In scala, we cannot extend object:
object X
object Y extends X
gives an error error: not found: type X
In my case someone has defined some functionality in an object and I need to extend it (basically add another method). What would be the easiest way to extend this object?
As so often the correct answer depends on the actual business requirement. Extending from an object would in some sense defy the purpose of that object since it wouldn't be a singleton any longer.
What might be a solution is to extract the behavior into an abstract trait. And create objects extending that trait like so:
trait T{
// some behavior goes here
}
object X extends T
object Y extends T {
// additional stuff here
}
If you want use methods and values from another object you can use import.
object X{
def x = 5
}
object Y{
import X._
val y = x
}
You can't actually extend an object, because that would create two of it, and an object by definition exists only once (edit: well, that's not quite true, because the object definition can be in a class or method).
For your purposes, try this:
object X {
}
object Y {
def a = 5
}
implicit def xToY(x: X.type) = Y
println(X.a)
It doesn't actually extend, but it does allow you to call new methods on it than were originally defined.
The only way to share code between two objects is by having one or more common superclass/trait.
Note that starting in Scala 3, you can alternatively use composition (instead of inheritance) via export clauses which allow defining aliases for selected members of an object:
object X { def f = 5 }
object Y {
export X._
def g = 42
def h = f * g
}
Y.f // 5
Y.g // 42
Y.h // 210
Note that you can also restrict which members you want to export:
object X { def f = 5; def g = 6 }
object Y { export X.f }
Y.f // 5
Y.g
^^^
value g is not a member of Y
You can convert parent into class + companion object, and then have child extend class E.g.
in Parent.scala
class Parent {}
object Parent extends Parent {}
And then in Child.scala
object Child extends Parent {}
Yes, it's more a hack than a solution.
This is a Scala 3 of Owen's answer: You can extend a companion object using extensions.
object X:
def a = 5
end X
// Somewhere else, another file where X is visible
extension (x: X.type)
def b = 42
end extension
// Somewhere else, another file where
// both X and the extension are visible
#main def main =
println(X.a)
println(X.b)
Related
I have something like below that I want to compile
trait T{
def a: Int
}
class A private(val a: Int, a2: Int) extends T{
def add(b: Int): A = new A(a + b, a2 + 2*b)
}
object T{
def make(a: Int): A = {
new A(a, 2*a) // doesn't compile
}
Here class A has a private constructor because I want the only way to construct a A is to pass through the constructor T.make or with the updated method A.add (which in this example both garantie that a2 = 2*a).
But because A constructor is private, it cannot be access by the parent trait T. Same goes for protected. Basically, I would need an inversed protected?
Note: A solution that is not satisfying is to lower (too much) the restriction on A constructor, maybe to package-private. But I don't want any other construction possible but the ones that were planned. I could lower the constraint to all code in the current file, but I don't know how to do that either.
A few options.
You can rename your object T to object A - then it will have access to A's private members
You can make class A inner to object T - then you can make the constructor private[T], and T will have access to it.
You can also make it package-private. You are mistaken when you say that it would be "lowering restriction too much". A package in scala doesn't have to be an entire directory. It doesn't even need to be the whole file. You have complete control over its content, and the purpose of that is to be able to do exactly what you are trying to do here.
Maybe you should put make(..) into companion object of class A rather than companion object of trait T.
object A {
def make(a: Int): A = {
new A(a, 2 * a)
}
}
I am fairly new to Scala and trying to do some code reuse. I have two enums AB and AC, both extend A which is a trait with some common methods.
object AB extends A[AB]{
val X = Value("x")
}
object AC extends A[AC]{
val Y = Value("y")
}
trait A[T] extends Enumeration{
def getProperty(prop: T.Value): String = {
//some code that uses prop.toString
}
I am trying to have a getProperty method that will restrict users to only Enums from the enumeration that it is being called upon.
if I call AB.getProperty() than i should be able to pass only X. if I call AC.getProperty than I should be able to pass only Y
If I have to redesign my classes that is fine. Please let me know how I can achieve this.
Thanks in advance
I am not sure what ConfigProperties is in your code, and why you need the type parameters, but the answer to your question is, declare the parameter type in geProperty as Value -> getProperty(prop: Value).
Value is a nested abstract class in Enumeration, so it will be expanded by the compiler respectively to AB.Value and XY.Value, depending on the instance. A simplified example which you can test in the REPL:
object AB extends A {
val A = Value('A')
val B = Value('B')
}
object XY extends A {
val X = Value('X')
val Y = Value('Y')
}
trait A extends Enumeration {
def getProperty(prop: Value): String = {
//some code that uses prop.toString
prop.toString()
}
}
AB.getProperty(AB.A) // OK
XY.getProperty(XY.Y) // Also OK
// AB.getProperty(XY.X) <- this won't compile
// Error:(21, 20) type mismatch;
// found : A$A238.this.XY.Value
// required: A$A238.this.AB.Value
// AB.getProperty(XY.X)
//
I have something like the following code (I simplified it):
trait A {
val CONST_VALUE = 10
}
class B(someValue: Int, values: Array[Int]) extends A {
//some methods
}
object B {
def apply(someValue: Int) = B(someValue, Array.ofDim[Array[Byte]](someValue).map(block => Array.fill[Byte](A.CONST_VALUE)(0)))
}
Basically, I declared a constant CONST_VALUE in the trait A. I am trying to use it in the companion object B to instantiate the class B. However, I can't access A.CONST_VALUE from the companion object B.(I'm getting a compilation error).
So how could I do this?
You can't do this.
First of all, object B is the companion object to class B, not to trait A. Companions need to have the same name and be defined in the same compilation unit.
Secondly, CONST_VALUE is an instance field of trait A. It is a member of an instance of A, not a member of A.
Thirdly, when you say A.CONST_VALUE you are basically calling the method CONST_VALUE on A. But you can only call methods on objects/values. A is not an object, it is a type, types and values live in different worlds, you cannot mix the two.
And fourth, your CONSTANT_VALUE is misleadingly named: only final vals are constant value definitions, so your CONSTANT_VALUE is not actually a constant value.
Fifth, your apply method calls itself (B() is syntactic sugar for B.apply()), and thus needs a return type annotation.
Sixth, your apply method calls itself with two arguments, but it is defined with only one parameter.
Seventh, you create an Array[Array[Byte]], but it is not clear to me why you want to do that and what you need it for.
That's a whole truckload of problems (especially considering that there are only a handful of lines of code to begin with), which you need to fix one-by-one. Here's one possible partial solution, but it is not clear to me what it is exactly that you are trying to achieve.
trait A
object A {
final val CONST_VALUE = 10
}
class B(someValue: Int, values: Array[Int]) extends A {
//some methods
}
object B {
def apply(someValue: Int): B = new B(
someValue,
Array.ofDim[Array[Byte]](someValue).map(block => Array.fill[Byte](A.CONST_VALUE)(0)))
}
Declare val CONST_VALUE = 10 inside the companion object A instead of trait A. Also corrected the apply method definition in object B
trait A {
}
object A {
final val CONST_VALUE = 10
}
class B(someValue: Int, values: Array[Int]) extends A {
//some methods
}
object B {
def apply(someValue: Int) = new B(someValue, Array.ofDim[Int](someValue).flatMap(block => Array.fill[Int](A.CONST_VALUE)(0)))
}
New to scala and trying to get the hang of the class system. Here's a simple set up:
sealed trait Shape{
def sides:Int
}
final case class Square() extends Shape {
def sides() = 4
}
final case class Triangle() extends Shape {
def sides() = 3
}
Now, I want to create a function that takes anything of type shape, which we know will have a sides() method implemented, and make use of that method.
def someFunction(a: Shape)={
val aShape = a()
aShape.sides()
}
But this hits an error at val aShape = a(), as there's no type a.
I realize that in this example, it's excessive to create someFunction, since sides() can be accessed directly from the objects. But my primary question is in the context of someFunction - I'd like to pass a class to a function, and instantiate an object of that class and then do something with that object. Thanks for your help.
What are you trying to do with that line of code? You already have a shape, the one passed in called a. Just remove that line and call a.sides().
Stylistically, there are several problems. First of all, class names should start with a capital letter. Second, sides seems like an immutable property, not a mutating method, so it should be declared and overridden with no parentheses. You also need override modifiers in your subclass. Last, you can do without the empty braces: {4} should just be 4.
There is several methods to do this. One is a complex one using reflection, second is little bit simplier, using a builder and third is most straightforward for your use case.
Just change definition of someFunction to
def someFunction(a: ()=>Shape)={
val aShape = a()
aShape.sides
}
so someFunction(Square) return 4 and someFunction(Triangle) returns 3 . Note this work only with case classes because real thing, we are passing here is not class itself, but it's auto-generated companion object
But more often there no need to define classes, you could write inside any context except top level thing just like
def square() = new Shape{
def sides() = 4
}
def triangle() = new Shape{
def sides() = 3
}
Next thing: methods with empty parameter list are generally reading as method that have side effects. So it is more convenient to define your type like
sealed trait Shape{
def sides:Int
}
and if you define your builders like
def square = new Shape{
def sides = 4
}
def triangle = new Shape{
def sides = 3
}
you should use them as someFunction(square _) telling, that you gonna use method call and not the value it's returning
And last thing is: if you really need the code, that creates some object, but it could contain complex computations, resource handling or some probable exception, so you want to hold over it's execution until it' really needed, you could use call-by-name parameters which is equivalent to R , which i assume you are familiar with
Unless shape has an apply function, you cannot call () on a shape object.
If you want to assign aShape to a, simply write val aShape = a.
But since I do not see the added value, you might as well call the sides function directly on a:
def someFunction(a:shape) = {
val sides = a.sides
// use sides
}
This is the closest translation for what you wrote:
sealed trait Shape {
def sides: Int
}
case object Square extends Shape {
override val sides = 4
}
case object Triangle extends Shape {
override val sides = 3
}
def someFunction(a: Shape) =
val shapeSides = a.sides
Some notes:
Classes in scala should be CamelCase
Your subclasses have no instance members, so you can use a singleton object
You if you have a: Shape it means that a is a Shape, and you haven't defined anything that would let you call () on it.
You can omit braces when there's only one expression inside
You can override a def with val if it's static
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.