I'd like an extractor to implicitly convert its parameters, but it doesn't seem to work. Consider this very simple case:
case class MyString(s: String) {}
implicit def string2mystring(x: String): MyString = new MyString(x)
implicit def mystring2string(x: MyString) = x.s
object Apply {
def unapply(s: MyString): Option[String] = Some(s)
}
But I'm not able to use it as I would expect:
val Apply(z) = "a" // error: scrutinee is incompatible with pattern type
Can anyone explain why it fails to convert the parameter from String to MyString? I would expect it to call string2mystring("a") on the fly. Clearly I could work around the issue by saying val Apply(y) = MyString("a"), but it doesn't seem like I should have to do that.
Note: This question is similar to this one, but 1) that one doesn't really have a good answer for why this is happening, 2) the example is more complex than it needs to be.
Implicit conversions are not applied when pattern matching. That's not a bug or a problem with your code, it's simply a design decision of the creators of Scala.
To fix it, you should write another extractor that accepts a String — which in turn can call your implicit conversion.
Alternatively, you can try with a view bound, which seems to work as well, and will also work if you later define other implicit conversions to MyString:
object Apply {
def unapply[S <% MyString](s: S): Option[String] = Some(s.s)
}
Related
I am trying to understand why exactly an implicit conversion is working in one case, but not in the other.
Here is an example:
case class Wrapper[T](wrapped: T)
trait Wrapping { implicit def wrapIt[T](x: Option[T]) = x.map(Wrapper(_))
class NotWorking extends Wrapping { def foo: Option[Wrapper[String]] = Some("foo") }
class Working extends Wrapping {
def foo: Option[Wrapper[String]] = {
val why = Some("foo")
why
}
}
Basically, I have an implicit conversion from Option[T] to Option[Wrapper[T]], and am trying to define a function, that returns an optional string, that gets implicitly wrapped.
The question is why, when I try to return Option[String] directly (NotWorking above), I get an error (found : String("foo") required: Wrapper[String]), that goes away if I assign the result to a val before returning it.
What gives?
I don't know if this is intended or would be considered a bug, but here is what I think is happening.
In def foo: Option[Wrapper[String]] = Some("foo") the compiler will set the expected type of the argument provided to Some( ) as Wrapper[String]. Then it sees that you provided a String which it is not what is expected, so it looks for an implicit conversion String => Wrapper[String], can't find one, and fails.
Why does it need that expected type stuff, and doesn't just type Some("foo") as Some[String] and afterwards try to find a conversion?
Because scalac wants to be able to typecheck the following code:
case class Invariant[T](t: T)
val a: Invariant[Any] = Invariant("s")
In order for this code to work, the compiler can't just type Invariant("s") as Invariant[String] because then compilation will fail as Invariant[String] is not a subtype of Invariant[Any]. The compiler needs to set the expected type of "s" to Any so that it can see that "s" is an instance of Any before it's too late.
In order for both this code and your code to work out correctly, I think the compiler would need some kind of backtracking logic which it doesn't seem to have, perhaps for good reasons.
The reason that your Working code does work, is that this kind of type inference does not span multiple lines. Analogously val a: Invariant[Any] = {val why = Invariant("s"); why} does not compile.
I'm trying to write a method which uses the isEmpty method on types String, Option and List. These classes don't share a common base trait with that method, so I've tried to pass an implicit EmptyChecker in with them:
trait EmptyChecker[Field] {
def isEmpty(data: Field): Boolean
}
implicit val StringEmptyChecker: EmptyChecker[String] = new EmptyChecker[String] {
def isEmpty(string: String): Boolean = string.isEmpty
}
def printEmptiness[Field](field: Field)(implicit emptyChecker: EmptyChecker[Field]): Unit = {
if (emptyChecker.isEmpty(field))
println("Empty")
else
println("Not empty")
}
printEmptiness("abc") // Works fine
The String empty checker works fine, but I've hit problems with making empty checkers for type constructors like Option and List.
For example, Option doesn't work:
implicit val OptionChecker: EmptyChecker[Option[_]] = new EmptyChecker[Option[_]] {
def isEmpty(option: Option[_]): Boolean = option.isEmpty
}
// Both fail compilation: "could not find implicit value for parameter emptyChecker: EmptyChecker[Some[Int]]
printEmptiness(Some(3))
printEmptiness[Option[Int]](Some(3))
If I use a specific Option[Int] checker, it works a little better, but is a bit ugly:
implicit val OptionIntChecker: EmptyChecker[Option[Int]] = new EmptyChecker[Option[Int]] {
def isEmpty(optionInt: Option[Int]): Boolean = optionInt.isEmpty
}
// Fails like above:
printEmptiness(Some(3))
// Passes compilation:
printEmptiness[Option[Int]](Some(3))
So my question is: is it possible to make a single EmptyChecker for each Option and List type and have them work with my method without needing to explicitly declare the type whenever I call it? I'm trying to get a type safe duck typing effect.
I'm using scala 2.11.6.
Thanks in advance!
The source of your problem is that the type of Some(1) is Some[Int], not Option[Int]. There are a couple of ways around this; you can explicitly upcast the expression with a type ascription: printEmptiness(Some(3): Option[Int]). Alternatively, you can define a helper method to do this for you automatically, and if you're using Scalaz, there's one of these provided:
import scalaz.syntax.std.option._
printEmptiness(3.some)
Furthermore if you do use Scalaz, you may find looking at the PlusEmpty/ApplicativePlus/MonadPlus type classes useful.
I represented my data model as case classes typing values that may be null as Option.
case class Document(id: Long, title: String, subtitle: Option[String])
Now I try to instantiate the case class:
Document(123, "The Title", "Subtitle") // Doesn't work
But NOPE! This doesn't work, I have to wrap the optional value in a Some.
Document(123, "The Title", Some("Subtitle")) // Works
Scala is very clever about types in general, but why is it not self-evident that a hard coded literal, or (any string for that matter) is a different than null/None?
I was able to fix this and make Scala "more clever" by adding this implicit conversion
implicit def autoSome[T](any:T) = Some(any)
Document(123, "The Title", "Subtitle") // Now it works!
Question: Am I the only one that the language should provide implicit conversion T -> Some(T) out of the box? Or is there any gotchas that I'm not aware of about having so broad implicit everywhere by default?
This can cause untold number of problems. The issue here isn't what you might think but what you don't think could happen. That is, if you make another implicit class that works on Option types you could wind up creating artificial results that you never intended to happen, i.e. operators for your overloaded types being present in your non-overloaded types.
implicit class OptDouble(opt: Option[Double]) extends Any{
def *(x: Double) = Some((opt getOrElse 0.0) * x)
def ^(x: Double) = Some(Math.power(opt getOrElse 1.0, x))
}
val z = q^4.5
The type of z is Option[Double]. You wouldn't expect that to happen but first Scala did an implicit conversion to Option and then it used the implicit class to call the ^ operator. Now people looking at your code are going to be scratching their heads wondering why they have an Option. You might start seeing a few defensive x getOrElse 0.0 sprinkled around the code as people fight to keep Option away (and yes, this is from personal experience.)
That said, what you should do is use another apply on the object:
object Document{
def apply(id: Long, title: String, subtitle: String) = new Document(id, title, Some(subtitle))
}
which will do everything you wanted it to do as long as you don't have a default defined for subtitle, i.e. subtitle: Option[String] = None.
Most problems pointed out earlier can easily be fixed with a small change to the implicit:
implict def autoOpt[T](x: T): Option[T] = Option(x)
I can't really think of a good reason scala does not provide this conversion as a part of the default library of implicit converters.
The fact that implicts make code harder to understand can be used as an argument against using any implicit, but not as one against using this particular one
That's a pretty dangerous implementation:
scala> val s: String = null
s: String = null
scala> Document(123, "The Title", s)
res2: Document = Document(123,The Title,Some(null))
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
Is this an opportunity to make things a bit more efficient (for the prorammer): I find it gets a bit tiresome having to wrap things in Some, e.g. Some(5). What about something like this:
implicit def T2OptionT( x : T) : Option[T] = if ( x == null ) None else Some(x)
You would lose some type safety and possibly cause confusion.
For example:
val iThinkThisIsAList = 2
for (i <- iThinkThisIsAList) yield { i + 1 }
I (for whatever reason) thought I had a list, and it didn't get caught by the compiler when I iterated over it because it was auto-converted to an Option[Int].
I should add that I think this is a great implicit to have explicitly imported, just probably not a global default.
Note that you could use the explicit implicit pattern which would avoid confusion and keep code terse at the same time.
What I mean by explicit implicit is rather than have a direct conversion from T to Option[T] you could have a conversion to a wrapper object which provides the means to do the conversion from T to Option[T].
class Optionable[T <: AnyRef](value: T) {
def toOption: Option[T] = if ( value == null ) None else Some(value)
}
implicit def anyRefToOptionable[T <: AnyRef](value: T) = new Optionable(value)
... I might find a better name for it than Optionable, but now you can write code like:
val x: String = "foo"
x.toOption // Some("foo")
val y: String = null
x.toOption // None
I believe that this way is fully transparent and aids in the understanding of the written code - eliminating all checks for null in a nice way.
Note the T <: AnyRef - you should only do this implicit conversion for types that allow null values, which by definition are reference types.
The general guidelines for implicit conversions are as follows:
When you need to add members to a type (a la "open classes"; aka the "pimp my library" pattern), convert to a new type which extends AnyRef and which only defines the members you need.
When you need to "correct" an inheritance hierarchy. Thus, you have some type A which should have subclassed B, but didn't for some reason. In that case, you can define an implicit conversion from A to B.
These are the only cases where it is appropriate to define an implicit conversion. Any other conversion runs into type safety and correctness issues in a hurry.
It really doesn't make any sense for T to extend Option[T], and obviously the purpose of the conversion is not simply the addition of members. Thus, such a conversion would be inadvisable.
It would seem that this could be confusing to other developers, as they read your code.
Generally, it seems, implicit works to help cast from one object to another, to cut out confusing casting code that can clutter code, but, if I have some variable and it somehow becomes a Some then that would seem to be bothersome.
You may want to put some code showing it being used, to see how confusing it would be.
You could also try to overload the method :
def having(key:String) = having(key, None)
def having(key:String, default:String) = having(key, Some(default))
def having(key: String, default: Option[String]=Option.empty) : Create = {
keys += ( (key, default) )
this
}
That looks good to me, except it may not work for a primitive T (which can't be null). I guess a non-specialized generic always gets boxed primitives, so probably it's fine.