With intention of reducing the boilerplate for the end-user when deriving instances of a certain typeclass (let's take Showable for example), I aim to write a macro, which will autogenerate the instance names. E.g.:
// calling this:
Showable.derive[Int]
Showable.derive[String]
// should expand to this:
// implicit val derivedShowableInstance0 = new Showable[Int] { ... }
// implicit val derivedShowableInstance1 = new Showable[String] { ... }
I tried to approach the problem the following way, but the compiler complained that the expression should return a < no type > instead of Unit:
object Showable {
def derive[a] = macro Macros.derive[a]
object Macros {
private var instanceNameIndex = 0
def derive[ a : c.WeakTypeTag ]( c : Context ) = {
import c.universe._
import Flag._
val newInstanceDeclaration = ...
c.Expr[Unit](
ValDef(
Modifiers(IMPLICIT),
newTermName("derivedShowableInstance" + nameIndex),
TypeTree(),
newInstanceDeclaration
)
)
}
}
}
I get that a val declaration is not exactly an expression and hence Unit might not be appropriate, but then how to make it right?
Is this at all possible? If not then why, will it ever be, and are there any workarounds?
Yes, that's right. Declarations/definitions aren't expressions, so they need to be wrapped into Unit-returning blocks to become ones. Typically Scala does this automatically, but in this particular case you need to do it yourself.
However if you wrap a definition in a block, then it becomes invisible from the outside. That's the limitation of the current macro system that strictly follows the metaphor of "macro application is very much similar to a typed function call". Function calls don't bring new members into scope, so neither do def macros - both for technical and philosophical reasons. As shown in the example #3 of my recent "What Are Macros Good For?" talk, by using structural types def macros can work around this limitation, but this doesn't look particularly related to your question, so I'll omit the details.
On the other hand, there are some ideas how to overcome this limitation with new macro flavors. Macro annotations show that it's technically feasible for the macro engine to hook into new member creation, but we'd like to get more experience with macro annotations before bringing them into trunk. Some details about this can be found in my "Philosophy of Scala Macros" presentation. This can be useful in your situation, but I still won't go into details, because I think there's a much better solution for this particular case (feel free to ask for elaboration in comments, though!).
What I'd like to recommend you is to use materialization as described in http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/macros/implicits.html. With materializing macros you can automatically generate type class instances for the user without having the user write any code at all. Would that fit your use case?
I have a piece of code that extracts a string from a request body, but it may not be there, so it is an Option[String]. If there is a value, then I wish to use it implicitly.
To do this conversion, I write implicit val code = googleCode.
Is there a way to make googleCode an implicit String so that I can use it directly rather than creating an implicit val with the value of googleCode?
request.getQueryString("code") match {
case None =>
Logger.error("unable to retrieve authentication code from google request")
Redirect(routes.Application.index())
case Some(googleCode) => Async {
implicit val code: String = googleCode // <== CONVERTING TO AN IMPLICIT
Logger.debug("retrieved authentication code, proceeding to get token")
...
Ok("congratulations, ${user.name}, you are logged in!")
Note, the code snippet is from a Playframework Controller, but this is more a question of the Scala language in general
It's often advisable to avoid using pattern matching with Options anyway. Here's how you can write it:
request.getQueryString("code") map { implicit googleCode =>
// googleCode is an implicit String! do something with it
} getOrElse {
// handle the None case
}
Hmm. Instead of looking for a solution for converting a code using Option into some kind of Java, I would suggest to take these three easy steps.
Step 1. Do whatever is the shortest cut for you, like option.get(), anything, so that your code (kind of) works.
Step 2. Learn functional programming. Specifically, learn to use Option in a idiomatic, specifically FP-style way.
Step 3. Profit. You will benefit a lot from learning.
This is purely a coding-style question.
A function I'm calling returns an Option, and I want to take a specific action if it's equal to None.
Say, for example, that I'm trying to create a default user at boot time if it doesn't already exist. I'd call a function that attempts to find a user that matches the default one, and returns an Option[User].
If that return value is None, I'd like to run some user creation code. If not, I'm done.
I'm wondering what's the most idiomatic Scala syntax for this. What I have so far is:
def getUser(name: String): Option[User] = ...
getUser("admin") getOrElse createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
getUser("admin") match {
case None => createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
case _ =>
}
if(getUser("admin") == None) createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
The first solution seems like the most functional one, but I can't help but feel that there might be better ones - possibly by using partially applied functions, which I admit I'm still a bit fuzzy about.
Since in your case the goal is to cause a side effect, I'd use a conditional to stress that, instead of using getOrElse.
if (getUser("admin").isEmpty)
createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!")
Remember that scala is a multi-paradigm language.
In addition to syntax, you want to consider concepts such as cohesion (single responsibility) and so you can consider the composition of your objects in addition to the actual idioms you use in the syntax.
The OO way might be to decorate the object/class that getUser belongs to in to put that concern of creating the user in a wrapper so that other code that calls the getUser function never has to deal with that concern. This fits nicely with open/closed principle and single responsibility. This is a bit of an anemic domain model anti-pattern here but may show how OO can be used to extend the conversation into actual design.
Either pattern matching or getOrElse are reasonable solutions. Generally if statements aren't used against Monads like the option - at least not that I see.
Either way, I beleive the expression should return the result even if there are side effects (user creation).
case class User(name: String)
class UserService {
def getUser(name: String): Option[User] = ???
def createUser(name: String): User = ???
}
class UserServiceDecorator extends UserService {
override def getUser(name: String): Option[User] =
Some(super.getUser(name).getOrElse(super.createUser(name)))
}
Really the best way to do this is to assign the result to a meaningful variable name so your future code doesn't need to know if createUser was called or not.
val user = getUser("admin").getOrElse(createUser("admin", "ChangeThisNow!"))
This way you can use the user variable regardless of if you've created a new user or not.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
So far implicit parameters in Scala do not look good for me -- it is too close to global variables, however since Scala seems like rather strict language I start doubting in my own opinion :-).
Question: could you show a real-life (or close) good example when implicit parameters really work. IOW: something more serious than showPrompt, that would justify such language design.
Or contrary -- could you show reliable language design (can be imaginary) that would make implicit not neccessary. I think that even no mechanism is better than implicits because code is clearer and there is no guessing.
Please note, I am asking about parameters, not implicit functions (conversions)!
Updates
Global variables
Thank you for all great answers. Maybe I clarify my "global variables" objection. Consider such function:
max(x : Int,y : Int) : Int
you call it
max(5,6);
you could (!) do it like this:
max(x:5,y:6);
but in my eyes implicits works like this:
x = 5;
y = 6;
max()
it is not very different from such construct (PHP-like)
max() : Int
{
global x : Int;
global y : Int;
...
}
Derek's answer
This is great example, however if you can think of as flexible usage of sending message not using implicit please post an counter-example. I am really curious about purity in language design ;-).
In a sense, yes, implicits represent global state. However, they are not mutable, which is the true problem with global variables -- you don't see people complaining about global constants, do you? In fact, coding standards usually dictate that you transform any constants in your code into constants or enums, which are usually global.
Note also that implicits are not in a flat namespace, which is also a common problem with globals. They are explicitly tied to types and, therefore, to the package hierarchy of those types.
So, take your globals, make them immutable and initialized at the declaration site, and put them on namespaces. Do they still look like globals? Do they still look problematic?
But let's not stop there. Implicits are tied to types, and they are just as much "global" as types are. Does the fact that types are global bother you?
As for use cases, they are many, but we can do a brief review based on their history. Originally, afaik, Scala did not have implicits. What Scala had were view types, a feature many other languages had. We can still see that today whenever you write something like T <% Ordered[T], which means the type T can be viewed as a type Ordered[T]. View types are a way of making automatic casts available on type parameters (generics).
Scala then generalized that feature with implicits. Automatic casts no longer exist, and, instead, you have implicit conversions -- which are just Function1 values and, therefore, can be passed as parameters. From then on, T <% Ordered[T] meant a value for an implicit conversion would be passed as parameter. Since the cast is automatic, the caller of the function is not required to explicitly pass the parameter -- so those parameters became implicit parameters.
Note that there are two concepts -- implicit conversions and implicit parameters -- that are very close, but do not completely overlap.
Anyway, view types became syntactic sugar for implicit conversions being passed implicitly. They would be rewritten like this:
def max[T <% Ordered[T]](a: T, b: T): T = if (a < b) b else a
def max[T](a: T, b: T)(implicit $ev1: Function1[T, Ordered[T]]): T = if ($ev1(a) < b) b else a
The implicit parameters are simply a generalization of that pattern, making it possible to pass any kind of implicit parameters, instead of just Function1. Actual use for them then followed, and syntactic sugar for those uses came latter.
One of them is Context Bounds, used to implement the type class pattern (pattern because it is not a built-in feature, just a way of using the language that provides similar functionality to Haskell's type class). A context bound is used to provide an adapter that implements functionality that is inherent in a class, but not declared by it. It offers the benefits of inheritance and interfaces without their drawbacks. For example:
def max[T](a: T, b: T)(implicit $ev1: Ordering[T]): T = if ($ev1.lt(a, b)) b else a
// latter followed by the syntactic sugar
def max[T: Ordering](a: T, b: T): T = if (implicitly[Ordering[T]].lt(a, b)) b else a
You have probably used that already -- there's one common use case that people usually don't notice. It is this:
new Array[Int](size)
That uses a context bound of a class manifests, to enable such array initialization. We can see that with this example:
def f[T](size: Int) = new Array[T](size) // won't compile!
You can write it like this:
def f[T: ClassManifest](size: Int) = new Array[T](size)
On the standard library, the context bounds most used are:
Manifest // Provides reflection on a type
ClassManifest // Provides reflection on a type after erasure
Ordering // Total ordering of elements
Numeric // Basic arithmetic of elements
CanBuildFrom // Collection creation
The latter three are mostly used with collections, with methods such as max, sum and map. One library that makes extensive use of context bounds is Scalaz.
Another common usage is to decrease boiler-plate on operations that must share a common parameter. For example, transactions:
def withTransaction(f: Transaction => Unit) = {
val txn = new Transaction
try { f(txn); txn.commit() }
catch { case ex => txn.rollback(); throw ex }
}
withTransaction { txn =>
op1(data)(txn)
op2(data)(txn)
op3(data)(txn)
}
Which is then simplified like this:
withTransaction { implicit txn =>
op1(data)
op2(data)
op3(data)
}
This pattern is used with transactional memory, and I think (but I'm not sure) that the Scala I/O library uses it as well.
The third common usage I can think of is making proofs about the types that are being passed, which makes it possible to detect at compile time things that would, otherwise, result in run time exceptions. For example, see this definition on Option:
def flatten[B](implicit ev: A <:< Option[B]): Option[B]
That makes this possible:
scala> Option(Option(2)).flatten // compiles
res0: Option[Int] = Some(2)
scala> Option(2).flatten // does not compile!
<console>:8: error: Cannot prove that Int <:< Option[B].
Option(2).flatten // does not compile!
^
One library that makes extensive use of that feature is Shapeless.
I don't think the example of the Akka library fits in any of these four categories, but that's the whole point of generic features: people can use it in all sorts of way, instead of ways prescribed by the language designer.
If you like being prescribed to (like, say, Python does), then Scala is just not for you.
Sure. Akka's got a great example of it with respect to its Actors. When you're inside an Actor's receive method, you might want to send a message to another Actor. When you do this, Akka will bundle (by default) the current Actor as the sender of the message, like this:
trait ScalaActorRef { this: ActorRef =>
...
def !(message: Any)(implicit sender: ActorRef = null): Unit
...
}
The sender is implicit. In the Actor there is a definition that looks like:
trait Actor {
...
implicit val self = context.self
...
}
This creates the implicit value within the scope of your own code, and it allows you to do easy things like this:
someOtherActor ! SomeMessage
Now, you can do this as well, if you like:
someOtherActor.!(SomeMessage)(self)
or
someOtherActor.!(SomeMessage)(null)
or
someOtherActor.!(SomeMessage)(anotherActorAltogether)
But normally you don't. You just keep the natural usage that's made possible by the implicit value definition in the Actor trait. There are about a million other examples. The collection classes are a huge one. Try wandering around any non-trivial Scala library and you'll find a truckload.
One example would be the comparison operations on Traversable[A]. E.g. max or sort:
def max[B >: A](implicit cmp: Ordering[B]) : A
These can only be sensibly defined when there is an operation < on A. So, without implicits we’d have to supply the context Ordering[B] every time we’d like to use this function. (Or give up type static checking inside max and risk a runtime cast error.)
If however, an implicit comparison type class is in scope, e.g. some Ordering[Int], we can just use it right away or simply change the comparison method by supplying some other value for the implicit parameter.
Of course, implicits may be shadowed and thus there may be situations in which the actual implicit which is in scope is not clear enough. For simple uses of max or sort it might indeed be sufficient to have a fixed ordering trait on Int and use some syntax to check whether this trait is available. But this would mean that there could be no add-on traits and every piece of code would have to use the traits which were originally defined.
Addition:
Response to the global variable comparison.
I think you’re correct that in a code snipped like
implicit val num = 2
implicit val item = "Orange"
def shopping(implicit num: Int, item: String) = {
"I’m buying "+num+" "+item+(if(num==1) "." else "s.")
}
scala> shopping
res: java.lang.String = I’m buying 2 Oranges.
it may smell of rotten and evil global variables. The crucial point, however, is that there may be only one implicit variable per type in scope. Your example with two Ints is not going to work.
Also, this means that practically, implicit variables are employed only when there is a not necessarily unique yet distinct primary instance for a type. The self reference of an actor is a good example for such a thing. The type class example is another example. There may be dozens of algebraic comparisons for any type but there is one which is special.
(On another level, the actual line number in the code itself might also make for a good implicit variable as long as it uses a very distinctive type.)
You normally don’t use implicits for everyday types. And with specialised types (like Ordering[Int]) there is not too much risk in shadowing them.
Based on my experience there is no real good example for use of implicits parameters or implicits conversion.
The small benefit of using implicits (not needing to explicitly write a parameter or a type) is redundant in compare to the problems they create.
I am a developer for 15 years, and have been working with scala for the last 1.5 years.
I have seen many times bugs that were caused by the developer not aware of the fact that implicits are used, and that a specific function actually return a different type that the one specified. Due to implicit conversion.
I also heard statements saying that if you don't like implicits, don't use them.
This is not practical in the real world since many times external libraries are used, and a lot of them are using implicits, so your code using implicits, and you might not be aware of that.
You can write a code that has either:
import org.some.common.library.{TypeA, TypeB}
or:
import org.some.common.library._
Both codes will compile and run.
But they will not always produce the same results since the second version imports implicits conversion that will make the code behave differently.
The 'bug' that is caused by this can occur a very long time after the code was written, in case some values that are affected by this conversion were not used originally.
Once you encounter the bug, its not an easy task finding the cause.
You have to do some deep investigation.
Even though you feel like an expert in scala once you have found the bug, and fixed it by changing an import statement, you actually wasted a lot of precious time.
Additional reasons why I generally against implicits are:
They make the code hard to understand (there is less code, but you don't know what he is doing)
Compilation time. scala code compiles much slower when implicits are used.
In practice, it changes the language from statically typed, to dynamically typed. Its true that once following very strict coding guidelines you can avoid such situations, but in real world, its not always the case. Even using the IDE 'remove unused imports', can cause your code to still compile and run, but not the same as before you removed 'unused' imports.
There is no option to compile scala without implicits (if there is please correct me), and if there was an option, none of the common community scala libraries would have compile.
For all the above reasons, I think that implicits are one of the worst practices that scala language is using.
Scala has many great features, and many not so great.
When choosing a language for a new project, implicits are one of the reasons against scala, not in favour of it. In my opinion.
Another good general usage of implicit parameters is to make the return type of a method depend on the type of some of the parameters passed to it. A good example, mentioned by Jens, is the collections framework, and methods like map, whose full signature usually is:
def map[B, That](f: (A) ⇒ B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[GenSeq[A], B, That]): That
Note that the return type That is determined by the best fitting CanBuildFrom that the compiler can find.
For another example of this, see that answer. There, the return type of the method Arithmetic.apply is determined according to a certain implicit parameter type (BiConverter).
It's easy, just remember:
to declare the variable to be passed in as implicit too
to declare all the implicit params after the non-implicit params in a separate ()
e.g.
def myFunction(): Int = {
implicit val y: Int = 33
implicit val z: Double = 3.3
functionWithImplicit("foo") // calls functionWithImplicit("foo")(y, z)
}
def functionWithImplicit(foo: String)(implicit x: Int, d: Double) = // blar blar
Implicit parameters are heavily used in the collection API. Many functions get an implicit CanBuildFrom, which ensures that you get the 'best' result collection implementation.
Without implicits you would either pass such a thing all the time, which would make normal usage cumbersome. Or use less specialized collections which would be annoying because it would mean you loose performance/power.
I am commenting on this post a bit late, but I have started learning scala lately.
Daniel and others have given nice background about implicit keyword.
I would provide me two cents on implicit variable from practical usage perspective.
Scala is best suited if used for writing Apache Spark codes. In Spark, we do have spark context and most likely the configuration class that may fetch the configuration keys/values from a configuration file.
Now, If I have an abstract class and if I declare an object of configuration and spark context as follows :-
abstract class myImplicitClass {
implicit val config = new myConfigClass()
val conf = new SparkConf().setMaster().setAppName()
implicit val sc = new SparkContext(conf)
def overrideThisMethod(implicit sc: SparkContext, config: Config) : Unit
}
class MyClass extends myImplicitClass {
override def overrideThisMethod(implicit sc: SparkContext, config: Config){
/*I can provide here n number of methods where I can pass the sc and config
objects, what are implicit*/
def firstFn(firstParam: Int) (implicit sc: SparkContext, config: Config){
/*I can use "sc" and "config" as I wish: making rdd or getting data from cassandra, for e.g.*/
val myRdd = sc.parallelize(List("abc","123"))
}
def secondFn(firstParam: Int) (implicit sc: SparkContext, config: Config){
/*following are the ways we can use "sc" and "config" */
val keyspace = config.getString("keyspace")
val tableName = config.getString("table")
val hostName = config.getString("host")
val userName = config.getString("username")
val pswd = config.getString("password")
implicit val cassandraConnectorObj = CassandraConnector(....)
val cassandraRdd = sc.cassandraTable(keyspace, tableName)
}
}
}
As we can see the code above, I have two implicit objects in my abstract class, and I have passed those two implicit variables as function/method/definition implicit parameters.
I think this is the best use case that we can depict in terms of usage of implicit variables.
I'm trying to test-drive some Scala code using Specs2 and Mockito. I'm relatively new to all three, and having difficulty with the mocked methods returning null.
In the following (transcribed with some name changes)
"My Component's process(File)" should {
"pass file to Parser" in new modules {
val file = mock[File]
myComponent.process(file)
there was one(mockParser).parse(file)
}
"pass parse result to Translator" in new modules {
val file = mock[File]
val myType1 = mock[MyType1]
mockParser.parse(file) returns (Some(myType1))
myComponent.process(file)
there was one(mockTranslator).translate(myType1)
}
}
The "pass file to Parser" works until I add the translator call in the SUT, and then dies because the mockParser.parse method has returned a null, which the translator code can't take.
Similarly, the "pass parse result to Translator" passes until I try to use the translation result in the SUT.
The real code for both of these methods can never return null, but I don't know how to tell Mockito to make the expectations return usable results.
I can of course work around this by putting null checks in the SUT, but I'd rather not, as I'm making sure to never return nulls and instead using Option, None and Some.
Pointers to a good Scala/Specs2/Mockito tutorial would be wonderful, as would a simple example of how to change a line like
there was one(mockParser).parse(file)
to make it return something that allows continued execution in the SUT when it doesn't deal with nulls.
Flailing about trying to figure this out, I have tried changing that line to
there was one(mockParser).parse(file) returns myResult
with a value for myResult that is of the type I want returned. That gave me a compile error as it expects to find a MatchResult there rather than my return type.
If it matters, I'm using Scala 2.9.0.
If you don't have seen it, you can look the mock expectation page of the specs2 documentation.
In your code, the stub should be mockParser.parse(file) returns myResult
Edited after Don's edit:
There was a misunderstanding. The way you do it in your second example is the good one and you should do exactly the same in the first test:
val file = mock[File]
val myType1 = mock[MyType1]
mockParser.parse(file) returns (Some(myType1))
myComponent.process(file)
there was one(mockParser).parse(file)
The idea of unit testing with mock is always the same: explain how your mocks work (stubbing), execute, verify.
That should answer the question, now a personal advice:
Most of the time, except if you want to verify some algorithmic behavior (stop on first success, process a list in reverse order) you should not test expectation in your unit tests.
In your example, the process method should "translate things", thus your unit tests should focus on it: mock your parsers and translators, stub them and only check the result of the whole process. It's less fine grain but the goal of a unit test is not to check every step of a method. If you want to change the implementation, you should not have to modify a bunch of unit tests that verify each line of the method.
I have managed to solve this, though there may be a better solution, so I'm going to post my own answer, but not accept it immediately.
What I needed to do was supply a sensible default return value for the mock, in the form of an org.mockito.stubbing.Answer<T> with T being the return type.
I was able to do this with the following mock setup:
val defaultParseResult = new Answer[Option[MyType1]] {
def answer(p1: InvocationOnMock): Option[MyType1] = None
}
val mockParser = org.mockito.Mockito.mock(implicitly[ClassManifest[Parser]].erasure,
defaultParseResult).asInstanceOf[Parser]
after a bit of browsing of the source for the org.specs2.mock.Mockito trait and things it calls.
And now, instead of returning null, the parse returns None when not stubbed (including when it's expected as in the first test), which allows the test to pass with this value being used in the code under test.
I will likely make a test support method hiding the mess in the mockParser assignment, and letting me do the same for various return types, as I'm going to need the same capability with several return types just in this set of tests.
I couldn't locate support for a shorter way of doing this in org.specs2.mock.Mockito, but perhaps this will inspire Eric to add such. Nice to have the author in the conversation...
Edit
On further perusal of source, it occurred to me that I should be able to just call the method
def mock[T, A](implicit m: ClassManifest[T], a: org.mockito.stubbing.Answer[A]): T = org.mockito.Mockito.mock(implicitly[ClassManifest[T]].erasure, a).asInstanceOf[T]
defined in org.specs2.mock.MockitoMocker, which was in fact the inspiration for my solution above. But I can't figure out the call. mock is rather overloaded, and all my attempts seem to end up invoking a different version and not liking my parameters.
So it looks like Eric has already included support for this, but I don't understand how to get to it.
Update
I have defined a trait containing the following:
def mock[T, A](implicit m: ClassManifest[T], default: A): T = {
org.mockito.Mockito.mock(
implicitly[ClassManifest[T]].erasure,
new Answer[A] {
def answer(p1: InvocationOnMock): A = default
}).asInstanceOf[T]
}
and now by using that trait I can setup my mock as
implicit val defaultParseResult = None
val mockParser = mock[Parser,Option[MyType1]]
I don't after all need more usages of this in this particular test, as supplying a usable value for this makes all my tests work without null checks in the code under test. But it might be needed in other tests.
I'd still be interested in how to handle this issue without adding this trait.
Without the full it's difficult to say but can you please check that the method you're trying to mock is not a final method? Because in that case Mockito won't be able to mock it and will return null.
Another piece of advice, when something doesn't work, is to rewrite the code with Mockito in a standard JUnit test. Then, if it fails, your question might be best answered by someone on the Mockito mailing list.