I want to use a private constructor in a macro. This example is a positive integer, but the basic pattern could not only be used for other numeric types like even numbers, but also string derived types like email addresses or a directory name. By making the constructor private the user is denied the opportunity to make an illegal type. I have the following code:
object PosInt
{
import language.experimental.macros
import reflect.runtime.universe._
import reflect.macros.Context
def op(inp: Int): Option[PosInt] = if (inp > 0) Some(new PosInt(inp)) else None
def apply(param: Int): PosInt = macro apply_impl
def apply_impl(c: Context)(param: c.Expr[Int]): c.Expr[PosInt] =
{
import c.universe._
param match {
case Expr(Literal(i)) if (i.value.asInstanceOf[Int] > 0) =>
case Expr(Literal(i)) if (i.value.asInstanceOf[Int] == 0) => c.abort(c.enclosingPosition, "0 is not a positive integer")
case Expr(Literal(i)) => c.abort(c.enclosingPosition, "is not a positive integer")
case _ => c.abort(c.enclosingPosition, "Not a Literal")
}
reify{new PosInt(param.splice)}
}
}
class PosInt (val value: Int) extends AnyVal
However if I make the PosInt Constructor private, although the Macro compiles as expected I get an error if try to use the macro. I can't work out how to build the expression tree manually, but I'm not sure if that would help anyway. Is there anyway I can do this?
You still can't use a private constructor even if PosInt is not a value class. I'll accept an answer that doesn't use a value class. The disadvantage of value classes is that they get type erasure. Plus classes that I'm interested in like subsets of 2d co-ordinates can't be implement as value classes anyway. I'm not actually interested in Positive Integers, I'm just using them as a simple test bed. I'm using Scala 2.11M5. Scala 2.11 will have the addition of the quasiquotes feature. I haven't worked out how to use, quasiquotes yet, as all the material at the moment on them seems to assume a familiarity with Macro Paradise, which I don't have.
Unfortunately for what you are trying to achieve, macros do not work this way. They just manipulate the AST at compile time. Whatever the final result is, it is always something you could have written literally in Scala (without the macro).
Thus, in order to constrain the possible values of PosInt, you will need a runtime check somewhere, either in a public constructor or in a factory method on the companion object.
If runtime exceptions are not palatable to you, then one possible approach would be:
Make the constructor private on the class.
Provide (for example) a create method on the companion object that returns Option[PosInt] (or Try[PosInt], or some other type of your choice that allows you to express a "failure" when the argument is out of range).
Provide an apply method on the companion object similar to your example, which verifies at compile time that the argument is in range and then returns an expression tree that simply calls create(x).get.
Calling .get on the Option is acceptable in this case because you are sure that it will never be None.
The downside is that you have to repeat the check twice: once at compile time, and once at runtime.
I'm not an expert, but I figured I'll give it a shot...
In Java, the scope of a private constructor is limited to the same class... so the PosInt object would need to be moved into the scope of the same class from which it's being called.
With that said, I found an article that shows two ways you can keep the object from being inherited # http://www.developer.com/java/other/article.php/3109251/Stopping-Your-Class-from-Being-Inherited-in-Java-the-Official-Way-and-the-Unofficial-Way.htm
It describes using the "final" keyword in the class declaration to prevent it from being inherited. That's the "official" way. The "unofficial" way is to make the constructor private, but add a public static method that returns an object of the class...
Yes, I know, it is an old question... but it was left unanswered. You never know when an old question will be the top hit in someone's search results...
Related
I am wondering if there is a way to get the quick documentation in IntelliJ to work for the class construction pattern many scala developers use below.
SomeClass(Param1,Parma2)
instead of
new SomeClass(param1,Param2)
The direct constructor call made with new obviously works but many scala devs use apply to construct objects. When that pattern is used the Intelij documentation look up fails to find any information on the class.
I don't know if there are documents in IntelliJ per se. However, the pattern is fairly easy to explain.
There's a pattern in Java code for having static factory methods (this is a specialization of the Gang of Four Factory Method Pattern), often along the lines of (translated to Scala-ish):
object Foo {
def barInstance(args...): Bar = ???
}
The main benefit of doing this is that the factory controls object instantiation, in particular:
the particular runtime class to instantiate, possibly based on the arguments to the factory. For example, the generic immutable collections in Scala have factory methods which may create optimized small collections if they're created with a sufficiently small amount of contents. An example of this is a sequence of length 1 can be implemented with basically no overhead with a single field referring to the object and a lookup that checks if the offset is 0 and either throws or returns its sole field.
whether an instance is created. One can cache arguments to the factory and memoize or "hashcons" the created objects, or precreate the most common instances and hand them out repeatedly.
A further benefit is that the factory is a function, while new is an operator, which allows the factory to be passed around:
class Foo(x: Int)
object Foo {
def instance(x: Int) = new Foo(x)
}
Seq(1, 2, 3).map(x => Foo(x)) // results in Seq(Foo(1), Foo(2), Foo(3))
In Scala, this is combined with the fact that the language allows any object which defines an apply method to be used syntactically as a function (even if it doesn't extend Function, which would allow the object to be passed around as if it's a function) and with the "companion object" to a class (which incorporates the things that in Java would be static in the class) to get something like:
class Foo(constructor_args...)
object Foo {
def apply(args...): Foo = ???
}
Which can be used like:
Foo(...)
For a case class, the Scala compiler automatically generates a companion object with certain behaviors, one of which is an apply with the same arguments as the constructor (other behaviors include contract-obeying hashCode and equals as well as an unapply method to allow for pattern matching).
// ok
val sam0: MySamWithEmptyParameter = () => 100
// doesn't work
// val sam1: MySamWithParameterless = () => 100
trait MySamWithEmptyParameter {
def receive(): Int
}
trait MySamWithParameterless {
def receive: Int
}
Why sam1 fails to override the receive method? The scalac compile both of traits to same code.
abstract trait TestSAM$MySamWithEmptyParameter extends Object {
def receive(): Int
};
abstract trait TestSAM$MySamWithParameterless extends Object {
def receive(): Int
};
SI-10555 talks exactly about this. This was a simple design decision to only support an explicit empty parameter list, even though the two compile down to an empty parameter list anyway.
The relevant part of the Specification says (emphasis mine):
the method m must have a single argument list;
This is indeed a bit awkward as eta expansion does work for methods with an empty parameter list.
Edit
Contacted the guys at Lightbend. Here is a response by Adrian Moors, Scala team lead:
The original reason was to keep the spec simple, but perhaps we should revisit. I agree it’s surprising that it works for def a(): Int, but not in your example.
Internally, methods that don’t define an argument list at all, and those that do (even if empty) are treated differently.
This has led to confusion/bugs before — to name just one: https://github.com/scala/scala-dev/issues/284.
In 2.13, we’re reworking eta-expansion (it will apply more aggressively, but ()-insertion will happen first). We’ve been back and forth on this, but the current thinking is:
0-ary methods are treated specially: if the expected type is sam-equivalent to Function0, we eta-expand; otherwise, () is inserted (in dotty, you are required to write the () explicitly, unless the method is java-defined) — I’m still not sure about whether we should ever eta-expand here
for all other arities, a method reference is eta-expanded regardless of the expected type (if there’s no type mismatch, this could hide errors when you refactor a method to take arguments, but forget to apply them everywhere. However, since functions are first-class values, it should be easy to construct them by simplify referring to a method value).
The upshot is that we can deprecate method value syntax (m _), since it’s subsumed by simply writing m. (Note that this is distinct from placeholder syntax, as in m(, _).)
(See also the thread around this comment: https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty/issues/2570#issuecomment-306202339)
value classes can be used to achieve type safety without the overhead of unboxing.
I had the impression that in runtime such types/classes would "not exist", being seen as simple types (for instance, a value class case class X(i: Int) extends AnyVal would be a simple Int on runtime).
But if you do call a .toString method on a value class instance it would print something like:
scala> val myValueClass = X(3)
myValueClass: X = 3
scala> myValueClass.toString
res5: String = X(3)
so I guess the compiler includes some information after all?
Not really. The compiler creates a static method (in Scala this corresponds to the class's companion object) which is called with your int value as a parameter in order to simulate calling a method on your value class-typed object.
Your value class itself only exists in the source code. In compiled bytecode an actual primitive int is used and static methods are called rather than new object instances with real method calls. You can read more about this mechanism here.
Value classes are designed so that adding or removing extends AnyVal (if legal) shouldn't change the results of calculations (except even non-case value classes have equals and hashCode defined automatically like case classes). This requires that in some circumstances they survive, e.g.
def toString(x: Any) = x.toString
toString(myValueClass)
but the situation in your question isn't one of them.
http://docs.scala-lang.org/sips/completed/value-classes.html#expansion-of-value-classes explains more precisely how value classes are implemented and is useful to see in what cases they survive, though some details may have changed since.
How can you make code in a Scala library call type-specific code for objects supplied by a caller to that library, where the decision about which type-specific code to call is made at compile-time (statically), not at run-time?
To illustrate the concept, suppose I want to make a library function that prints objects one way if there's a CanMakeDetailedString defined for them, or just as .toString if not. See nicePrint in this example code:
import scala.language.implicitConversions
trait CanMakeDetailedString[A] extends (A => String)
def noDetailedString[A] = new CanMakeDetailedString[A] {
def apply(a: A) = a.toString
}
object Util {
def nicePrint[A](a: A)
(implicit toDetail: CanMakeDetailedString[A] = noDetailedString[A])
: Unit = println(toDetail(a))
def doStuff[A](a: A)
: Unit = { /* stuff goes here */ nicePrint(a) }
}
Now here is some test code:
object Main {
import Util._
case class Rototiller(name: String)
implicit val rototillerDetail = new CanMakeDetailedString[Rototiller] {
def apply(r: Rototiller) = s"The rototiller named ${r.name}."
}
val r = Rototiller("R51")
nicePrint(r)
doStuff(r)
}
Here's the output in Scala 2.11.2:
The rototiller named R51.
Rototiller(R51)
When I call nicePrint from the same scope where rototillerDetail is defined, the Scala compiler finds rototillerDetail and passes it implicitly to nicePrint. But when, from the same scope, I call a function in a different scope (doStuff) that calls nicePrint, the Scala compiler doesn't find rototillerDetail.
No doubt there are good reasons for that. I'm wondering, though, how can I tell the Scala compiler "If an object of the needed type exists, use it!"?
I can think of two workarounds, neither of which is satisfactory:
Supply an implicit toDetail argument to doStuff. This works, but it requires me to add an implicit toDetail argument to every function that might, somewhere lower in the call stack, have a use for a CanMakeDetailedString object. That is going to massively clutter my code.
Scrap the implicit approach altogether and do this in object-oriented style, making Rototiller inherit from CanMakeDetailedString by overriding a special new method like .toDetail.
Is there some technique, trick, or command-line switch that could enable the Scala compiler to statically resolve the right implicit object? (Rather than figuring it out dynamically, when the program is running, as in the object-oriented approach.) If not, this seems like a serious limitation on how much use library code can make of "typeclasses" or implicit arguments. In other words, what's a good way to do what I've done badly above?
Clarification: I'm not asking how this can be done with implicit val. I'm asking how you can get the Scala compiler to statically choose type-appropriate functions in library code, without explicitly listing, in every library function, an implicit argument for every function that might get called lower in the stack. It doesn't matter to me if it's done with implicits or anything else. I just want to know how to write generic code that chooses type-specific functions appropriately at compile-time.
implicits are resolved at compile time so it can't know what A is in doStuff without more information.
That information can be provided through an extra implicit parameter or a base type / interface as you suggested.
You could also use reflection on the A type, use the getType that returns the child type, cast the object to that type, and call a predefined function that has the name of the type that writes the string details for you. I don't really recommend it as any OOP or FP solution is better IMHO.
Assuming we have a model of something, represented as a case class, as so
case class User(firstName:String,lastName:String,age:Int,planet:Option[Planet])
sealed abstract class Planet
case object Earth extends Planet
case object Mars extends Planet
case object Venus extends Planet
Essentially, either by use of reflection, or Macros, to be able to get the field names of the User case class, as well as the types represented by the fields. This also includes Option, i.e. in the example provided, need to be able to differentiate between an Option[Planet] and just a Planet
In scala'ish pseudocode, something like this
val someMap = createTypedMap[User] // Assume createTypedMap is some function which returns map of Strings to Types
someMap.foreach{case(fieldName,someType) {
val statement = someType match {
case String => s"$fieldName happened to be a string"
case Int => s"$fieldName happened to be an integer"
case Planet => s"$fieldName happened to be a planet"
case Option[Planet] => s"$fieldName happened to be an optional planet"
case _ => s"unknown type for $fieldName"
}
println(statement)
}
I am currently aware that you can't do stuff like case Option[Planet], since it gets erased by Scala's erasure, however even when using TypeTags, I am unable to wrote code that does what I am trying to do, and possibly deal with other types (like Either[SomeError,String]).
Currently we are using the latest version of Scala (2.11.2) so any solution that uses TypeTags or ClassTags or macros would be more than enough.
Option is a type-parametrized type (Option[T]). At runtime, unless you have structured your code to use type tags, you have no mean to distinguish between an Option[String] and an Option[Int], due to type erasure (this is true for all type-parametrized types).
Nonetheless, you can discriminate between an Option[*] and a Planet. Just keep in mind the first issue.
Through reflection, getting all the "things" inside a class is easy. For example, say you only want the getters (you can put other types of filters, there are A LOT of them, and not all behave as expected when inheritance is part of the process, so you'll need to experiment a little):
import reflect.runtime.{universe=>ru}
val fieldSymbols = ru.typeOf[User].members.collect{
case m: ru.MethodSymbol if m.isGetter => m
}
Another option you'd have, if you are calling the code on instances rather than on classes, is to go through every method, call the method and assign the result to a variable, and then test the type of the variable. This assumes that you are only calling methods that don't alter the state of the instance.
You have a lot of options, time for you to find the best one for your needs.