I'm using a library that gives me the following (relations can be implicitly converted to nodes):
class Relation[A,B]
class Node[A,B](r: Relation[A,B])
implicit def relation2node[A,B](r: Relation[A,B]) = new Node(r)
I'm extending Relation for my own use:
class XRelation[A] extends Relation[A,Int]
Relations/XRelations are meant to be subclassed:
class User extends XRelation[Int]
Now, I also define my own Helper methods like GET, designed to work with any Node and anything that converts to Node:
class Helper[A,B](n: Node[A,B]) { def GET {} }
// note: this is the only way I know of to make the next example work.
implicit def xx2node2helper[A,B,C[_,_]](x: C[A,B])(implicit f: C[A,B] => Node[A,B]) = new Helper(x)
So this example works:
new Relation[Int,Int]().GET
And if I add another implicit conversion:
// don't understand why this doesn't work for the previous example
// but works for the next example
implicit def x2node2helper[A,B,C](x: C)(implicit f: C => Node[A,B]) = new Helper(x)
I can also make the following conversion work:
new XRelation[Int]().GET
But this doesn't work:
new User().GET
Sadly, that fails with:
error: No implicit view available from Sandbox3.User => Sandbox3.Node[A,B]
Can anyone make sense of all this and explain how to get the last example to work? Thanks in advance.
Update: I know you can just introduce implicit conversions from Relation, but I'm asking to (1) figure out how to do this without having to introduce implicits from every single type that could possibly implicitly convert to Node, and (2) to solidify my understanding of implicits.
implicit def nodeLike2Helper[R, C <: R](r:C)(implicit f: R => Node[_,_]) = {
new Helper(r)
}
Just as the error message indicates, User does not have implicit conversion to Node. But it's super-super-class Relation has. So you just give the right bounds to type parameters.
FYI, there is a syntax sugar <% for view bounds, so the above code can be shorter:
implicit def nodeLike2Helper[R <% Node[_,_], C <: R](r:C) = {
new Helper(r)
}
The scala resolution only goes one super class deep when checking if User matches the type pattern C[_,_]. You can fix this by doing away with the pattern in the following code.
implicit def x2node2helper[A,B](x: Relation[A,B])(implicit f: Relation[A,B] => Node[A,B]) = new Helper(x)
And if the implicit relation2node is in scope for the definition of x2node2helper then it can be written
implicit def x2node2helper[A,B](x: Relation[A,B]) = new Helper(x)
Related
Here is a simple example:
trait Base {
type Out
def v: Out
}
object Base {
type Aux[T] = Base { type Out = T }
class ForH() extends Base {
type Out = HNil
override def v: Out = HNil
}
object ForH extends ForH
}
class TypeClass[B]
trait TypeClassLevel1 {
def summon[B](b: B)(implicit ev: TypeClass[B]): TypeClass[B] = ev
}
object TypeClass extends TypeClassLevel1 {
implicit def t1: TypeClass[Base.Aux[HNil]] = new TypeClass[Base.Aux[HNil]]
implicit def t2: TypeClass[Int] = new TypeClass[Int]
}
it("No Aux") {
val v = 2
TypeClass.summon(v) // works
}
it("Aux") {
val v = new Base.ForH()
TypeClass.summon(v) // oops
TypeClass.summon(Base.ForH) // oops
val v2 = new Base.ForH(): Base.Aux[HNil]
TypeClass.summon(v2) // works!
}
The object Base/ForH clearly has a stable path, this eliminate the possibility of the compiler not being able to resolve type ForH.Out.
What bothers me is not how incapable the compiler is to figure out the fact that ForH <:< Aux[HNil], but how easy it is to patch it up, just by a simple type upcast (last 2 lines). IMHO both features (type lambda & type classes) are important aspect of functional programming, why they can't work together at the same time?
If you are familiar with the compiler design I'll have an extra question: what does it take to improve the type class search algorithm to make it happen? Thanks a lot for your opinion.
UPDATE 1: a specific fix has been proposed but I have another problem trying to generalise it, please see In scala, how to make type class working for Aux pattern? - Part 2 for detail
So the compiler is able to infer ForH <:< Aux[HNil], but (tbh I don't know exactly why) when resolving an implicit when the return type uses a type lambda, it gets confused if you don't use a type bound.
Anyway that's probably not a great explanation, but at least I can make your code compile. Just change t1 to:
implicit def t1[T <: Base.Aux[HNil] ]: TypeClass[T] = new TypeClass[T]
this works for me in scastie using Scala 2.13.4.
What bothers me is not how incapable the compiler is to figure out the fact that ForH <:< Aux[HNil]
Surely the compiler does see that Base.ForH <:< Base.Aux[HNil]. You can check that
implicitly[Base.ForH <:< Base.Aux[HNil]]
compiles.
IMHO both features (type lambda & type classes) are important aspect of functional programming, why they can't work together at the same time?
Why are you talking about type lambdas? I can't see type lambdas in your question.
By the way, type lambdas is not a part of Scala 2 and ({ type λ[X] = ...F[X]... })#λ for a type lambda is more or less a hack. Actual type lambdas are added to Scala 3.
val v = new Base.ForH() has type Base.ForH (not Base.Aux[HNil] without upcasting via type ascription val v = new Base.ForH(): Base.Aux[HNil] or manual type specification val v: Base.Aux[HNil] = new Base.ForH()). TypeClass.summon(v) shouldn't compile since there is no implicit TypeClass[Base.ForH]. What implicit would you consider as a candidate? TypeClass.t1? But it's not a candidate, you can check that explicitly resolved
TypeClass.summon(v)(TypeClass.t1)
can't compile.
what does it take to improve the type class search algorithm to make it happen?
Implicit search algorithm shouldn't be improved in this specific place. It works properly, as intended.
You can make the type class contravariant
class TypeClass[-B]
Then TypeClass.t1 will be a candidate for TypeClass[Base.ForH] and TypeClass.summon(v) will compile.
In scala 2.13, how to use implicitly[value singleton type]?
I'd like to enrich a 'graph for scala' graph. For this purpose i've created an implicit value class:
import scalax.collection.mutable
import scalax.collection.edge.DiEdge
...
type Graph = mutable.Graph[Int, DiEdge]
implicit class EnrichGraph(val G: Graph) extends AnyVal {
def roots = G.nodes.filter(!_.hasPredecessors)
...
}
...
The problem lies with the return type of its methods, e.g.:
import ....EnrichGraph
val H: Graph = mutable.Graph[Int,DiEdge]()
val roots1 = H.nodes.filter(!_.hasPredecessors) // type Iterable[H.NodeT]
val roots2 = H.roots // type Iterable[RichGraph#G.NodeT] !!
val subgraph1 = H.filter(H.having(roots1)) // works!
val subgraph2 = H.filter(H.having(roots2)) // type mismatch!
Does the cause lie with fact that 'Graph' has dependent subtypes, e.g. NodeT? Is there a way to make this enrichment work?
What usually works is propagating the singleton type as a type parameter to EnrichGraph. That means a little bit of extra boilerplate since you have to split the implicit class into a class and an implicit def.
class EnrichGraph[G <: Graph](val G: G) extends AnyVal {
def roots: Iterable[G#NodeT] = G.nodes.filter(!_.hasPredecessors)
//...
}
implicit def EnrichGraph(g: Graph): EnrichGraph[g.type] = new EnrichGraph[g.type](g)
The gist here being that G#NodeT =:= H.NodeT if G =:= H.type, or in other words (H.type)#NodeT =:= H.NodeT. (=:= is the type equality operator)
The reason you got that weird type, is that roots has a path type dependent type. And that path contains the value G. So then the type of val roots2 in your program would need to contain a path to G. But since G is bound to an instance of EnrichGraph which is not referenced by any variable, the compiler cannot construct such a path. The "best" thing the compiler can do is construct a type with that part of the path left out: Set[_1.G.NodeT] forSome { val _1: EnrichGraph }. This is the type I actually got with your code; I assume you're using Intellij which is printing this type differently.
As pointed out by #DmytroMitin a version which might work better for you is:
import scala.collection.mutable.Set
class EnrichGraph[G <: Graph](val G: G) extends AnyVal {
def roots: Set[G.NodeT] = G.nodes.filter(!_.hasPredecessors)
//...
}
implicit def EnrichGraph(g: Graph): EnrichGraph[g.type] = new EnrichGraph[g.type](g)
Since the rest of your code actually requires a Set instead of an Iterable.
The reason why this still works despite reintroducing the path dependent type is quite tricky. Actually now roots2 will receive the type Set[_1.G.NodeT] forSome { val _1: EnrichGraph[H.type] } which looks pretty complex. But the important part is that this type still contains the knowledge that the G in _1.G.NodeT has type H.type because that information is stored in val _1: EnrichGraph[H.type].
With Set you can't use G#NodeT to give you the simpler type signatures, because G.NodeT is a subtype of G#NodeT and Set is unfortunately invariant. In our usage those type will actually always be equivalent (as I explained above), but the compiler cannot know that.
I am trying to test whether two "containers" use the same higher-kinded type. Look at the following code:
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
class Funct[A[_],B]
class Foo[A : TypeTag](x: A) {
def test[B[_]](implicit wt: WeakTypeTag[B[_]]) =
println(typeOf[A] <:< weakTypeOf[Funct[B,_]])
def print[B[_]](implicit wt: WeakTypeTag[B[_]]) = {
println(typeOf[A])
println(weakTypeOf[B[_]])
}
}
val x = new Foo(new Funct[Option,Int])
x.test[Option]
x.print[Option]
The output is:
false
Test.Funct[Option,Int]
scala.Option[_]
However, I expect the conformance test to succeed. What am I doing wrong? How can I test for higher-kinded types?
Clarification
In my case, the values I am testing (the x: A in the example) come in a List[c.Expr[Any]] in a Macro. So any solution relying on static resolution (as the one I have given), will not solve my problem.
It's the mixup between underscores used in type parameter definitions and elsewhere. The underscore in TypeTag[B[_]] means an existential type, hence you get a tag not for B, but for an existential wrapper over it, which is pretty much useless without manual postprocessing.
Consequently typeOf[Funct[B, _]] that needs a tag for raw B can't make use of the tag for the wrapper and gets upset. By getting upset I mean it refuses to splice the tag in scope and fails with a compilation error. If you use weakTypeOf instead, then that one will succeed, but it will generate stubs for everything it couldn't splice, making the result useless for subtyping checks.
Looks like in this case we really hit the limits of Scala in the sense that there's no way for us to refer to raw B in WeakTypeTag[B], because we don't have kind polymorphism in Scala. Hopefully something like DOT will save us from this inconvenience, but in the meanwhile you can use this workaround (it's not pretty, but I haven't been able to come up with a simpler approach).
import scala.reflect.runtime.universe._
object Test extends App {
class Foo[B[_], T]
// NOTE: ideally we'd be able to write this, but since it's not valid Scala
// we have to work around by using an existential type
// def test[B[_]](implicit tt: WeakTypeTag[B]) = weakTypeOf[Foo[B, _]]
def test[B[_]](implicit tt: WeakTypeTag[B[_]]) = {
val ExistentialType(_, TypeRef(pre, sym, _)) = tt.tpe
// attempt #1: just compose the type manually
// but what do we put there instead of question marks?!
// appliedType(typeOf[Foo], List(TypeRef(pre, sym, Nil), ???))
// attempt #2: reify a template and then manually replace the stubs
val template = typeOf[Foo[Hack, _]]
val result = template.substituteSymbols(List(typeOf[Hack[_]].typeSymbol), List(sym))
println(result)
}
test[Option]
}
// has to be top-level, otherwise the substituion magic won't work
class Hack[T]
An astute reader will notice that I used WeakTypeTag in the signature of foo, even though I should be able to use TypeTag. After all, we call foo on an Option which is a well-behaved type, in the sense that it doesn't involve unresolved type parameters or local classes that pose problems for TypeTags. Unfortunately, it's not that simple because of https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-7686, so we're forced to use a weak tag even though we shouldn't need to.
The following is an answer that works for the example I have given (and might help others), but does not apply to my (non-simplified) case.
Stealing from #pedrofurla's hint, and using type-classes:
trait ConfTest[A,B] {
def conform: Boolean
}
trait LowPrioConfTest {
implicit def ctF[A,B] = new ConfTest[A,B] { val conform = false }
}
object ConfTest extends LowPrioConfTest {
implicit def ctT[A,B](implicit ev: A <:< B) =
new ConfTest[A,B] { val conform = true }
}
And add this to Foo:
def imp[B[_]](implicit ct: ConfTest[A,Funct[B,_]]) =
println(ct.conform)
Now:
x.imp[Option] // --> true
x.imp[List] // --> false
tl;dr: How do I do something like the made up code below:
def notFunctor[M[_] : Not[Functor]](m: M[_]) = s"$m is not a functor"
The 'Not[Functor]', being the made up part here.
I want it to succeed when the 'm' provided is not a Functor, and fail the compiler otherwise.
Solved: skip the rest of the question and go right ahead to the answer below.
What I'm trying to accomplish is, roughly speaking, "negative evidence".
Pseudo code would look something like so:
// type class for obtaining serialization size in bytes.
trait SizeOf[A] { def sizeOf(a: A): Long }
// type class specialized for types whose size may vary between instances
trait VarSizeOf[A] extends SizeOf[A]
// type class specialized for types whose elements share the same size (e.g. Int)
trait FixedSizeOf[A] extends SizeOf[A] {
def fixedSize: Long
def sizeOf(a: A) = fixedSize
}
// SizeOf for container with fixed-sized elements and Length (using scalaz.Length)
implicit def fixedSizeOf[T[_] : Length, A : FixedSizeOf] = new VarSizeOf[T[A]] {
def sizeOf(as: T[A]) = ... // length(as) * sizeOf[A]
}
// SizeOf for container with scalaz.Foldable, and elements with VarSizeOf
implicit def foldSizeOf[T[_] : Foldable, A : SizeOf] = new VarSizeOf[T[A]] {
def sizeOf(as: T[A]) = ... // foldMap(a => sizeOf(a))
}
Keep in mind that fixedSizeOf() is preferable where relevant, since it saves us the traversal over the collection.
This way, for container types where only Length is defined (but not Foldable), and for elements where a FixedSizeOf is defined, we get improved performance.
For the rest of the cases, we go over the collection and sum individual sizes.
My problem is in the cases where both Length and Foldable are defined for the container, and FixedSizeOf is defined for the elements. This is a very common case here (e.g.,: List[Int] has both defined).
Example:
scala> implicitly[SizeOf[List[Int]]].sizeOf(List(1,2,3))
<console>:24: error: ambiguous implicit values:
both method foldSizeOf of type [T[_], A](implicit evidence$1: scalaz.Foldable[T], implicit evidence$2: SizeOf[A])VarSizeOf[T[A]]
and method fixedSizeOf of type [T[_], A](implicit evidence$1: scalaz.Length[T], implicit evidence$2: FixedSizeOf[A])VarSizeOf[T[A]]
match expected type SizeOf[List[Int]]
implicitly[SizeOf[List[Int]]].sizeOf(List(1,2,3))
What I would like is to be able to rely on the Foldable type class only when the Length+FixedSizeOf combination does not apply.
For that purpose, I can change the definition of foldSizeOf() to accept VarSizeOf elements:
implicit def foldSizeOfVar[T[_] : Foldable, A : VarSizeOf] = // ...
And now we have to fill in the problematic part that covers Foldable containers with FixedSizeOf elements and no Length defined. I'm not sure how to approach this, but pseudo-code would look something like:
implicit def foldSizeOfFixed[T[_] : Foldable : Not[Length], A : FixedSizeOf] = // ...
The 'Not[Length]', obviously, being the made up part here.
Partial solutions I am aware of
1) Define a class for low priority implicits and extend it, as seen in 'object Predef extends LowPriorityImplicits'.
The last implicit (foldSizeOfFixed()) can be defined in the parent class, and will be overridden by alternative from the descendant class.
I am not interested in this option because I'd like to eventually be able to support recursive usage of SizeOf, and this will prevent the implicit in the low priority base class from relying on those in the sub class (is my understanding here correct? EDIT: wrong! implicit lookup works from the context of the sub class, this is a viable solution!)
2) A rougher approach is relying on Option[TypeClass] (e.g.,: Option[Length[List]]. A few of those and I can just write one big ol' implicit that picks Foldable and SizeOf as mandatory and Length and FixedSizeOf as optional, and relies on the latter if they are available. (source: here)
The two problems here are lack of modularity and falling back to runtime exceptions when no relevant type class instances can be located (this example can probably be made to work with this solution, but that's not always possible)
EDIT: This is the best I was able to get with optional implicits. It's not there yet:
implicit def optionalTypeClass[TC](implicit tc: TC = null) = Option(tc)
type OptionalLength[T[_]] = Option[Length[T]]
type OptionalFixedSizeOf[T[_]] = Option[FixedSizeOf[T]]
implicit def sizeOfContainer[
T[_] : Foldable : OptionalLength,
A : SizeOf : OptionalFixedSizeOf]: SizeOf[T[A]] = new SizeOf[T[A]] {
def sizeOf(as: T[A]) = {
// optionally calculate using Length + FixedSizeOf is possible
val fixedLength = for {
lengthOf <- implicitly[OptionalLength[T]]
sizeOf <- implicitly[OptionalFixedSizeOf[A]]
} yield lengthOf.length(as) * sizeOf.fixedSize
// otherwise fall back to Foldable
fixedLength.getOrElse {
val foldable = implicitly[Foldable[T]]
val sizeOf = implicitly[SizeOf[A]]
foldable.foldMap(as)(a => sizeOf.sizeOf(a))
}
}
}
Except this collides with fixedSizeOf() from earlier, which is still necessary.
Thanks for any help or perspective :-)
I eventually solved this using an ambiguity-based solution that doesn't require prioritizing using inheritance.
Here is my attempt at generalizing this.
We use the type Not[A] to construct negative type classes:
import scala.language.higherKinds
trait Not[A]
trait Monoid[_] // or import scalaz._, Scalaz._
type NotMonoid[A] = Not[Monoid[A]]
trait Functor[_[_]] // or import scalaz._, Scalaz._
type NotFunctor[M[_]] = Not[Functor[M]]
...which can then be used as context bounds:
def foo[T: NotMonoid] = ...
We proceed by ensuring that every valid expression of Not[A] will gain at least one implicit instance.
implicit def notA[A, TC[_]] = new Not[TC[A]] {}
The instance is called 'notA' -- 'not' because if it is the only instance found for 'Not[TC[A]]' then the negative type class is found to apply; the 'A' is commonly appended for methods that deal with flat-shaped types (e.g. Int).
We now introduce an ambiguity to turn away cases where the undesired type class is applied:
implicit def notNotA[A : TC, TC[_]] = new Not[TC[A]] {}
This is almost exactly the same as 'NotA', except here we are only interested in types for which an instance of the type class specified by 'TC' exists in implicit scope. The instance is named 'notNotA', since by merely matching the implicit being looked up, it will create an ambiguity with 'notA', failing the implicit search (which is our goal).
Let's go over a usage example. We'll use the 'NotMonoid' negative type class from above:
implicitly[NotMonoid[java.io.File]] // succeeds
implicitly[NotMonoid[Int]] // fails
def showIfNotMonoid[A: NotMonoid](a: A) = a.toString
showIfNotMonoid(3) // fails, good!
showIfNotMonoid(scala.Console) // succeeds for anything that isn't a Monoid
So far so good! However, types shaped M[_] and type classes shaped TC[_[_]] aren't supported yet by the scheme above. Let's add implicits for them as well:
implicit def notM[M[_], TC[_[_]]] = new Not[TC[M]] {}
implicit def notNotM[M[_] : TC, TC[_[_]]] = new Not[TC[M]] {}
implicitly[NotFunctor[List]] // fails
implicitly[NotFunctor[Class]] // succeeds
Simple enough. Note that Scalaz has a workaround for the boilerplate resulting from dealing with several type shapes -- look for 'Unapply'. I haven't been able to make use of it for the basic case (type class of shape TC[_], such as Monoid), even though it worked on TC[_[_]] (e.g. Functor) like a charm, so this answer doesn't cover that.
If anybody's interested, here's everything needed in a single snippet:
import scala.language.higherKinds
trait Not[A]
object Not {
implicit def notA[A, TC[_]] = new Not[TC[A]] {}
implicit def notNotA[A : TC, TC[_]] = new Not[TC[A]] {}
implicit def notM[M[_], TC[_[_]]] = new Not[TC[M]] {}
implicit def notNotM[M[_] : TC, TC[_[_]]] = new Not[TC[M]] {}
}
import Not._
type NotNumeric[A] = Not[Numeric[A]]
implicitly[NotNumeric[String]] // succeeds
implicitly[NotNumeric[Int]] // fails
and the pseudo code I asked for in the question would look like so (actual code):
// NotFunctor[M[_]] declared above
def notFunctor[M[_] : NotFunctor](m: M[_]) = s"$m is not a functor"
Update: Similar technique applied to implicit conversions:
import scala.language.higherKinds
trait Not[A]
object Not {
implicit def not[V[_], A](a: A) = new Not[V[A]] {}
implicit def notNot[V[_], A <% V[A]](a: A) = new Not[V[A]] {}
}
We can now (e.g.) define a function that will only admit values if their types aren't viewable as Ordered:
def unordered[A <% Not[Ordered[A]]](a: A) = a
In Scala 3 (aka Dotty), the aforementioned tricks no longer work.
The negation of givens is built-in with NotGiven:
def f[T](value: T)(using ev: NotGiven[MyTypeclass[T]])
Examples:
f("ok") // no given instance of MyTypeclass[T] in scope
given MyTypeclass[String] = ... // provide the typeclass
f("bad") // compile error
I have posted several questions on SO recently dealing with Scala traits, representation types, member types, manifests, and implicit evidence. Behind these questions is my project to build modeling software for biological protein networks. Despite the immensely helpful answers, which have gotten me closer than I ever could get on my own, I have still not arrived at an solution for my project. A couple of answers have suggested that my design is flawed, which is why the solutions to the Foo-framed questions don't work in practice. Here I am posting a more complicated (but still greatly simplified) version of my problem. My hope is that the problem and solution will be broadly useful for people trying to build complex hierarchies of traits and classes in Scala.
The highest-level class in my project is the biological reaction rule. A rule describes how one or two reactants are transformed by a reaction. Each reactant is a graph that has nodes called monomers and edges that connect between named sites on the monomers. Each site also has a state that it can be in. Edit: The concept of the edges have been removed from the example code because they complicate the example without contributing much to the question. A rule might say something like this: there is one reactant made of monomer A bound to monomer B through sites a1 and b1, respectively; the bond is broken by the rule leaving sites a1 and b1 unbound; simultaneously on monomer A, the state of site a1 is changed from U to P. I would write this as:
A(a1~U-1).B(b1-1) -> A(a1~P) + B(b1)
(Parsing strings like this in Scala was so easy, it made my head spin.) The -1 indicates that bond #1 is between those sites--the number is just a arbitrary label.
Here is what I have so far along with the reasoning for why I added each component. It compiles, but only with gratuitous use of asInstanceOf. How do I get rid of the asInstanceOfs so that the types match?
I represent rules with a basic class:
case class Rule(
reactants: Seq[ReactantGraph], // The starting monomers and edges
producedMonomers: Seq[ProducedMonomer] // Only new monomers go here
) {
// Example method that shows different monomers being combined and down-cast
def combineIntoOneGraph: Graph = {
val all_monomers = reactants.flatMap(_.monomers) ++ producedMonomers
GraphClass(all_monomers)
}
}
The class for graphs GraphClass has type parameters because so that I can put constraints on what kinds of monomers and edges are allowed in a particular graph; for example, there cannot be any ProducedMonomers in the Reactant of a Rule. I would also like to be able to collect all the Monomers of a particular type, say ReactantMonomers. I use type aliases to manage the constraints.
case class GraphClass[
+MonomerType <: Monomer
](
monomers: Seq[MonomerType]
) {
// Methods that demonstrate the need for a manifest on MonomerClass
def justTheProductMonomers: Seq[ProductMonomer] = {
monomers.collect{
case x if isProductMonomer(x) => x.asInstanceOf[ProductMonomer]
}
}
def isProductMonomer(monomer: Monomer): Boolean = (
monomer.manifest <:< manifest[ProductStateSite]
)
}
// The most generic Graph
type Graph = GraphClass[Monomer]
// Anything allowed in a reactant
type ReactantGraph = GraphClass[ReactantMonomer]
// Anything allowed in a product, which I sometimes extract from a Rule
type ProductGraph = GraphClass[ProductMonomer]
The class for monomers MonomerClass has type parameters, as well, so that I can put constraints on the sites; for example, a ConsumedMonomer cannot have a StaticStateSite. Furthermore, I need to collect all the monomers of a particular type to, say, collect all the monomers in a rule that are in the product, so I add a Manifest to each type parameter.
case class MonomerClass[
+StateSiteType <: StateSite : Manifest
](
stateSites: Seq[StateSiteType]
) {
type MyType = MonomerClass[StateSiteType]
def manifest = implicitly[Manifest[_ <: StateSiteType]]
// Method that demonstrates the need for implicit evidence
// This is where it gets bad
def replaceSiteWithIntersection[A >: StateSiteType <: ReactantStateSite](
thisSite: A, // This is a member of this.stateSites
monomer: ReactantMonomer
)(
// Only the sites on ReactantMonomers have the Observed property
implicit evidence: MyType <:< ReactantMonomer
): MyType = {
val new_this = evidence(this) // implicit evidence usually needs some help
monomer.stateSites.find(_.name == thisSite.name) match {
case Some(otherSite) =>
val newSites = stateSites map {
case `thisSite` => (
thisSite.asInstanceOf[StateSiteType with ReactantStateSite]
.createIntersection(otherSite).asInstanceOf[StateSiteType]
)
case other => other
}
copy(stateSites = newSites)
case None => this
}
}
}
type Monomer = MonomerClass[StateSite]
type ReactantMonomer = MonomerClass[ReactantStateSite]
type ProductMonomer = MonomerClass[ProductStateSite]
type ConsumedMonomer = MonomerClass[ConsumedStateSite]
type ProducedMonomer = MonomerClass[ProducedStateSite]
type StaticMonomer = MonomerClass[StaticStateSite]
My current implementation for StateSite does not have type parameters; it is a standard hierarchy of traits, terminating in classes that have a name and some Strings that represent the appropriate state. (Be nice about using strings to hold object states; they are actually name classes in my real code.) One important purpose of these traits is provide functionality that all the subclasses need. Well, isn't that the purpose of all traits. My traits are special in that many of the methods make small changes to a property of the object that is common to all subclasses of the trait and then return a copy. It would be preferable if the return type matched the underlying type of the object. The lame way to do this is to make all the trait methods abstract, and copy the desired methods into all the subclasses. I am unsure of the proper Scala way to do this. Some sources suggest a member type MyType that stores the underlying type (shown here). Other sources suggest a representation type parameter.
trait StateSite {
type MyType <: StateSite
def name: String
}
trait ReactantStateSite extends StateSite {
type MyType <: ReactantStateSite
def observed: Seq[String]
def stateCopy(observed: Seq[String]): MyType
def createIntersection(otherSite: ReactantStateSite): MyType = {
val newStates = observed.intersect(otherSite.observed)
stateCopy(newStates)
}
}
trait ProductStateSite extends StateSite
trait ConservedStateSite extends ReactantStateSite with ProductStateSite
case class ConsumedStateSite(name: String, consumed: Seq[String])
extends ReactantStateSite {
type MyType = ConsumedStateSite
def observed = consumed
def stateCopy(observed: Seq[String]) = copy(consumed = observed)
}
case class ProducedStateSite(name: String, Produced: String)
extends ProductStateSite
case class ChangedStateSite(
name: String,
consumed: Seq[String],
Produced: String
)
extends ConservedStateSite {
type MyType = ChangedStateSite
def observed = consumed
def stateCopy(observed: Seq[String]) = copy(consumed = observed)
}
case class StaticStateSite(name: String, static: Seq[String])
extends ConservedStateSite {
type MyType = StaticStateSite
def observed = static
def stateCopy(observed: Seq[String]) = copy(static = observed)
}
My biggest problems are with methods framed like MonomerClass.replaceSiteWithIntersection. A lot of methods do some complicated search for particular members of the class, then pass those members to other functions where complicated changes are made to them and return a copy, which then replaces the original in a copy of the higher-level object. How should I parameterize methods (or the classes) so that the calls are type safe? Right now I can get the code to compile only with lots of asInstanceOfs everywhere. Scala is particularly unhappy with passing instances of a type or member parameter around because of two main reasons that I can see: (1) the covariant type parameter ends up as input to any method that takes them as input, and (2) it is difficult to convince Scala that a method that returns a copy indeed returns an object with exactly the same type as was put in.
I have undoubtedly left some things that will not be clear to everyone. If there are any details I need to add, or excess details I need to delete, I will try to be quick to clear things up.
Edit
#0__ replaced the replaceSiteWithIntersection with a method that compiled without asInstanceOf. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to call the method without a type error. His code is essentially the first method in this new class for MonomerClass; I added the second method that calls it.
case class MonomerClass[+StateSiteType <: StateSite/* : Manifest*/](
stateSites: Seq[StateSiteType]) {
type MyType = MonomerClass[StateSiteType]
//def manifest = implicitly[Manifest[_ <: StateSiteType]]
def replaceSiteWithIntersection[A <: ReactantStateSite { type MyType = A }]
(thisSite: A, otherMonomer: ReactantMonomer)
(implicit ev: this.type <:< MonomerClass[A])
: MonomerClass[A] = {
val new_this = ev(this)
otherMonomer.stateSites.find(_.name == thisSite.name) match {
case Some(otherSite) =>
val newSites = new_this.stateSites map {
case `thisSite` => thisSite.createIntersection(otherSite)
case other => other
}
copy(stateSites = newSites)
case None => new_this // This throws an exception in the real program
}
}
// Example method that calls the previous method
def replaceSomeSiteOnThisOtherMonomer(otherMonomer: ReactantMonomer)
(implicit ev: MyType <:< ReactantMonomer): MyType = {
// Find a state that is a current member of this.stateSites
// Obviously, a more sophisticated means of selection is actually used
val thisSite = ev(this).stateSites(0)
// I can't get this to compile even with asInstanceOf
replaceSiteWithIntersection(thisSite, otherMonomer)
}
}
I have reduced your problem to traits, and I am starting to understand why you are getting into troubles with casts and abstract types.
What you are actually missing is ad-hoc polymorphism, which you obtain through the following:
- Writing a method with generic signature relying on an implicit of the same generic to delegate the work to
- Making the implicit available only for specific value of that generic parameter, which will turn into a "implicit not found" compile time error when you try to do something illegal.
Let's now look to the problem in order. The first is that the signature of your method is wrong for two reasons:
When replacing a site you want to create a new monomer of the new generic type, much as you do when you add to a collection an object which is a superclass of the existing generic type: you get a new collection whose type parameter is the superclass. You should yield this new Monomer as a result.
You are not sure that the operation will yield a result (in case you can't really replace a state). In such a case the right type it's Option[T]
def replaceSiteWithIntersection[A >: StateSiteType <: ReactantStateSite]
(thisSite: A, monomer: ReactantMonomer): Option[MonomerClass[A]]
If we now look digger in the type errors, we can see that the real type error comes from this method:
thisSite.createIntersection
The reason is simple: it's signature is not coherent with the rest of your types, because it accepts a ReactantSite but you want to call it passing as parameter one of your stateSites (which is of type Seq[StateSiteType] ) but you have no guarantee that
StateSiteType<:<ReactantSite
Now let's see how evidences can help you:
trait Intersector[T] {
def apply(observed: Seq[String]): T
}
trait StateSite {
def name: String
}
trait ReactantStateSite extends StateSite {
def observed: Seq[String]
def createIntersection[A](otherSite: ReactantStateSite)(implicit intersector: Intersector[A]): A = {
val newStates = observed.intersect(otherSite.observed)
intersector(newStates)
}
}
import Monomers._
trait MonomerClass[+StateSiteType <: StateSite] {
val stateSites: Seq[StateSiteType]
def replaceSiteWithIntersection[A >: StateSiteType <: ReactantStateSite](thisSite: A, otherMonomer: ReactantMonomer)(implicit intersector:Intersector[A], ev: StateSiteType <:< ReactantStateSite): Option[MonomerClass[A]] = {
def replaceOrKeep(condition: (StateSiteType) => Boolean)(f: (StateSiteType) => A)(implicit ev: StateSiteType<:<A): Seq[A] = {
stateSites.map {
site => if (condition(site)) f(site) else site
}
}
val reactantSiteToIntersect:Option[ReactantStateSite] = otherMonomer.stateSites.find(_.name == thisSite.name)
reactantSiteToIntersect.map {
siteToReplace =>
val newSites = replaceOrKeep {_ == thisSite } { item => thisSite.createIntersection( ev(item) ) }
MonomerClass(newSites)
}
}
}
object MonomerClass {
def apply[A <: StateSite](sites:Seq[A]):MonomerClass[A] = new MonomerClass[A] {
val stateSites = sites
}
}
object Monomers{
type Monomer = MonomerClass[StateSite]
type ReactantMonomer = MonomerClass[ReactantStateSite]
type ProductMonomer = MonomerClass[ProductStateSite]
type ProducedMonomer = MonomerClass[ProducedStateSite]
}
Please note that this pattern can be used with no special imports if you use in a clever way implicit resolving rules (for example you put your insector in the companion object of Intersector trait, so that it will be automatically resolved).
While this pattern works perfectly, there is a limitation connected to the fact that your solution works only for a specific StateSiteType. Scala collections solve a similar problem adding another implicit, which is call CanBuildFrom. In our case we will call it CanReact
You will have to make your MonomerClass invariant, which might be a problem though (why do you need covariance, however?)
trait CanReact[A, B] {
implicit val intersector: Intersector[B]
def react(a: A, b: B): B
def reactFunction(b:B) : A=>B = react(_:A,b)
}
object CanReact {
implicit def CanReactWithReactantSite[A<:ReactantStateSite](implicit inters: Intersector[A]): CanReact[ReactantStateSite,A] = {
new CanReact[ReactantStateSite,A] {
val intersector = inters
def react(a: ReactantStateSite, b: A) = a.createIntersection(b)
}
}
}
trait MonomerClass[StateSiteType <: StateSite] {
val stateSites: Seq[StateSiteType]
def replaceSiteWithIntersection[A >: StateSiteType <: ReactantStateSite](thisSite: A, otherMonomer: ReactantMonomer)(implicit canReact:CanReact[StateSiteType,A]): Option[MonomerClass[A]] = {
def replaceOrKeep(condition: (StateSiteType) => Boolean)(f: (StateSiteType) => A)(implicit ev: StateSiteType<:<A): Seq[A] = {
stateSites.map {
site => if (condition(site)) f(site) else site
}
}
val reactantSiteToIntersect:Option[ReactantStateSite] = otherMonomer.stateSites.find(_.name == thisSite.name)
reactantSiteToIntersect.map {
siteToReplace =>
val newSites = replaceOrKeep {_ == thisSite } { canReact.reactFunction(thisSite)}
MonomerClass(newSites)
}
}
}
With such an implementation, whenever you want to make the possibility to replace a site with another site of a different type, all you need is to make available new implicit instances of CanReact with different types.
I will conclude with a (I hope) clear explanation of why you should not need covariance.
Let's say you have a Consumer[T] and a Producer[T].
You need covariance when you want to provide to the Consumer[T1] a Producer[T2] where T2<:<T1 . But if you need to use the value produced by T2 inside T1, you can
class ConsumerOfStuff[T <: CanBeContained] {
def doWith(stuff: Stuff[T]) = stuff.t.writeSomething
}
trait CanBeContained {
def writeSomething: Unit
}
class A extends CanBeContained {
def writeSomething = println("hello")
}
class B extends A {
override def writeSomething = println("goodbye")
}
class Stuff[T <: CanBeContained](val t: T)
object VarianceTest {
val stuff1 = new Stuff(new A)
val stuff2 = new Stuff(new B)
val consumerOfStuff = new ConsumerOfStuff[A]
consumerOfStuff.doWith(stuff2)
}
This stuff clearly not compiles:
error: type mismatch; found : Stuff[B] required: Stuff[A] Note: B <:
A, but class Stuff is invariant in type T. You may wish to define T as
+T instead. (SLS 4.5) consumerOfStuff.doWith(stuff2).
But again, this come from a misinterpretation of usage of variance, as How are co- and contra-variance used in designing business applications? Kris Nuttycombe answer explain. If we refactor like the following
class ConsumerOfStuff[T <: CanBeContained] {
def doWith[A<:T](stuff: Stuff[A]) = stuff.t.writeSomething
}
You could see everything compiling fine.
Not an answer, but what I can observe from looking over the question:
I see MonomerClass but not Monomer
My guts say you should avoid manifests when possible, as you have seen they can make things complicated. I don't think you will need them. For example the justTheProductMonomers method in GraphClass – since you have complete control over your class hierarchy, why not add test methods for anything involving runtime checks to Monomer directly? E.g.
trait Monomer {
def productOption: Option[ProductMonomer]
}
then you'll have
def justTheProductMonomers : Seq[ProductMonomer] = monomers.flatMap( _.productOption )
and so forth.
The problem here is that it seems you can have a generic monomer satisfying the product predicate, while you somehow want sub-type ProductMonomer.
The general advise I would give is first to define your matrix of tests that you need to process the rules, and then put those tests as methods into the particular traits, unless you have a flat hierarchy for which you can do pattern matching, which is easier since the disambiguation will appear concentrated at your use site, and not spread across all implementing types.
Also don't try to overdue it with compile-time type constraints. Often it's perfectly fine to have some constraints checked at runtime. That way at least you can construct a fully working system, and then you can try to spot the points where you can convert a runtime check into a compile time check, and decide whether the effort is worth it or not. It is appealing to solve things on the type level in Scala, because of its sophistication, but it also requires the most skills to do it right.
There are multiple problems. First, the whole method is weird: On the one hand you passing in a monomer argument, and if the argument thisState is found, the method has nothing to do with the receiver—then why is this a method in MonomerClass at all and not a "free floating" function—, on the other hand you fall back to returning this if thisSite is not found. Since you originally had also implicit evidence: MyType <:< ReactantMonomer, my guess is the whole monomer argument is obsolete, and you actually wanted to operate on new_this.
A bit of cleanup, forgetting the manifests for the moment, you could have
case class MonomerClass[+StateSiteType <: StateSite, +EdgeSiteType <: EdgeSite](
stateSites: Seq[StateSiteType], edgeSites: Seq[EdgeSiteType]) {
def replaceSiteWithIntersection[A <: ReactantStateSite { type MyType = A }]
(thisSite: A)(implicit ev: this.type <:< MonomerClass[A, ReactantEdgeSite])
: MonomerClass[A, ReactantEdgeSite] = {
val monomer = ev(this)
monomer.stateSites.find(_.name == thisSite.name) match {
case Some(otherSite) =>
val newSites = monomer.stateSites map {
case `thisSite` => thisSite.createIntersection(otherSite)
case other => other
}
monomer.copy(stateSites = newSites)
case None => monomer
}
}
}
This was an interesting problem, it took me some iterations to get rid of the (wrong!) casting. Now it is actually quite readable: This method is restricted to the evidence that StateSiteType is actually a subtype A of ReactantStateSite. Therefore, the type parameter A <: ReactantStateSite { type MyType = A }—the last bit is interesting, and this was a new find for myself: You can specify the type member here to make sure that your return type from createIntersection is actually A.
There is still something odd with your method, because if I'm not mistaken, you will end up calling x.createIntersection(x) (intersecting thisSite with itself, which is a no-op).
One thing that is flawed about replaceSiteWithIntersection is that according to the method signature the type of thisSite (A) is a super-type of StateSiteType and a sub-type of ReactantStateSite.
But then you eventually cast it to StateSiteType with ReactantStateSite. That doesn't make sense to me.
Where do you get the assurance from that A suddenly is a StateSiteType?