Hi all I am fairly new to Scala coming from C#.
I am attempting to write my own version of accumulate ( fold) I am wondering why I am running into some issues with the following:
def accumulate[T](list : List[T], initial: T, f: (T, T) => T) : T = {
#tailrec def loop[T](list: List[T], accum: T) : T =
if(list.length == 0)
accum
else{
val head : T = list.head
val res : T = f(accum,head)
loop[T](list.tail, res)
}
loop(list,initial)
}
I am getting the following error:
type mismatch;
found : accum.type (with underlying type T)
required: T
val res : T = f(accum,head)
^
I cant see how I have a type mismatch considering everything is type T.
Any thoughts / help would be appreciated.
Blair
You should just remove type parameter from loop method. Replace loop[T] with loop.
With loop[T] you are creating new type parameter with name T, so T outside loop method and T in loop method are different type aliases with the same name.
It's called shadowing.
See these answers for similar problems:
Scala type parameter error, not a member of type parameter
Scala, Extend object with a generic trait
Generic type inference in Scala
The problem is that with the inner function loop you are defining a new type T that is shadowing the outer type T.
The compiler sees them as defining different types. If you simply remove the T type parameter from loop (including the recursive call loop(list.tail, res)) you should find it compiles just fine.
Related
Consider the following example:
case class C[T](x:T) {
def f(t:T) = println(t)
type ValueType = T
}
val list = List(1 -> C(2), "hello" -> C("goodbye"))
for ((a,b) <- list) {
b.f(a)
}
In this example, I know (runtime guarantee) that the type of a will be some T, and b will have type C[T] with the same T. Of course, the compiler cannot know that, hence we get a typing error in b.f(a).
To tell the compiler that this invocation is OK, we need to do a typecast à la b.f(a.asInstanceOf[T]). Unfortunately, T is not known here. So my question is: How do I rewrite b.f(a) in order to make this code compile?
I am looking for a solution that does not involve complex constructions (to keep the code readable), and that is "clean" in the sense that we should not rely on code erasure to make it work (see the first approach below).
I have some working approaches, but I find them unsatisfactory for various reasons.
Approaches I tried:
b.asInstanceOf[C[Any]].f(a)
This works, and is reasonably readable, but it is based on a "lie". b is not of type C[Any], and the only reason we do not get a runtime error is because we rely on the limitations of the JVM (type erasure). I think it is good style only to use x.asInstanceOf[X] when we know that x is really of type X.
b.f(a.asInstanceOf[b.ValueType])
This should work according to my understanding of the type system. I have added the member ValueType to the class C in order to be able to explicitly refer to the type parameter T. However, in this approach we get a mysterious error message:
Error:(9, 22) type mismatch;
found : b.ValueType
(which expands to) _1
required: _1
b.f(a.asInstanceOf[b.ValueType])
^
Why? It seems to complain that we expect type _1 but got type _1! (But even if this approach works, it is limited to the cases where we have the possibility to add a member ValueType to C. If C is some existing library class, we cannot do that either.)
for ((a,b) <- list.asInstanceOf[List[(T,C[T]) forSome {type T}]]) {
b.f(a)
}
This one works, and is semantically correct (i.e., we do not "lie" when invoking asInstanceOf). The limitation is that this is somewhat unreadable. Also, it is somewhat specific to the present situation: if a,b do not come from the same iterator, then where can we apply this type cast? (This code also has the side effect of being too complex for Intelli/J IDEA 2016.2 which highlights it as an error in the editor.)
val (a2,b2) = (a,b).asInstanceOf[(T,C[T]) forSome {type T}]
b2.f(a2)
I would have expected this one to work since a2,b2 now should have types T and C[T] for the same existential T. But we get a compile error:
Error:(10, 9) type mismatch;
found : a2.type (with underlying type Any)
required: T
b2.f(a2)
^
Why? (Besides that, the approach has the disadvantage of incurring runtime costs (I think) because of the creation and destruction of a pair.)
b match {
case b : C[t] => b.f(a.asInstanceOf[t])
}
This works. But enclosing the code with a match makes the code much less readable. (And it also is too complicated for Intelli/J.)
The cleanest solution is, IMO, the one you found with the type-capture pattern match. You can make it concise, and hopefully readable, by integrating the pattern directly inside your for comprehension, as follows:
for ((a, b: C[t]) <- list) {
b.f(a.asInstanceOf[t])
}
Fiddle: http://www.scala-js-fiddle.com/gist/b9030033133ee94e8c18ad772f3461a0
If you are not in a for comprehension already, unfortunately the corresponding pattern assignment does not work:
val (c, d: C[t]) = (a, b)
d.f(c.asInstanceOf[t])
That's because t is not in scope anymore on the second line. In that case, you would have to use the full pattern matching.
Maybe I'm confused about what you are trying to achieve, but this compiles:
case class C[T](x:T) {
def f(t:T) = println(t)
type ValueType = T
}
type CP[T] = (T, C[T])
val list = List[CP[T forSome {type T}]](1 -> C(2), "hello" -> C("goodbye"))
for ((a,b) <- list) {
b.f(a)
}
Edit
If the type of the list itself is out of your control, you can still cast it to this "correct" type.
case class C[T](x:T) {
def f(t:T) = println(t)
type ValueType = T
}
val list = List(1 -> C(2), "hello" -> C("goodbye"))
type CP[T] = (T, C[T])
for ((a,b) <- list.asInstanceOf[List[CP[T forSome { type T }]]]) {
b.f(a)
}
Great question! Lots to learn here about Scala.
Other answers and comments have already addressed most of the issues here, but I'd like to address a few additional points.
You asked why this variant doesn't work:
val (a2,b2) = (a,b).asInstanceOf[(T,C[T]) forSome {type T}]
b2.f(a2)
You aren't the only person who's been surprised by this; see e.g. this recent very similar issue report: SI-9899.
As I wrote there:
I think this is working as designed as per SLS 6.1: "The following skolemization rule is applied universally for every expression: If the type of an expression would be an existential type T, then the type of the expression is assumed instead to be a skolemization of T."
Basically, every time you write a value-level expression that the compiler determines to have an existential type, the existential type is instantiated. b2.f(a2) has two subexpressions with existential type, namely b2 and a2, so the existential gets two different instantiations.
As for why the pattern-matching variant works, there isn't explicit language in SLS 8 (Pattern Matching) covering the behavior of existential types, but 6.1 doesn't apply because a pattern isn't technically an expression, it's a pattern. The pattern is analyzed as a whole and any existential types inside only get instantiated (skolemized) once.
As a postscript, note that yes, when you play in this area, the error messages you get are often confusing or misleading and ought to be improved. See for example https://github.com/scala/scala-dev/issues/205
A wild guess, but is it possible that you need something like this:
case class C[+T](x:T) {
def f[A >: T](t: A) = println(t)
}
val list = List(1 -> C(2), "hello" -> C("goodbye"))
for ((a,b) <- list) {
b.f(a)
}
?
It will type check.
I'm not quite sure what "runtime guarantee" means here, usually it means that you are trying to fool type system (e.g. with asInstanceOf), but then all bets are off and you shouldn't expect type system to be of any help.
UPDATE
Just for the illustration why type casting is an evil:
case class C[T <: Int](x:T) {
def f(t: T) = println(t + 1)
}
val list = List("hello" -> C(2), 2 -> C(3))
for ((a, b: C[t]) <- list) {
b.f(a.asInstanceOf[t])
}
It compiles and fails at runtime (not surprisingly).
UPDATE2
Here's what generated code looks like for the last snippet (with C[t]):
...
val a: Object = x1._1();
val b: Test$C = x1._2().$asInstanceOf[Test$C]();
if (b.ne(null))
{
<synthetic> val x2: Test$C = b;
matchEnd4({
x2.f(scala.Int.unbox(a));
scala.runtime.BoxedUnit.UNIT
})
}
...
Type t simply vanished (as it should have been) and Scala is trying to convert a to an upper bound of T in C, i.e. Int. If there is no upper bound it's going to be Any (but then method f is nearly useless unless you cast again or use something like println which takes Any).
I am new to Scala, and I hope this question is not too basic. I couldn't find the answer to this question on the web (which might be because I don't know the relevant keywords).
I am trying to understand the following definition:
def functionName[T <: AnyRef](name: Symbol)(range: String*)(f: T => String)(implicit tag: ClassTag[T]): DiscreteAttribute[T] = {
val r = ....
new anotherFunctionName[T](name.toString, f, Some(r))
}
First , why is it defined as def functionName[...](...)(...)(...)(...)? Can't we define it as def functionName[...](..., ..., ..., ...)?
Second, how does range: String* from range: String?
Third, would it be a problem if implicit tag: ClassTag[T] did not exist?
First , why is it defined as def functionName...(...)(...)(...)? Can't we define it as def functionName[...](..., ..., ..., ...)?
One good reason to use currying is to support type inference. Consider these two functions:
def pred1[A](x: A, f: A => Boolean): Boolean = f(x)
def pred2[A](x: A)(f: A => Boolean): Boolean = f(x)
Since type information flows from left to right if you try to call pred1 like this:
pred1(1, x => x > 0)
type of the x => x > 0 cannot be determined yet and you'll get an error:
<console>:22: error: missing parameter type
pred1(1, x => x > 0)
^
To make it work you have to specify argument type of the anonymous function:
pred1(1, (x: Int) => x > 0)
pred2 from the other hand can be used without specifying argument type:
pred2(1)(x => x > 0)
or simply:
pred2(1)(_ > 0)
Second, how does range: String* from range: String?
It is a syntax for defining Repeated Parameters a.k.a varargs. Ignoring other differences it can be used only on the last position and is available as a scala.Seq (here scala.Seq[String]). Typical usage is apply method of the collections types which allows for syntax like SomeDummyCollection(1, 2, 3). For more see:
What does `:_*` (colon underscore star) do in Scala?
Scala variadic functions and Seq
Is there a difference in Scala between Seq[T] and T*?
Third, would it be a problem if implicit tag: ClassTag[T] did not exist?
As already stated by Aivean it shouldn't be the case here. ClassTags are automatically generated by the compiler and should be accessible as long as the class exists. In general case if implicit argument cannot be accessed you'll get an error:
scala> import scala.concurrent._
import scala.concurrent._
scala> val answer: Future[Int] = Future(42)
<console>:13: error: Cannot find an implicit ExecutionContext. You might pass
an (implicit ec: ExecutionContext) parameter to your method
or import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global.
val answer: Future[Int] = Future(42)
Multiple argument lists: this is called "currying", and enables you to call a function with only some of the arguments, yielding a function that takes the rest of the arguments and produces the result type (partial function application). Here is a link to Scala documentation that gives an example of using this. Further, any implicit arguments to a function must be specified together in one argument list, coming after any other argument lists. While defining functions this way is not necessary (apart from any implicit arguments), this style of function definition can sometimes make it clearer how the function is expected to be used, and/or make the syntax for partial application look more natural (f(x) rather than f(x, _)).
Arguments with an asterisk: "varargs". This syntax denotes that rather than a single argument being expected, a variable number of arguments can be passed in, which will be handled as (in this case) a Seq[String]. It is the equivalent of specifying (String... range) in Java.
the implicit ClassTag: this is often needed to ensure proper typing of the function result, where the type (T here) cannot be determined at compile time. Since Scala runs on the JVM, which does not retain type information beyond compile time, this is a work-around used in Scala to ensure information about the type(s) involved is still available at runtime.
Check currying:Methods may define multiple parameter lists. When a method is called with a fewer number of parameter lists, then this will yield a function taking the missing parameter lists as its arguments.
range:String* is the syntax for varargs
implicit TypeTag parameter in Scala is the alternative for Class<T> clazzparameter in Java. It will be always available if your class is defined in scope. Read more about type tags.
I was looking at the FoldLeft and FoldRight methods and the operator version of the method was extremely peculiar which was something like this (0 /: List.range(1,10))(+).
For right associative functions with two parameter lists one would expect the syntax to be something like this((param1)(param2) op HostClass).
But here in this case it is of the syntax (param1 op HostClass)(param2). This causes ambiguity with another case where a right associative function returns another function that takes a single parameter.
Because of this ambiguity the class compiles but fails when the function call is made as shown below.
class Test() {
val func1:(String => String) = { (in) => in * 2 }
def `test:`(x:String) = { println(x); func1 }
def `test:`(x:String)(y:String) = { x+" "+y }
}
val test = new Test
(("Foo") `test:` test)("hello")
<console>:10: error: ambiguous reference to overloaded definition,
both method test: in class Test of type (x: String)(y: String)String
and method test: in class Test of type (x: String)String => String
match argument types (String)
(("Foo") `test:` test)("hello")
so my questions are
Is this an expected behaviour or is it a bug?
Why the two parameter list right associative function call has been designed the way it is, instead of what I think to be more intuitive syntax of ((param1)(param2) op HostClass)?
Is there a workaround to call either of the overloaded test: function without ambiguity.
The Scala's Type System considers only the first parameter list of the function for type inference. Hence to uniquely identify one of the overloaded method in a class or object the first parameter list of the method has to be distinct for each of the overloaded definition. This can be demonstrated by the following example.
object Test {
def test(x:String)(y:Int) = { x+" "+y.toString() }
def test(x:String)(y:String) = { x+" "+y }
}
Test.test("Hello")(1)
<console>:9: error: ambiguous reference to overloaded definition,
both method test in object Test of type (x: String)(y: String)String
and method test in object Test of type (x: String)(y: Int)String
match argument types (String)
Test.test("Hello")(1)
Does it really fail at runtime? When I tested it, the class compiles, but the call of the method test: does not.
I think that the problem is not with the operator syntax, but with the fact that you have two overloaded functions, one with just one and the other with two parameter lists.
You will get the same error with the dot-notation:
test.`test:`("Foo")("hello")
If you rename the one-param list function, the ambiguity will be gone and
(("Foo") `test:` test)("hello")
will compile.
I wish to write a function that operates on any value that can be added to other members of its own type (whatever "added" means in context). The obvious (heh-heh) definition of such a type:
type Addable = { def +(a : Addable) : Addable }
That gives me an error I don't understand at all: recursive method + needs result type
Why isn't that last : Addable the result type? Why does it think + is recursive anyway?
But I found a more general problem, trying to refer to a type inside its own definition:
type T = { def f: T }
But then I had a brain-wave: solve it the way I would in Java!
type T[T] = { def f: T }
This compiled!
But now I have two more problems.
First, I have no idea how to use type T. In particular,
def n(a:T) = a.f
gives the wholly sensible yet frustrating "type T takes type parameters" error.
Second, attempting to apply this pattern to the original problem
type Addable[Addable] = { def +(a : Addable) : Addable }
leads to a completely incomprehensible "Parameter type in structural refinement may not refer to an abstract type defined outside that refinement". (The actual problem is not that it's "+" -- thank God and Martin, since that would complete mess up my head -- just that it takes an Addable as a parameter.)
So
How do I define a duck-type meaning "has a particular function returning a value of the same type"?
How do I define a duck-type meaning "has a particular function taking a expression of the same type as a parameter"?
I have a religious-like belief that this problem is solvable.
Those are different Ts.
scala> type T[T] = { def f: T }
defined type alias T
scala> var x: T[Int] = null
x: T[Int] = null
scala> x = new AnyRef { def f = 5 }
x: T[Int] = $anon$1#44daa9f1
When you write:
type Addable[Addable] = { def +(a : Addable) : Addable }
You have a type Addable which takes a single type parameter, also called Addable. Here's a similar variation people often confuse themselves with.
scala> def f[Int](x: Int) = x * x
<console>:7: error: value * is not a member of type parameter Int
def f[Int](x: Int) = x * x
^
The actual answer to your question is "you can't" but I would hate to shatter your religious-like faith so instead I'll say "structural types work in mysterious ways." If you want to go on a religious mission you might visit here, which explains why you can't.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.scala/7013
I have a typed pair class:
class TypedPair[T]
and I want to apply a certain function to a heterogeneous sequence of them:
def process[T](entry: TypedPair[T]) = {/* something */}
Why doesn't this work?
def apply(entries: TypedPair[_]*) = entries.foreach(process)
It fails with the error:
error: polymorphic expression cannot be instantiated to expected type;
found : [T](TypedPair[T]) => Unit
required: (TypedPair[_]) => ?
def apply(entries: TypedPair[_]*) = entries.foreach(process)
I don't recall getting into this problem in Java...
The compiler has problems figuring out the anonymous method in this case. When you added the dummy parameter, you also changed the syntax to help the compiler with it, so the following will work:
def apply(entries: TypedPair[_]*) = entries.foreach(process(_))
You have declared an existential type:
def apply(entries: TypedPair[_]*) = entries.foreach(process)
is equivalent to
def apply(entries: TypedPair[t] forSome { type t }*) = entries.foreach(process)
I'm not sure if this is what you intended or not.