I am writing a Scala class that implements a 2-dimensional matrix of arbitrary objects. I need the class to be more specialized than nested pair of IndexedSeq objects, but extending a collections class is overkill, so I'm writing my own. In order to return the correct type from methods in my matrix class, I am using the implicit builder idiom, but at runtime I get a "could not find implicit value for parameter" error which I don't understand.
A stripped-down version of my matrix class looks like this.
trait MatrixBuilder[V, M <: Matrix[V]] {
def apply(values: IndexedSeq[IndexedSeq[V]]): M
}
abstract class Matrix[V](values: IndexedSeq[IndexedSeq[V]]) extends Function2[Int, Int, V] {
def apply(row: Int, col: Int): V = values(row)(col)
def set[M <: Matrix[V]](row: Int, col: Int, value: V)(implicit builder: MatrixBuilder[V, M]): M =
builder(values.updated(row, values(row).updated(col, value)))
}
case class IntMatrix(values: IndexedSeq[IndexedSeq[Int]]) extends Matrix[Int](values)
object IntMatrix {
def apply(n: Int) = new IntMatrix(IndexedSeq.fill(n, n)(0))
implicit object IntMatrixBuilder extends MatrixBuilder[Int, IntMatrix] {
def apply(values: IndexedSeq[IndexedSeq[Int]]) = IntMatrix(values)
}
}
I want the set function to set the specified cell then return a new matrix of the correct type. So I expect IntMatrix(2).set(0,0,5) to return an IntMatrix object with zeros in all cells except (0,0), where it should have a 5. Instead I get the following error at runtime.
error: could not find implicit value for parameter builder: MatrixBuilder[Int,M]
IntMatrix(2).set(0,0,5)
What am I doing wrong here?
As pedrofurla notes below, the code does work in the REPL if you first run the line import IntMatrix._. And looking at the collections documentation, there appear to be similar import statements in source code using builders. I tried adding one to my IntMatrix class.
case class IntMatrix(values: IndexedSeq[IndexedSeq[Int]]) extends Matrix[Int](values) {
import IntMatrix._
}
But this has no effect. (In fact my IDE IntelliJ flags this as an unused import statement.)
For comparison I copied over the RNA sequence example from the collections documentation linked above verbatim. There the import RNA._ line is not marked as superfluous and all operations return the correct type. If the answer is that I need to add an import IntMatrix._, I can't figure out where to put it.
This little code worked here:
scala> import IntMatrix._
import IntMatrix._
scala> IntMatrix(2).set(0,0,5)
res1: Mat.IntMatrix = <function2>
Implicit parameters are filled by compiler in the call site, so they have to be available in the scope set is being invoked.
Related
I'm trying to port parts of a Haskell library for datatype-generic programming to Scala. Here's the problem I've run into:
I've defined a trait, Generic, with some container-type parameter:
trait Generic[G[_]] {
// Some function declarations go here
}
Now I have an abstract class, Collect, with three type parameters, and a function declaration (it signifies a type than can collect all subvalues of type B into a container of type F[_] from some structure of type A):
abstract class Collect[F[_],B,A] {
def collect_ : A => F[B]
}
In order to make it extend Generic, the first two type parameters F[_] and B are given, and A is curried (this effect is simulated using type lambdas):
class CollectC[F[_],B] extends Generic[({type C[A] = Collect[F,B,A]})#C] {
// Function definitions go here
}
The problem is that I need the last class definition to be implicit, because later on in my code I will need to be able to write functions like
class GUnit[G[_]](implicit gg: Generic[G]) {
// Some definitions
}
When I simply prepend implicit to the class definition, I get the an error saying implicit classes must accept exactly one primary constructor parameter. Has anyone encountered a similar problem? Is there a known way to work around it? I don't currently see how I could refactor my code while keeping the same functionality, so any advice is welcome. Thanks in advance!
Implicit classes don't work that way. They are a shorthand for implicit conversions. For instance implicit class Foo(i: Int) is equal to class Foo(i: Int); implicit def Foo(i: Int) = new Foo(i). So it only works with classes that have exactly one parameter in their constructor. It would not make sense for most 0 parameter (type-)classes.
The title of your question also seems to suggest that you think the compilation error is talking about type parameters of the type constructor, but I hope the above paragraph also makes clear that it is actually talking about value parameters of the value constructor.
For what (I think) you are trying to do, you will have to provide an implicit instance of CollectC yourself. I suggest putting it in the companion object of Collect. But you can choose an alternative solution if that fits your needs better.
scala> :paste
// Entering paste mode (ctrl-D to finish)
trait Generic[G[_]] {
// Some function declarations go here
}
abstract class Collect[F[_],B,A] {
def collect_ : A => F[B]
}
object Collect {
implicit def mkCollectC[F[_],B]: CollectC[F,B] = new CollectC[F,B]
}
class CollectC[F[_],B] extends Generic[({type C[A] = Collect[F,B,A]})#C] {
// Function definitions go here
}
// Exiting paste mode, now interpreting.
warning: there were four feature warnings; for details, enable `:setting -feature' or `:replay -feature'
defined trait Generic
defined class Collect
defined object Collect
defined class CollectC
scala> implicitly[Generic[({type C[X] = Collect[List,Int,X]})#C]]
res0: Generic[[X]Collect[[+A]List[A],Int,X]] = CollectC#12e8fb82
I quite like the ** syntax for pow, available in many languages (such as Python).
Is it possible to introduce this into Scala, without modifying the Scala 'base' code?
My attempt at an Int only one:
import scala.math.pow
implicit class PowerInt(i: Int) {
def `**`(n: Int, b: Int): Int = pow(n, b).intValue
}
(see it failing on IDEone)
this works for me: (problem#1 pow is defined on doubles, problem#2 extending anyval)
(also there is no point in having those backticks in the methodname?)
import scala.math.pow
object RichIntt {
implicit class PowerInt(val i:Double) extends AnyVal {
def ** (exp:Double):Double = pow(i,exp)
}
def main(args:Array[String])
{
println(5**6)
}
}
This answer is 2 years late, still for the benefit of others I'd like to point out that the accepted answer unnecessarily extends from AnyVal.
There is just a minor bug that needs to be fixed in the original answer. The def ** method needs only one parameter, i.e. the exponent as the base is already passed in the constructor and not two as in the original code. Fixing that and removing the backticks results in:
import scala.math.pow
implicit class PowerInt(i: Int) {
def ** (b: Int): Int = pow(i, b).intValue
}
Which works as expected as seen here.
Scala compiler will cast an Int to a PowerInt only if the method that is called on it is undefined. That's why you don't need to extend from AnyVal.
Behind the scenes, Scala looks for an implicit class whose constructor argument type is the same as the type of the object that is cast. Since the object can have only one type, implicit classes cannot have more than one argument in their constructor. Moreover, if you define two implicit classes with the same constructor type, make sure their functions have unique signatures otherwise Scala wouldn't know which class to cast to and will complain about the ambiguity.
There is a way to make the solution a little bit more generic using Numeric typeclass:
implicit class PowerOp[T: Numeric](value: T) {
import Numeric.Implicits._
import scala.math.pow
def **(power: T): Double = pow(value.toDouble(), power.toDouble())
}
This is my solution using recursion (so I don't need import scala.Math.pow):
object RichInt {
implicit class PowerInt(val base:Double) {
def ** (pow:Double):Double = if (pow==0) 1 else base*(base**(pow-1))
}
def main(args:Array[String]){
println(2.0**3.0) //8.0
println(2.0**0.0) //1.0
}
}
I'm trying to figure out how to .clone my own objects, in Scala.
This is for a simulation so mutable state is a must, and from that arises the whole need for cloning. I'll clone a whole state structure before moving the simulation time ahead.
This is my current try:
abstract trait Cloneable[A] {
// Seems we cannot declare the prototype of a copy constructor
//protected def this(o: A) // to be defined by the class itself
def myClone= new A(this)
}
class S(var x: String) extends Cloneable[S] {
def this(o:S)= this(o.x) // for 'Cloneable'
def toString= x
}
object TestX {
val s1= new S("say, aaa")
println( s1.myClone )
}
a. Why does the above not compile. Gives:
error: class type required but A found
def myClone= new A(this)
^
b. Is there a way to declare the copy constructor (def this(o:A)) in the trait, so that classes using the trait would be shown to need to provide one.
c. Is there any benefit from saying abstract trait?
Finally, is there a way better, standard solution for all this?
I've looked into Java cloning. Does not seem to be for this. Also Scala copy is not - it's only for case classes and they shouldn't have mutable state.
Thanks for help and any opinions.
Traits can't define constructors (and I don't think abstract has any effect on a trait).
Is there any reason it needs to use a copy constructor rather than just implementing a clone method? It might be possible to get out of having to declare the [A] type on the class, but I've at least declared a self type so the compiler will make sure that the type matches the class.
trait DeepCloneable[A] { self: A =>
def deepClone: A
}
class Egg(size: Int) extends DeepCloneable[Egg] {
def deepClone = new Egg(size)
}
object Main extends App {
val e = new Egg(3)
println(e)
println(e.deepClone)
}
http://ideone.com/CS9HTW
It would suggest a typeclass based approach. With this it is possible to also let existing classes be cloneable:
class Foo(var x: Int)
trait Copyable[A] {
def copy(a: A): A
}
implicit object FooCloneable extends Copyable[Foo] {
def copy(foo: Foo) = new Foo(foo.x)
}
implicit def any2Copyable[A: Copyable](a: A) = new {
def copy = implicitly[Copyable[A]].copy(a)
}
scala> val x = new Foo(2)
x: Foo = Foo#8d86328
scala> val y = x.copy
y: Foo = Foo#245e7588
scala> x eq y
res2: Boolean = false
a. When you define a type parameter like the A it gets erased after the compilation phase.
This means that the compiler uses type parameters to check that you use the correct types, but the resulting bytecode retains no information of A.
This also implies that you cannot use A as a real class in code but only as a "type reference", because at runtime this information is lost.
b & c. traits cannot define constructor parameters or auxiliary constructors by definition, they're also abstract by definition.
What you can do is define a trait body that gets called upon instantiation of the concrete implementation
One alternative solution is to define a Cloneable typeclass. For more on this you can find lots of blogs on the subject, but I have no suggestion for a specific one.
scalaz has a huge part built using this pattern, maybe you can find inspiration there: you can look at Order, Equal or Show to get the gist of it.
I want to do something like this:
sealed abstract class Base(val myparam:String)
case class Foo(override val myparam:String) extends Base(myparam)
case class Bar(override val myparam:String) extends Base(myparam)
def getIt( a:Base ) = a.copy(myparam="changed")
I can't, because in the context of getIt, I haven't told the compiler that every Base has a 'copy' method, but copy isn't really a method either so I don't think there's a trait or abstract method I can put in Base to make this work properly. Or, is there?
If I try to define Base as abstract class Base{ def copy(myparam:String):Base }, then case class Foo(myparam:String) extends Base results in class Foo needs to be abstract, since method copy in class Base of type (myparam: String)Base is not defined
Is there some other way to tell the compiler that all Base classes will be case classes in their implementation? Some trait that means "has the properties of a case class"?
I could make Base be a case class, but then I get compiler warnings saying that inheritance from case classes is deprecated?
I know I can also:
def getIt(f:Base)={
(f.getClass.getConstructors.head).newInstance("yeah").asInstanceOf[Base]
}
but... that seems very ugly.
Thoughts? Is my whole approach just "wrong" ?
UPDATE I changed the base class to contain the attribute, and made the case classes use the "override" keyword. This better reflects the actual problem and makes the problem more realistic in consideration of Edmondo1984's response.
This is old answer, before the question was changed.
Strongly typed programming languages prevent what you are trying to do. Let's see why.
The idea of a method with the following signature:
def getIt( a:Base ) : Unit
Is that the body of the method will be able to access a properties visible through Base class or interface, i.e. the properties and methods defined only on the Base class/interface or its parents. During code execution, each specific instance passed to the getIt method might have a different subclass but the compile type of a will always be Base
One can reason in this way:
Ok I have a class Base, I inherit it in two case classes and I add a
property with the same name, and then I try to access the property on
the instance of Base.
A simple example shows why this is unsafe:
sealed abstract class Base
case class Foo(myparam:String) extends Base
case class Bar(myparam:String) extends Base
case class Evil(myEvilParam:String) extends Base
def getIt( a:Base ) = a.copy(myparam="changed")
In the following case, if the compiler didn't throw an error at compile time, it means the code would try to access a property that does not exist at runtime. This is not possible in strictly typed programming languages: you have traded restrictions on the code you can write for a much stronger verification of your code by the compiler, knowing that this reduces dramatically the number of bugs your code can contain
This is the new answer. It is a little long because few points are needed before getting to the conclusion
Unluckily, you can't rely on the mechanism of case classes copy to implement what you propose. The way the copy method works is simply a copy constructor which you can implement yourself in a non-case class. Let's create a case class and disassemble it in the REPL:
scala> case class MyClass(name:String, surname:String, myJob:String)
defined class MyClass
scala> :javap MyClass
Compiled from "<console>"
public class MyClass extends java.lang.Object implements scala.ScalaObject,scala.Product,scala.Serializable{
public scala.collection.Iterator productIterator();
public scala.collection.Iterator productElements();
public java.lang.String name();
public java.lang.String surname();
public java.lang.String myJob();
public MyClass copy(java.lang.String, java.lang.String, java.lang.String);
public java.lang.String copy$default$3();
public java.lang.String copy$default$2();
public java.lang.String copy$default$1();
public int hashCode();
public java.lang.String toString();
public boolean equals(java.lang.Object);
public java.lang.String productPrefix();
public int productArity();
public java.lang.Object productElement(int);
public boolean canEqual(java.lang.Object);
public MyClass(java.lang.String, java.lang.String, java.lang.String);
}
In Scala, the copy method takes three parameter and can eventually use the one from the current instance for the one you haven't specified ( the Scala language provides among its features default values for parameters in method calls)
Let's go down in our analysis and take again the code as updated:
sealed abstract class Base(val myparam:String)
case class Foo(override val myparam:String) extends Base(myparam)
case class Bar(override val myparam:String) extends Base(myparam)
def getIt( a:Base ) = a.copy(myparam="changed")
Now in order to make this compile, we would need to use in the signature of getIt(a:MyType) a MyType that respect the following contract:
Anything that has a parameter myparam and maybe other parameters which
have default value
All these methods would be suitable:
def copy(myParam:String) = null
def copy(myParam:String, myParam2:String="hello") = null
def copy(myParam:String,myParam2:Option[Option[Option[Double]]]=None) = null
There is no way to express this contract in Scala, however there are advanced techniques that can be helpful.
The first observation that we can do is that there is a strict relation between case classes and tuples in Scala. In fact case classes are somehow tuples with additional behaviour and named properties.
The second observation is that, since the number of properties of your classes hierarchy is not guaranteed to be the same, the copy method signature is not guaranteed to be the same.
In practice, supposing AnyTuple[Int] describes any Tuple of any size where the first value is of type Int, we are looking to do something like that:
def copyTupleChangingFirstElement(myParam:AnyTuple[Int], newValue:Int) = myParam.copy(_1=newValue)
This would not be to difficult if all the elements were Int. A tuple with all element of the same type is a List, and we know how to replace the first element of a List. We would need to convert any TupleX to List, replace the first element, and convert the List back to TupleX. Yes we will need to write all the converters for all the values that X might assume. Annoying but not difficult.
In our case though, not all the elements are Int. We want to treat Tuple where the elements are of different type as if they were all the same if the first element is an Int. This is called
"Abstracting over arity"
i.e. treating tuples of different size in a generic way, independently of their size. To do it, we need to convert them into a special list which supports heterogenous types, named HList
Conclusion
Case classes inheritance is deprecated for very good reason, as you can find out from multiple posts in the mailing list: http://www.scala-lang.org/node/3289
You have two strategies to deal with your problem:
If you have a limited number of fields you require to change, use an approach such as the one suggested by #Ron, which is having a copy method. If you want to do it without losing type information, I would go for generifying the base class
sealed abstract class Base[T](val param:String){
def copy(param:String):T
}
class Foo(param:String) extends Base[Foo](param){
def copy(param: String) = new Foo(param)
}
def getIt[T](a:Base[T]) : T = a.copy("hello")
scala> new Foo("Pippo")
res0: Foo = Foo#4ab8fba5
scala> getIt(res0)
res1: Foo = Foo#5b927504
scala> res1.param
res2: String = hello
If you really want to abstract over arity, a solution is to use a library developed by Miles Sabin called Shapeless. There is a question here which has been asked after a discussion : Are HLists nothing more than a convoluted way of writing tuples? but I tell you this is going to give you some headache
If the two case classes would diverge over time so that they have different fields, then the shared copy approach would cease to work.
It is better to define an abstract def withMyParam(newParam: X): Base. Even better, you can introduce an abstract type to retain the case class type upon return:
scala> trait T {
| type Sub <: T
| def myParam: String
| def withMyParam(newParam: String): Sub
| }
defined trait T
scala> case class Foo(myParam: String) extends T {
| type Sub = Foo
| override def withMyParam(newParam: String) = this.copy(myParam = newParam)
| }
defined class Foo
scala>
scala> case class Bar(myParam: String) extends T {
| type Sub = Bar
| override def withMyParam(newParam: String) = this.copy(myParam = newParam)
| }
defined class Bar
scala> Bar("hello").withMyParam("dolly")
res0: Bar = Bar(dolly)
TL;DR: I managed to declare the copy method on Base while still letting the compiler auto generate its implementations in the derived case classes. This involves a little trick (and actually I'd myself just redesign the type hierarchy) but at least it goes to show that you can indeed make it work without writing boiler plate code in any of the derived case classes.
First, and as already mentioned by ron and Edmondo1984, you'll get into troubles if your case classes have different fields.
I'll strictly stick to your example though, and assume that all your case classes have the same fields (looking at your github link, this seems to be the case of your actual code too).
Given that all your case classes have the same fields, the auto-generated copy methods will have the same signature which is a good start. It seems reasonable then to just add the common definition in Base, as you did:
abstract class Base{ def copy(myparam: String):Base }
The problem is now that scala won't generate the copy methods, because there is already one in the base class.
It turns out that there is another way to statically ensure that Base has the right copy method, and it is through structural typing and self-type annotation:
type Copyable = { def copy(myParam: String): Base }
sealed abstract class Base(val myParam: String) { this : Copyable => }
And unlike in our earlier attempt, this will not prevent scala to auto-generate the copy methods.
There is one last problem: the self-type annotation makes sure that sub-classes of Base have a copy method, but it does not make it publicly availabe on Base:
val foo: Base = Foo("hello")
foo.copy()
scala> error: value copy is not a member of Base
To work around this we can add an implicit conversion from Base to Copyable. A simple cast will do, as a Base is guaranteed to be a Copyable:
implicit def toCopyable( base: Base ): Base with Copyable = base.asInstanceOf[Base with Copyable]
Wrapping up, this gives us:
object Base {
type Copyable = { def copy(myParam: String): Base }
implicit def toCopyable( base: Base ): Base with Copyable = base.asInstanceOf[Base with Copyable]
}
sealed abstract class Base(val myParam: String) { this : Base. Copyable => }
case class Foo(override val myParam: String) extends Base( myParam )
case class Bar(override val myParam: String) extends Base( myParam )
def getIt( a:Base ) = a.copy(myParam="changed")
Bonus effect: if we try to define a case class with a different signature, we get a compile error:
case class Baz(override val myParam: String, truc: Int) extends Base( myParam )
scala> error: illegal inheritance; self-type Baz does not conform to Base's selftype Base with Base.Copyable
To finish, one warning: you should probably just revise your design to avoid having to resort to the above trick.
In your case, ron's suggestion to use a single case class with an additional etype field seems more than reasonable.
I think this is what extension methods are for. Take your pick of implementation strategies for the copy method itself.
I like here that the problem is solved in one place.
It's interesting to ask why there is no trait for caseness: it wouldn't say much about how to invoke copy, except that it can always be invoked without args, copy().
sealed trait Base { def p1: String }
case class Foo(val p1: String) extends Base
case class Bar(val p1: String, p2: String) extends Base
case class Rab(val p2: String, p1: String) extends Base
case class Baz(val p1: String)(val p3: String = p1.reverse) extends Base
object CopyCase extends App {
implicit class Copy(val b: Base) extends AnyVal {
def copy(p1: String): Base = b match {
case foo: Foo => foo.copy(p1 = p1)
case bar: Bar => bar.copy(p1 = p1)
case rab: Rab => rab.copy(p1 = p1)
case baz: Baz => baz.copy(p1 = p1)(p1.reverse)
}
//def copy(p1: String): Base = reflect invoke
//def copy(p1: String): Base = macro xcopy
}
val f = Foo("param1")
val g = f.copy(p1="param2") // normal
val h: Base = Bar("A", "B")
val j = h.copy("basic") // enhanced
println(List(f,g,h,j) mkString ", ")
val bs = List(Foo("param1"), Bar("A","B"), Rab("A","B"), Baz("param3")())
val vs = bs map (b => b copy (p1 = b.p1 * 2))
println(vs)
}
Just for fun, reflective copy:
// finger exercise in the api
def copy(p1: String): Base = {
import scala.reflect.runtime.{ currentMirror => cm }
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
val im = cm.reflect(b)
val ts = im.symbol.typeSignature
val copySym = ts.member(newTermName("copy")).asMethod
def element(p: Symbol): Any = (im reflectMethod ts.member(p.name).asMethod)()
val args = for (ps <- copySym.params; p <- ps) yield {
if (p.name.toString == "p1") p1 else element(p)
}
(im reflectMethod copySym)(args: _*).asInstanceOf[Base]
}
This works fine for me:
sealed abstract class Base { def copy(myparam: String): Base }
case class Foo(myparam:String) extends Base {
override def copy(x: String = myparam) = Foo(x)
}
def copyBase(x: Base) = x.copy("changed")
copyBase(Foo("abc")) //Foo(changed)
There is a very comprehensive explanation of how to do this using shapeless at http://www.cakesolutions.net/teamblogs/copying-sealed-trait-instances-a-journey-through-generic-programming-and-shapeless ; in case the link breaks, the approach uses the copySyntax utilities from shapeless, which should be sufficient to find more details.
Its an old problem, with an old solution,
https://code.google.com/p/scala-scales/wiki/VirtualConstructorPreSIP
made before the case class copy method existed.
So in reference to this problem each case class MUST be a leaf node anyway, so define the copy and a MyType / thisType plus the newThis function and you are set, each case class fixes the type. If you want to widen the tree/newThis function and use default parameters you'll have to change the name.
as an aside - I've been waiting for compiler plugin magic to improve before implementing this but type macros may be the magic juice. Search in the lists for Kevin's AutoProxy for a more detailed explanation of why my code never went anywhere
I write
object MyString {
implicit def stringToMyString(s: String) = new MyString(s)
}
class MyString(str: String) {
def camelize = str.split("_").map(_.capitalize).mkString
override def toString = str
}
object Parse {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val x = "active_record".camelize
// ...
}
}
in my program. This causes a compiling error. After I inserted
import MyString.stringToMyString
Then it works.
From Odersky's Programming in Scala I got that implicit conversion in the companion object of the source or expected target types don't need to be imported.
implicit conversion in the companion
object of the source or expected
target types don't need to be
imported.
True enough. Now, the method camelize is defined on the class MyString, and, indeed, there is an implicit conversion to MyString inside its object companion. However, there is nothing in the code telling the compiler that MyString is the expected target type.
If, instead, you wrote this:
val x = ("active_record": MyString).camelize
then it would work, because the compiler would know you expect "active_record" to be a MyString, making it look up the implicit conversion inside object MyString.
This might look a bit restrictive, but it actually works in a number of places. Say, for instance, you had:
class Fraction(num: Int, denom: Int) {
...
def +(b: Fraction) = ...
...
}
And then you had a code like this:
val x: Fraction = ...
val y = x + 5
Now, x does have a + method, whose expected type is Fraction. So the compiler would look, here, for an implicit conversion from Int to Fraction inside the object Fraction (and inside the object Int, if there was one, since that's the source type).
In this situation you need the import because the compiler doesn't know where you pulled out the camelize method from. If the type is clear, it will compile without import:
object Parse {
def foo(s: MyString) = s.camelize
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val x = foo("active_record")
println(x.toString)
}
}
See Pimp my library pattern, based on Martin's article:
Note that it is not possible to put defs at the top level, so you can’t define an implicit conversion with global scope. The solution is to place the def inside an object, and then import it, i.e.
object Implicits {
implicit def listExtensions[A](xs : List[A]) = new ListExtensions(xs)
}
And then at the top of each source file, along with your other imports:
import Implicits._
I tried the Rational class example in Programming in Scala book, put an implicit method in its companion object:
object Rational {
implicit def intToRational(num: Int) =
new Rational(num)
}
but the code
2 + new Rational(1, 2)
does not work. For the conversion to happen, the single identifier rule applies, i.e., you need to import the explicit method into scope even though it is defined in the companion object.