
// Core traits
trait Record[+T]
trait Reader[+T] extends Iterable[Record[T]]
trait Parser[-T] {
def parse(r: Record[T]): Option[Int]
}
// Concrete implementations [unmodified]
class LineRecord[T] extends Record[T]
class FileReader[T](f:File) extends Reader[T] {
val lines = Source.fromFile(f).getLines()
def iterator: Iterator[LineRecord[T]] =
new Iterator[LineRecord[T]] {
def next() = new LineRecord[T]
def hasNext = lines.hasNext
}
}
sealed trait Alternatives
case class TypeA() extends Alternatives
object TypeA {
implicit object TypeAParser extends Parser[TypeA] {
def parse(r: Record[TypeA]): Option[Int] = ???
}
}
case class TypeB() extends Alternatives
object TypeB {
implicit object TypeBParser extends Parser[TypeB] {
def parse(r: Record[TypeB]): Option[Int] = ???
}
}
class ParseAlternator(parserA: Parser[TypeA], parserB: Parser[TypeB]) extends Parser[Alternatives] {
def parse(r: Record[Alternatives]): Option[Int] = r match {
case x: Record[TypeA #unchecked] if typeOf[Alternatives] =:= typeOf[TypeA] => parserA.parse(x)
case x: Record[TypeB #unchecked] if typeOf[Alternatives] =:= typeOf[TypeB] => parserB.parse(x)
}
}
object ParseAlternator {
implicit def parseAlternator(implicit parserA: Parser[TypeA], parserB: Parser[TypeB]): Parser[Alternatives] = new ParseAlternator(parserA, parserB)
}
// The "app"
object MainApp {
import ParseAlternator._
def process(f: File) =
records(f) foreach { r => parse(r) }
def records(f: File): Reader[Alternatives] = {
if(true)
new FileReader[TypeA](f)
else
new FileReader[TypeB](f)
}
def parse[T](r: Record[T])(implicit parser: Parser[T]): Option[Int] =
parser.parse(r)
}
The gist of it is: all of this would be completely classsical if only your parse instance did not have to pattern-match on a generic type but dealt directly with an Alternative instead.
It's this limitation (inherited from the JVM) that scala can't properly pattern-match on an object of a parametric type that requires the reflection & typeOf usage. Without it, you would just have type alternatives for your content (TypeA, TypeB), which you would add to a sealed trait, and which you would dispatch on, in an implicit that produces a Parser for their supertype.
Of course this isn't the only solution, it's just what I think is the meeting point of what's closest to what you're trying to do, with what's most idiomatic.