This example code is based on Atmosphere classes, but if someone could give me some insights into what the error means in general, I think I can figure out any Atmosphere-specific solution...
val bc = BroadcasterFactory.getDefault().lookup(_broadcasterId)
bc.broadcast(message)
After the first line, bc should contain a handle to an object whose class definition includes the method broadcast() -- in fact, it contains several overloaded variations. However, the compiler chokes on the second line of code with the following: "value broadcast is not a member of Nothing"
Any ideas/suggestions on what would be causing this?
Thanks.
EDIT: signature for [BroadcasterFactor].lookup :
abstract Broadcaster lookup(Object id)
Note: 1) that is the signature version that I've used in the example, 2) it is the java Inteface signature - whereas the getDefault() hands back an instantiated object that implements that interface.
Solution: force type cast on value:
val bc: Broadcaster = BroadcasterFactory.getDefault().lookup(_broadcasterId)
Nothing is the type name. It's the subtype of all other types. You can't call methods from Nothing itself, you have to specify exact type ((bc: ExactType).broadcast(message)). Nothing has no instances. Method, that returns Nothing will, actually, never return value. It will throw an exception eventually.
Type inference
Definition of lookup:
abstract public <T extends Broadcaster> T lookup(Object id);
in scala this definition looks this way:
def lookup[T <: Broadcaster](Object id): T
There is not specified type parameter in lookup method. In this case compiler will infer this type parameter as the most specific type - Nothing:
scala> def test[T](i: Int): T = ???
test: [T](i: Int)T
scala> lazy val x = test(1)
x: Nothing = <lazy>
scala> lazy val x = test[String](1)
x: String = <lazy>
You could specify type parameter like this:
val bc = BroadcasterFactory.getDefault().lookup[Broadcaster](_broadcasterId)
Draft implementation
In development process lookup can be "implemented" like this:
def lookup(...) = ???
??? returns Nothing.
You should specify either result type of lookup method like this: def lookup(...): <TypeHere> = ... or type of bc: val bc: <TypeHere> =.
Related
I'm confused about the generic type. I expect that 2.asInstanceOf[A] is cast to the type A, meanwhile, it's cast to Int.
Besides that, the input is java.lang.Long whereas the output is a list of Int (according to the definition the input and the output should be the same type). Why is that?
def whatever[A](x: A): List[A] = {
val two = 2.asInstanceOf[A]
val l = List(1.asInstanceOf[A],2.asInstanceOf[A])
println(f"Input type inside the function for 15L: ${x.getClass}")
println(f"The class of two: ${two.getClass}, the value of two: $two")
println(f"The class of the first element of l: ${l.head.getClass}, first element value: ${l.head}")
l
}
println(f"Returned from whatever function: ${whatever(15L)}")
the outupt:
Input type inside the function for 15L: class java.lang.Long
The class of two: class java.lang.Integer, the value of two: 2
The class of the first element of l: class java.lang.Integer, first element value: 1
Returned from whatever function: List(1, 2)
a.asInstanceOf[B] means:
Dear compiler;
Please forget what you think the type of a is. I know better. I know that if a isn't actually type B then my program could blow up, but I'm really very smart and that's not going to happen.
Sincerely yours, Super Programmer
In other words val b:B = a.asInstanceOf[B] won't create a new variable of type B, it will create a new variable that will be treated as if it were type B. If the actual underlying type of a is compatible with type B then everything is fine. If a's real type is incompatible with B then things blow up.
Type erasure. For the purposes of type checking 2 is cast to A; but at a later compilation stage A is erased to Object, so your code becomes equivalent to
def whatever(x: Object): List[Object] = {
val two = 2.asInstanceOf[Object]
val l = List(1.asInstanceOf[Object],2.asInstanceOf[Object])
println(f"Input type inside the function for 15L: ${x.getClass}")
println(f"The class of two: ${two.getClass}, the value of two: $two")
println(f"The class of the first element of l: ${l.head.getClass}, first element value: ${l.head}")
l
}
2.asInstanceOf[Object] is a boxing operation returning a java.lang.Integer.
If you try to actually use the return value as a List[Long] you'll eventually get a ClassCastException, e.g.
val list = whatever(15L)
val x = list(0)
x will be inferred to be Long and a cast inserted to unbox the expected java.lang.Long.
The answer from #jwvh is on point. Here I'll only add a solution in case you want to fix the problem of safely converting an Int to an A in whatever, without knowing what A is. This is of course only possible if you provide a way to build a particular A from an Int. We can do this in using a type-class:
trait BuildableFromInt[+A] {
def fromInt(i: Int): A
}
Now you only have to implicitly provide BuildableFromInt for any type A you wish to use in whatever:
object BuildableFromInt {
implicit val longFromInt: BuildableFromInt[Long] = Long.box(_)
}
and now define whatever to only accept compliant types A:
def whatever[A : BuildableFromInt](x: A): List[A] = {
val two = implicitly[BuildableFromInt[A]].fromInt(2)
// Use two like any other "A"
// ...
}
Now whatever can be used with any type for which a BuildableFromInt is available.
On a recent worksheet I was presented with the question asking what would be the output of the following code:
class A { def m(x:Double) = x+x }
class B[Any] extends A{ def m(x: Any) = print(x) }
class C[Any] { def m (x:Double) = x+x; def m (x: Any) = print(x) }
val obj1 = new B[Int]; val obj2 = new C[Any]
obj1.m(1); obj1.m(2.3); obj2.m(4); obj2.m(5.6)
I'm quite confused as to what having a concrete type in the square brackets after the class name would mean (i.e. class B[Any]). Is the later expression val obj1 = new B[Int] valid because Int <: Any, Int being a subclass of Any?
When later running the code snippet, the result given was simply "1" being printed. This was not what I had expected the call to obj.m(2.3) to resolve at def m(x: any), where it seems in actuality the compiler went up to A and called the m in class A.
The later expressions, obj2.m(4) and obj2.m(5.6) seems to make sense as both 4 and 5.6 would land in the function with def m(x: Double), thus not print anything out.
In what order exactly does the compiler traverse to find what to call? I'd be very grateful if someone could clear up my confusions with how polymorphism is handled here by Scala, thank you very much :)
When you do class B[Any], you define a class with a type parameter called Any. Don't confuse the type parameter name with the actual class Any. You are just shadowing its name.
You could just as fine do this:
class B[Int]
val obj = new B[String]
You may see why it is bad practice to name type parameters after actual types. Usually, people use single letter names for their type parameters, like this:
class B[T] // I just changed the name of the type parameter from "Int" to "T".
val obj = new B[String]
I've written a simple code in Scala with implicit conversion of Function1 to some case class.
object MyApp extends App{
case class FunctionContainer(val function:AnyRef)
implicit def cast(function1: Int => String):FunctionContainer = new FunctionContainer(function1)
def someFunction(i:Int):String = "someString"
def abc(f : FunctionContainer):String = "abc"
println(abc(someFunction))
}
But it doesn't work. Compiler doesn't want to pass someFunction as an argument to abc. I can guess its reasons but don't know exactly why it doesn't work.
When you use a method name as you have, the compiler has to pick how to convert the method type to a value. If the expected type is a function, then it eta-expands; otherwise it supplies empty parens to invoke the method. That is described here in the spec.
But it wasn't always that way. Ten years ago, you would have got your function value just by using the method name.
The new online spec omits the "Change Log" appendix, so for the record, here is the moment when someone got frustrated with parens and introduced the current rules. (See Scala Reference 2.9, page 181.)
This has not eliminated all irksome anomalies.
Conversions
The rules for implicit conversions of methods to functions (§6.26) have been tightened. Previously, a parameterized method used as a value was always implicitly converted to a function. This could lead to unexpected results when method arguments were forgotten. Consider for instance the statement below:
show(x.toString)
where show is defined as follows:
def show(x: String) = Console.println(x)
Most likely, the programmer forgot to supply an empty argument list () to toString. The previous Scala version would treat this code as a partially applied method, and expand it to:
show(() => x.toString())
As a result, the address of a closure would be printed instead of the value of s. Scala version 2.0 will apply a conversion from partially applied method to function value only if the expected type of the expression is indeed a function type. For instance, the conversion would not be applied in the code above because the expected type of show’s parameter is String, not a function type. The new convention disallows some previously legal code. Example:
def sum(f: int => double)(a: int, b: int): double =
if (a > b) 0 else f(a) + sum(f)(a + 1, b)
val sumInts = sum(x => x) // error: missing arguments
The partial application of sum in the last line of the code above will not be converted to a function type. Instead, the compiler will produce an error message which states that arguments for method sum are missing. The problem can be fixed by providing an expected type for the partial application, for instance by annotating the definition of sumInts with its type:
val sumInts: (int, int) => double = sum(x => x) // OK
On the other hand, Scala version 2.0 now automatically applies methods with empty parameter lists to () argument lists when necessary. For instance, the show expression above will now be expanded to
show(x.toString())
Your someFunction appears as a method here.
You could try either
object MyApp extends App{
case class FunctionContainer(val function:AnyRef)
implicit def cast(function1: Int => String):FunctionContainer = new FunctionContainer(function1)
val someFunction = (i:Int) => "someString"
def abc(f : FunctionContainer):String = "abc"
println(abc(someFunction))
}
or
object MyApp extends App{
case class FunctionContainer(val function:AnyRef)
implicit def cast(function1: Int => String):FunctionContainer = new FunctionContainer(function1)
def someFunction(i:Int): String = "someString"
def abc(f : FunctionContainer):String = "abc"
println(abc(someFunction(_: Int)))
}
By the way: implicitly casting such common functions to something else can quickly lead to problems. Are you absolutely sure that you need this? Wouldn't it be easier to overload abc?
You should use eta-expansion
println(abc(someFunction _))
I was making my way through the Scala playframework tutorial and I came across this snippet of code which had me puzzled:
def newTask = Action { implicit request =>
taskForm.bindFromRequest.fold(
errors => BadRequest(views.html.index(Task.all(), errors)),
label => {
Task.create(label)
Redirect(routes.Application.tasks())
}
)
}
So I decided to investigate and came across this post.
I still don't get it.
What is the difference between this:
implicit def double2Int(d : Double) : Int = d.toInt
and
def double2IntNonImplicit(d : Double) : Int = d.toInt
other than the obvious fact they have different method names.
When should I use implicit and why?
I'll explain the main use cases of implicits below, but for more detail see the relevant chapter of Programming in Scala.
Implicit parameters
The final parameter list on a method can be marked implicit, which means the values will be taken from the context in which they are called. If there is no implicit value of the right type in scope, it will not compile. Since the implicit value must resolve to a single value and to avoid clashes, it's a good idea to make the type specific to its purpose, e.g. don't require your methods to find an implicit Int!
example:
// probably in a library
class Prefixer(val prefix: String)
def addPrefix(s: String)(implicit p: Prefixer) = p.prefix + s
// then probably in your application
implicit val myImplicitPrefixer = new Prefixer("***")
addPrefix("abc") // returns "***abc"
Implicit conversions
When the compiler finds an expression of the wrong type for the context, it will look for an implicit Function value of a type that will allow it to typecheck. So if an A is required and it finds a B, it will look for an implicit value of type B => A in scope (it also checks some other places like in the B and A companion objects, if they exist). Since defs can be "eta-expanded" into Function objects, an implicit def xyz(arg: B): A will do as well.
So the difference between your methods is that the one marked implicit will be inserted for you by the compiler when a Double is found but an Int is required.
implicit def doubleToInt(d: Double) = d.toInt
val x: Int = 42.0
will work the same as
def doubleToInt(d: Double) = d.toInt
val x: Int = doubleToInt(42.0)
In the second we've inserted the conversion manually; in the first the compiler did the same automatically. The conversion is required because of the type annotation on the left hand side.
Regarding your first snippet from Play:
Actions are explained on this page from the Play documentation (see also API docs). You are using
apply(block: (Request[AnyContent]) ⇒ Result): Action[AnyContent]
on the Action object (which is the companion to the trait of the same name).
So we need to supply a Function as the argument, which can be written as a literal in the form
request => ...
In a function literal, the part before the => is a value declaration, and can be marked implicit if you want, just like in any other val declaration. Here, request doesn't have to be marked implicit for this to type check, but by doing so it will be available as an implicit value for any methods that might need it within the function (and of course, it can be used explicitly as well). In this particular case, this has been done because the bindFromRequest method on the Form class requires an implicit Request argument.
WARNING: contains sarcasm judiciously! YMMV...
Luigi's answer is complete and correct. This one is only to extend it a bit with an example of how you can gloriously overuse implicits, as it happens quite often in Scala projects. Actually so often, you can probably even find it in one of the "Best Practice" guides.
object HelloWorld {
case class Text(content: String)
case class Prefix(text: String)
implicit def String2Text(content: String)(implicit prefix: Prefix) = {
Text(prefix.text + " " + content)
}
def printText(text: Text): Unit = {
println(text.content)
}
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
printText("World!")
}
// Best to hide this line somewhere below a pile of completely unrelated code.
// Better yet, import its package from another distant place.
implicit val prefixLOL = Prefix("Hello")
}
In scala implicit works as:
Converter
Parameter value injector
Extension method
There are some uses of Implicit
Implicitly type conversion : It converts the error producing assignment into intended type
val x :String = "1"
val y:Int = x
String is not the sub type of Int , so error happens in line 2. To resolve the error the compiler will look for such a method in the scope which has implicit keyword and takes a String as argument and returns an Int .
so
implicit def z(a:String):Int = 2
val x :String = "1"
val y:Int = x // compiler will use z here like val y:Int=z(x)
println(y) // result 2 & no error!
Implicitly receiver conversion: We generally by receiver call object's properties, eg. methods or variables . So to call any property by a receiver the property must be the member of that receiver's class/object.
class Mahadi{
val haveCar:String ="BMW"
}
class Johnny{
val haveTv:String = "Sony"
}
val mahadi = new Mahadi
mahadi.haveTv // Error happening
Here mahadi.haveTv will produce an error. Because scala compiler will first look for the haveTv property to mahadi receiver. It will not find. Second it will look for a method in scope having implicit keyword which take Mahadi object as argument and returns Johnny object. But it does not have here. So it will create error. But the following is okay.
class Mahadi{
val haveCar:String ="BMW"
}
class Johnny{
val haveTv:String = "Sony"
}
val mahadi = new Mahadi
implicit def z(a:Mahadi):Johnny = new Johnny
mahadi.haveTv // compiler will use z here like new Johnny().haveTv
println(mahadi.haveTv)// result Sony & no error
Implicitly parameter injection: If we call a method and do not pass its parameter value, it will cause an error. The scala compiler works like this - first will try to pass value, but it will get no direct value for the parameter.
def x(a:Int)= a
x // ERROR happening
Second if the parameter has any implicit keyword it will look for any val in the scope which have the same type of value. If not get it will cause error.
def x(implicit a:Int)= a
x // error happening here
To slove this problem compiler will look for a implicit val having the type of Int because the parameter a has implicit keyword.
def x(implicit a:Int)=a
implicit val z:Int =10
x // compiler will use implicit like this x(z)
println(x) // will result 10 & no error.
Another example:
def l(implicit b:Int)
def x(implicit a:Int)= l(a)
we can also write it like-
def x(implicit a:Int)= l
Because l has a implicit parameter and in scope of method x's body, there is an implicit local variable(parameters are local variables) a which is the parameter of x, so in the body of x method the method-signature l's implicit argument value is filed by the x method's local implicit variable(parameter) a implicitly.
So
def x(implicit a:Int)= l
will be in compiler like this
def x(implicit a:Int)= l(a)
Another example:
def c(implicit k:Int):String = k.toString
def x(a:Int => String):String =a
x{
x => c
}
it will cause error, because c in x{x=>c} needs explicitly-value-passing in argument or implicit val in scope.
So we can make the function literal's parameter explicitly implicit when we call the method x
x{
implicit x => c // the compiler will set the parameter of c like this c(x)
}
This has been used in action method of Play-Framework
in view folder of app the template is declared like
#()(implicit requestHreader:RequestHeader)
in controller action is like
def index = Action{
implicit request =>
Ok(views.html.formpage())
}
if you do not mention request parameter as implicit explicitly then you must have been written-
def index = Action{
request =>
Ok(views.html.formpage()(request))
}
Extension Method
Think, we want to add new method with Integer object. The name of the method will be meterToCm,
> 1 .meterToCm
res0 100
to do this we need to create an implicit class within a object/class/trait . This class can not be a case class.
object Extensions{
implicit class MeterToCm(meter:Int){
def meterToCm={
meter*100
}
}
}
Note the implicit class will only take one constructor parameter.
Now import the implicit class in the scope you are wanting to use
import Extensions._
2.meterToCm // result 200
Why and when you should mark the request parameter as implicit:
Some methods that you will make use of in the body of your action have an implicit parameter list like, for example, Form.scala defines a method:
def bindFromRequest()(implicit request: play.api.mvc.Request[_]): Form[T] = { ... }
You don't necessarily notice this as you would just call myForm.bindFromRequest() You don't have to provide the implicit arguments explicitly. No, you leave the compiler to look for any valid candidate object to pass in every time it comes across a method call that requires an instance of the request. Since you do have a request available, all you need to do is to mark it as implicit.
You explicitly mark it as available for implicit use.
You hint the compiler that it's "OK" to use the request object sent in by the Play framework (that we gave the name "request" but could have used just "r" or "req") wherever required, "on the sly".
myForm.bindFromRequest()
see it? it's not there, but it is there!
It just happens without your having to slot it in manually in every place it's needed (but you can pass it explicitly, if you so wish, no matter if it's marked implicit or not):
myForm.bindFromRequest()(request)
Without marking it as implicit, you would have to do the above. Marking it as implicit you don't have to.
When should you mark the request as implicit? You only really need to if you are making use of methods that declare an implicit parameter list expecting an instance of the Request. But to keep it simple, you could just get into the habit of marking the request implicit always. That way you can just write beautiful terse code.
Also, in the above case there should be only one implicit function whose type is double => Int. Otherwise, the compiler gets confused and won't compile properly.
//this won't compile
implicit def doubleToInt(d: Double) = d.toInt
implicit def doubleToIntSecond(d: Double) = d.toInt
val x: Int = 42.0
I had the exact same question as you had and I think I should share how I started to understand it by a few really simple examples (note that it only covers the common use cases).
There are two common use cases in Scala using implicit.
Using it on a variable
Using it on a function
Examples are as follows
Using it on a variable. As you can see, if the implicit keyword is used in the last parameter list, then the closest variable will be used.
// Here I define a class and initiated an instance of this class
case class Person(val name: String)
val charles: Person = Person("Charles")
// Here I define a function
def greeting(words: String)(implicit person: Person) = person match {
case Person(name: String) if name != "" => s"$name, $words"
case _ => "$words"
}
greeting("Good morning") // Charles, Good moring
val charles: Person = Person("")
greeting("Good morning") // Good moring
Using it on a function. As you can see, if the implicit is used on the function, then the closest type conversion method will be used.
val num = 10 // num: Int (of course)
// Here I define a implicit function
implicit def intToString(num: Int) = s"$num -- I am a String now!"
val num = 10 // num: Int (of course). Nothing happens yet.. Compiler believes you want 10 to be an Int
// Util...
val num: String = 10 // Compiler trust you first, and it thinks you have `implicitly` told it that you had a way to covert the type from Int to String, which the function `intToString` can do!
// So num is now actually "10 -- I am a String now!"
// console will print this -> val num: String = 10 -- I am a String now!
Hope this can help.
A very basic example of Implicits in scala.
Implicit parameters:
val value = 10
implicit val multiplier = 3
def multiply(implicit by: Int) = value * by
val result = multiply // implicit parameter wiil be passed here
println(result) // It will print 30 as a result
Note: Here multiplier will be implicitly passed into the function multiply. Missing parameters to the function call are looked up by type in the current scope meaning that code will not compile if there is no implicit variable of type Int in the scope.
Implicit conversions:
implicit def convert(a: Double): Int = a.toInt
val res = multiply(2.0) // Type conversions with implicit functions
println(res) // It will print 20 as a result
Note: When we call multiply function passing a double value, the compiler will try to find the conversion implicit function in the current scope, which converts Int to Double (As function multiply accept Int parameter). If there is no implicit convert function then the compiler will not compile the code.
Can anyone explain the compile error below? Interestingly, if I change the return type of the get() method to String, the code compiles just fine. Note that the thenReturn method has two overloads: a unary method and a varargs method that takes at least one argument. It seems to me that if the invocation is ambiguous here, then it would always be ambiguous.
More importantly, is there any way to resolve the ambiguity?
import org.scalatest.mock.MockitoSugar
import org.mockito.Mockito._
trait Thing {
def get(): java.lang.Object
}
new MockitoSugar {
val t = mock[Thing]
when(t.get()).thenReturn("a")
}
error: ambiguous reference to overloaded definition,
both method thenReturn in trait OngoingStubbing of type
java.lang.Object,java.lang.Object*)org.mockito.stubbing.OngoingStubbing[java.lang.Object]
and method thenReturn in trait OngoingStubbing of type
(java.lang.Object)org.mockito.stubbing.OngoingStubbing[java.lang.Object]
match argument types (java.lang.String)
when(t.get()).thenReturn("a")
Well, it is ambiguous. I suppose Java semantics allow for it, and it might merit a ticket asking for Java semantics to be applied in Scala.
The source of the ambiguitity is this: a vararg parameter may receive any number of arguments, including 0. So, when you write thenReturn("a"), do you mean to call the thenReturn which receives a single argument, or do you mean to call the thenReturn that receives one object plus a vararg, passing 0 arguments to the vararg?
Now, what this kind of thing happens, Scala tries to find which method is "more specific". Anyone interested in the details should look up that in Scala's specification, but here is the explanation of what happens in this particular case:
object t {
def f(x: AnyRef) = 1 // A
def f(x: AnyRef, xs: AnyRef*) = 2 // B
}
if you call f("foo"), both A and B
are applicable. Which one is more
specific?
it is possible to call B with parameters of type (AnyRef), so A is
as specific as B.
it is possible to call A with parameters of type (AnyRef,
Seq[AnyRef]) thanks to tuple
conversion, Tuple2[AnyRef,
Seq[AnyRef]] conforms to AnyRef. So
B is as specific as A. Since both are
as specific as the other, the
reference to f is ambiguous.
As to the "tuple conversion" thing, it is one of the most obscure syntactic sugars of Scala. If you make a call f(a, b), where a and b have types A and B, and there is no f accepting (A, B) but there is an f which accepts (Tuple2(A, B)), then the parameters (a, b) will be converted into a tuple.
For example:
scala> def f(t: Tuple2[Int, Int]) = t._1 + t._2
f: (t: (Int, Int))Int
scala> f(1,2)
res0: Int = 3
Now, there is no tuple conversion going on when thenReturn("a") is called. That is not the problem. The problem is that, given that tuple conversion is possible, neither version of thenReturn is more specific, because any parameter passed to one could be passed to the other as well.
In the specific case of Mockito, it's possible to use the alternate API methods designed for use with void methods:
doReturn("a").when(t).get()
Clunky, but it'll have to do, as Martin et al don't seem likely to compromise Scala in order to support Java's varargs.
Well, I figured out how to resolve the ambiguity (seems kind of obvious in retrospect):
when(t.get()).thenReturn("a", Array[Object](): _*)
As Andreas noted, if the ambiguous method requires a null reference rather than an empty array, you can use something like
v.overloadedMethod(arg0, null.asInstanceOf[Array[Object]]: _*)
to resolve the ambiguity.
If you look at the standard library APIs you'll see this issue handled like this:
def meth(t1: Thing): OtherThing = { ... }
def meth(t1: Thing, t2: Thing, ts: Thing*): OtherThing = { ... }
By doing this, no call (with at least one Thing parameter) is ambiguous without extra fluff like Array[Thing](): _*.
I had a similar problem using Oval (oval.sf.net) trying to call it's validate()-method.
Oval defines 2 validate() methods:
public List<ConstraintViolation> validate(final Object validatedObject)
public List<ConstraintViolation> validate(final Object validatedObject, final String... profiles)
Trying this from Scala:
validator.validate(value)
produces the following compiler-error:
both method validate in class Validator of type (x$1: Any,x$2: <repeated...>[java.lang.String])java.util.List[net.sf.oval.ConstraintViolation]
and method validate in class Validator of type (x$1: Any)java.util.List[net.sf.oval.ConstraintViolation]
match argument types (T)
var violations = validator.validate(entity);
Oval needs the varargs-parameter to be null, not an empty-array, so I finally got it to work with this:
validator.validate(value, null.asInstanceOf[Array[String]]: _*)