I need all the method names in a scala trait I've defined. I know this sounds like a trivial problem but I could not find any answers relating to the trait, they all revolved around classes.
To be specific, I need names for all the abstract methods. But if I can get the name of all methods regardless of abstract or not, that works too.
Say I have this trait A
trait A {
def myDefinedInt: Int = 2
def myAbstractString: String
}
I need a list of all methods (or preferably just the abstract ones)
I'm relatively new to scala so although I get classes and interfaces. Traits are new to me.
Thanks in advance!
You can get all methods with getDeclaredMethods and then just filter for abstract methods:
import java.lang.reflect.Modifier
classOf[A]
.getDeclaredMethods
.filter(m => Modifier.isAbstract(m.getModifiers))
.map(_.getName)
.foreach(println)
It prints: myAbstractString.
When using a macro to materialize an implementation of a trait, I'd like to create the implementation within a package so that it has access to other package-private classes.
trait MyTrait[T]
object MyTrait {
implicit def materialize[T]: MyTrait[T] = macro materializeImpl[T]
def materializeImpl[T : c.WeakTypeTag](c: blackbox.Context): c.Expr[MyTrait[T]] = {
val tt = weakTypeTag[T]
c.Expr[MyTrait[T]](q"new MyTrait[$tt] {}")
}
}
Is it possible to materialize new MyTrait[$tt] {} within a particular package?
A macro has to expand into an AST which would compile in the place the macro call is in. Since package declarations are only allowed at top-level, and method calls aren't allowed there, the expanded tree can't create anything in another package.
As Alexey Romanov pointed out this is not possible directly. Still if you call only a few methods (and if you use macro, most probably this is so), one possible (but not perfect) workaround might be creating a public abstract class or trait that extends the target trait and "publishes" all the required package private methods as protected proxies. So you can create instances in your macro from inheriting from that abstract class rather than trait. Obviously this trick effectively "leaks" those methods to anyone but thanks to reflection anyone can call any method if he really wants. And abusing this trick will show as deliberate effort to circumvent your separation as the usage of the reflection.
I want to declare a class like this:
class StringSetCreate(val s: String*) {
// ...
}
and call that in Java. The problem is that the constructor is of type
public StringSetCreate(scala.collection.Seq)
So in java, you need to fiddle around with the scala sequences which is ugly.
I know that there is the #annotation.varargs annotation which, if used on a method, generates a second method which takes the java varargs.
This annotation does not work on constructors, at least I don't know where to put it. I found a Scala Issue SI-8383 which reports this problem. As far as I understand there is no solution currently. Is this right? Are there any workarounds? Can I somehow define that second constructor by hand?
The bug is already filed as https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-8383 .
For a workaround I'd recommend using a factory method (perhaps on the companion object), where #varargs should work:
object StringSetCreate {
#varargs def build(s: String*) = new StringSetCreate(s: _*)
}
Then in Java you call StringSetCreate.build("a", "b") rather than using new.
As I understand from this blog post "type classes" in Scala is just a "pattern" implemented with traits and implicit adapters.
As the blog says if I have trait A and an adapter B -> A then I can invoke a function, which requires argument of type A, with an argument of type B without invoking this adapter explicitly.
I found it nice but not particularly useful. Could you give a use case/example, which shows what this feature is useful for ?
One use case, as requested...
Imagine you have a list of things, could be integers, floating point numbers, matrices, strings, waveforms, etc. Given this list, you want to add the contents.
One way to do this would be to have some Addable trait that must be inherited by every single type that can be added together, or an implicit conversion to an Addable if dealing with objects from a third party library that you can't retrofit interfaces to.
This approach becomes quickly overwhelming when you also want to begin adding other such operations that can be done to a list of objects. It also doesn't work well if you need alternatives (for example; does adding two waveforms concatenate them, or overlay them?) The solution is ad-hoc polymorphism, where you can pick and chose behaviour to be retrofitted to existing types.
For the original problem then, you could implement an Addable type class:
trait Addable[T] {
def zero: T
def append(a: T, b: T): T
}
//yup, it's our friend the monoid, with a different name!
You can then create implicit subclassed instances of this, corresponding to each type that you wish to make addable:
implicit object IntIsAddable extends Addable[Int] {
def zero = 0
def append(a: Int, b: Int) = a + b
}
implicit object StringIsAddable extends Addable[String] {
def zero = ""
def append(a: String, b: String) = a + b
}
//etc...
The method to sum a list then becomes trivial to write...
def sum[T](xs: List[T])(implicit addable: Addable[T]) =
xs.FoldLeft(addable.zero)(addable.append)
//or the same thing, using context bounds:
def sum[T : Addable](xs: List[T]) = {
val addable = implicitly[Addable[T]]
xs.FoldLeft(addable.zero)(addable.append)
}
The beauty of this approach is that you can supply an alternative definition of some typeclass, either controlling the implicit you want in scope via imports, or by explicitly providing the otherwise implicit argument. So it becomes possible to provide different ways of adding waveforms, or to specify modulo arithmetic for integer addition. It's also fairly painless to add a type from some 3rd-party library to your typeclass.
Incidentally, this is exactly the approach taken by the 2.8 collections API. Though the sum method is defined on TraversableLike instead of on List, and the type class is Numeric (it also contains a few more operations than just zero and append)
Reread the first comment there:
A crucial distinction between type classes and interfaces is that for class A to be a "member" of an interface it must declare so at the site of its own definition. By contrast, any type can be added to a type class at any time, provided you can provide the required definitions, and so the members of a type class at any given time are dependent on the current scope. Therefore we don't care if the creator of A anticipated the type class we want it to belong to; if not we can simply create our own definition showing that it does indeed belong, and then use it accordingly. So this not only provides a better solution than adapters, in some sense it obviates the whole problem adapters were meant to address.
I think this is the most important advantage of type classes.
Also, they handle properly the cases where the operations don't have the argument of the type we are dispatching on, or have more than one. E.g. consider this type class:
case class Default[T](val default: T)
object Default {
implicit def IntDefault: Default[Int] = Default(0)
implicit def OptionDefault[T]: Default[Option[T]] = Default(None)
...
}
I think of type classes as the ability to add type safe metadata to a class.
So you first define a class to model the problem domain and then think of metadata to add to it. Things like Equals, Hashable, Viewable, etc. This creates a separation of the problem domain and the mechanics to use the class and opens up subclassing because the class is leaner.
Except for that, you can add type classes anywhere in the scope, not just where the class is defined and you can change implementations. For example, if I calculate a hash code for a Point class by using Point#hashCode, then I'm limited to that specific implementation which may not create a good distribution of values for the specific set of Points I have. But if I use Hashable[Point], then I may provide my own implementation.
[Updated with example]
As an example, here's a use case I had last week. In our product there are several cases of Maps containing containers as values. E.g., Map[Int, List[String]] or Map[String, Set[Int]]. Adding to these collections can be verbose:
map += key -> (value :: map.getOrElse(key, List()))
So I wanted to have a function that wraps this so I could write
map +++= key -> value
The main issue is that the collections don't all have the same methods for adding elements. Some have '+' while others ':+'. I also wanted to retain the efficiency of adding elements to a list, so I didn't want to use fold/map which create new collections.
The solution is to use type classes:
trait Addable[C, CC] {
def add(c: C, cc: CC) : CC
def empty: CC
}
object Addable {
implicit def listAddable[A] = new Addable[A, List[A]] {
def empty = Nil
def add(c: A, cc: List[A]) = c :: cc
}
implicit def addableAddable[A, Add](implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Add, A, Add]) = new Addable[A, Add] {
def empty = cbf().result
def add(c: A, cc: Add) = (cbf(cc) += c).result
}
}
Here I defined a type class Addable that can add an element C to a collection CC. I have 2 default implementations: For Lists using :: and for other collections, using the builder framework.
Then using this type class is:
class RichCollectionMap[A, C, B[_], M[X, Y] <: collection.Map[X, Y]](map: M[A, B[C]])(implicit adder: Addable[C, B[C]]) {
def updateSeq[That](a: A, c: C)(implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[M[A, B[C]], (A, B[C]), That]): That = {
val pair = (a -> adder.add(c, map.getOrElse(a, adder.empty) ))
(map + pair).asInstanceOf[That]
}
def +++[That](t: (A, C))(implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[M[A, B[C]], (A, B[C]), That]): That = updateSeq(t._1, t._2)(cbf)
}
implicit def toRichCollectionMap[A, C, B[_], M[X, Y] <: col
The special bit is using adder.add to add the elements and adder.empty to create new collections for new keys.
To compare, without type classes I would have had 3 options:
1. to write a method per collection type. E.g., addElementToSubList and addElementToSet etc. This creates a lot of boilerplate in the implementation and pollutes the namespace
2. to use reflection to determine if the sub collection is a List / Set. This is tricky as the map is empty to begin with (of course scala helps here also with Manifests)
3. to have poor-man's type class by requiring the user to supply the adder. So something like addToMap(map, key, value, adder), which is plain ugly
Yet another way I find this blog post helpful is where it describes typeclasses: Monads Are Not Metaphors
Search the article for typeclass. It should be the first match. In this article, the author provides an example of a Monad typeclass.
The forum thread "What makes type classes better than traits?" makes some interesting points:
Typeclasses can very easily represent notions that are quite difficult to represent in the presence of subtyping, such as equality and ordering.
Exercise: create a small class/trait hierarchy and try to implement .equals on each class/trait in such a way that the operation over arbitrary instances from the hierarchy is properly reflexive, symmetric, and transitive.
Typeclasses allow you to provide evidence that a type outside of your "control" conforms with some behavior.
Someone else's type can be a member of your typeclass.
You cannot express "this method takes/returns a value of the same type as the method receiver" in terms of subtyping, but this (very useful) constraint is straightforward using typeclasses. This is the f-bounded types problem (where an F-bounded type is parameterized over its own subtypes).
All operations defined on a trait require an instance; there is always a this argument. So you cannot define for example a fromString(s:String): Foo method on trait Foo in such a way that you can call it without an instance of Foo.
In Scala this manifests as people desperately trying to abstract over companion objects.
But it is straightforward with a typeclass, as illustrated by the zero element in this monoid example.
Typeclasses can be defined inductively; for example, if you have a JsonCodec[Woozle] you can get a JsonCodec[List[Woozle]] for free.
The example above illustrates this for "things you can add together".
One way to look at type classes is that they enable retroactive extension or retroactive polymorphism. There are a couple of great posts by Casual Miracles and Daniel Westheide that show examples of using Type Classes in Scala to achieve this.
Here's a post on my blog
that explores various methods in scala of retroactive supertyping, a kind of retroactive extension, including a typeclass example.
I don't know of any other use case than Ad-hoc polymorhism which is explained here the best way possible.
Both implicits and typeclasses are used for Type-conversion. The major use-case for both of them is to provide ad-hoc polymorphism(i.e) on classes that you can't modify but expect inheritance kind of polymorphism. In case of implicits you could use both an implicit def or an implicit class (which is your wrapper class but hidden from the client). Typeclasses are more powerful as they can add functionality to an already existing inheritance chain(eg: Ordering[T] in scala's sort function).
For more detail you can see https://lakshmirajagopalan.github.io/diving-into-scala-typeclasses/
In scala type classes
Enables ad-hoc polymorphism
Statically typed (i.e. type-safe)
Borrowed from Haskell
Solves the expression problem
Behavior can be extended
- at compile-time
- after the fact
- without changing/recompiling existing code
Scala Implicits
The last parameter list of a method can be marked implicit
Implicit parameters are filled in by the compiler
In effect, you require evidence of the compiler
… such as the existence of a type class in scope
You can also specify parameters explicitly, if needed
Below Example extension on String class with type class implementation extends the class with a new methods even though string is final :)
/**
* Created by nihat.hosgur on 2/19/17.
*/
case class PrintTwiceString(val original: String) {
def printTwice = original + original
}
object TypeClassString extends App {
implicit def stringToString(s: String) = PrintTwiceString(s)
val name: String = "Nihat"
name.printTwice
}
This is an important difference (needed for functional programming):
consider inc:Num a=> a -> a:
a received is the same that is returned, this cannot be done with subtyping
I like to use type classes as a lightweight Scala idiomatic form of Dependency Injection that still works with circular dependencies yet doesn't add a lot of code complexity. I recently rewrote a Scala project from using the Cake Pattern to type classes for DI and achieved a 59% reduction in code size.
I'm writing a wrapper that takes a Scala ObservableBuffer and fires events compatible with the Eclipse/JFace Databinding framework.
In the Databinding framework, there is an abstract ObservableList that decorates a normal Java list. I wanted to reuse this base class, but even this simple code fails:
val list = new java.util.ArrayList[Int]
val obsList = new ObservableList(list, null) {}
with errors:
illegal inheritance; anonymous class $anon inherits different type instances of trait Collection: java.util.Collection[E] and java.util.Collection[E]
illegal inheritance; anonymous class $anon inherits different type instances of trait Iterable: java.lang.Iterable[E] and java.lang.Iterable[E]
Why? Does it have to do with raw types? ObservableList implements IObservableList, which extends the raw type java.util.List. Is this expected behavior, and how can I work around it?
Having a Java raw type in the inheritance hierarchy causes this kind of problem. One solution is to write a tiny bit of Java to fix up the raw type as in the answer for Scala class cant override compare method from Java Interface which extends java.util.comparator
For more about why raw types are problematic for scala see this bug http://lampsvn.epfl.ch/trac/scala/ticket/1737 . That bug has a workaround using existential types that probably won't work for this particular case, at least not without a lot of casting, because the java.util.List type parameter is in both co and contra variant positions.
From looking at the javadoc the argument of the constructor isn't parameterized.
I'd try this:
val list = new java.util.ArrayList[_]
val obsList = new ObservableList(list, null) {}