What is `class A[_]` useful for? - scala

Question

The types of symbols class A[_] or of def a[_](x: Any) have a type parameter that can't be referenced in the body, thus I don't see where it is useful for and why it compiles. If one tries to reference this type parameter, an error is thrown:
scala> class A[_] { type X = _ }
<console>:1: error: unbound wildcard type
class A[_] { type X = _ }
^
scala> def a[_](x: Any) { type X = _ }
<console>:1: error: unbound wildcard type
def a[_](x: Any) { type X = _ }
^
Can someone tell me if such a type has a use case in Scala? To be exact, I do not mean existential types or higher kinded types in type parameters, only those litte [_] which form the complete type parameter list.

Answer 1

Because I did not get the answers I expected, I brought this to scala-language.
I paste here the answer from Lars Hupel (so, all credits apply to him), which mostly explains what I wanted to know:
I'm going to give it a stab here. I think the use of the feature gets
clear when talking about type members.
Assume that you have to implement the following trait:
trait Function {
type Out[In]
def apply[In](x: In): Out[In]
}
This would be a (generic) function where the return type depends on
the input type. One example for an instance:
val someify = new Function {
type Out[In] = Option[In] def
apply[In](x: In) = Some(x)
}
someify(3) res0: Some[Int] = Some(3)
So far, so good. Now, how would you define a constant function?
val const0 = new Function {
type Out[In] = Int
def apply[In](x: In) = 0
}
const0(3) res1: const0.Out[Int] = 0
(The type const0.Out[Int] is equivalent to Int, but it isn't
printed that way.)
Note how the type parameter In isn't actually used. So, here's how
you could write it with _:
val const0 = new Function {
type Out[_] = Int
def apply[In](x: In) = 0
}
Think of _ in that case as a name for the type parameter which
cannot actually be referred to. It's a for a function on the type
level which doesn't care about the parameter, just like on value
level:
(_: Int) => 3 res4: Int => Int = <function1>
Except …
type Foo[_, _] = Int
<console>:7: error: _ is already defined as type _
type Foo[_, _] = Int
Compare that with:
(_: Int, _: String) => 3 res6: (Int, String) => Int = <function2>
So, in conclusion:
type F[_] = ConstType // when you have to implement a type member def
foo[_](...) // when you have to implement a generic method but don't
// actually refer to the type parameter (occurs very rarely)
The main thing you mentioned, class A[_], is completely symmetric to
that, except that there's no real use case.
Consider this:
trait FlyingDog[F[_]] { def swoosh[A, B](f: A => B, a: F[A]): F[B] }
Now assume you want to make an instance of FlyingDog for your plain
old class A.
new FlyingDog[A] { ... }
// error: A takes no type parameters, expected: one
// (aka 'kind mismatch')
There are two solutions:
Declare class A[_] instead. (Don't do that.)
Use a type lambda:
new FlyingDog[({ type λ[α] = A })#λ]
or even
new FlyingDog[({ type λ[_] = A })#λ]

Answer 2

I had some casual ideas about what it could mean here:
https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-5606
Besides the trivial use case, asking the compiler to make up a name because I really don't care (though maybe I'll name it later when I implement the class), this one still strikes me as useful:
Another use case is where a type param is deprecated because
improvements in type inference make it superfluous.
trait T[#deprecated("I'm free","2.11") _, B <: S[_]]
Then, hypothetically,
one could warn on usage of T[X, Y] but not T[_, Y].
Though it's not obvious whether the annotation would come before (value parameter-style) or after (annotation on type style).
[Edit: "why it compiles": case class Foo[_](i: Int) still crashes nicely on 2.9.2]

Answer 3

The underscore in Scala indicates an existential type, i.e. an unknown type parameter, which has two main usage:
It is used for methods which do not care about the type parameter
It is used for methods where you want to express that one type parameter is a type constructor.
A type constructor is basically something that needs a type parameter to construct a concrete type. For example you can take the following signature.
def strangeStuff[CC[_], B, A](b:B, f: B=>A): CC[A]
This is a function that for some CC[_] , for example a List[_], creates a List[A] starting from a B and a function B=>A.
Why would that be useful? Well it turns out that if you use that mechanism together with implicits and typeclasses, you can get what is called ad-hoc polymorphism thanks to the compiler reasoning.
Imagine for example you have some higher-kinded type: Container[_] with a hierarchy of concrete implementations: BeautifulContainer[_], BigContainer[_], SmallContainer[_]. To build a container you need a
trait ContainerBuilder[A[_]<:Container[_],B] {
def build(b:B):A[B]
}
So basically a ContainerBuilder is something that for a specific type of container A[_] can build an A[B] using a B.
While would that be useful ? Well you can imagine that you might have a function defined somewhere else like the following:
def myMethod(b:B)(implicit containerBuilder:ContainerBuilder[A[_],B]):A[B] = containerBuilder.build(b)
And then in your code you might do:
val b = new B()
val bigContainer:BigContainer[B] = myMethod(b)
val beautifulContainer:BeautifulContainer[B] = myMethod(b)
In fact, the compiler will use the required return type of myMethod to look for an implicit which satisfies the required type constraints and will throw a compile error if there is no ContainerBuilder which meets the required constraints available implicitely.

Answer 4

That's useful when you deal with instances of parametrized types without caring of the type parameter.
trait Something[A] {
def stringify: String
}
class Foo extends Something[Bar] {
def stringify = "hop"
}
object App {
def useSomething(thing: Something[_]) :String = {
thing.stringify
}
}