As an exercise, I'd like to extend the Scala Array collection to my own OneBasedArray (does what you'd expect, indexing starts from 1). Since this is an immutable collection, I'd like to have it return the correct type when calling filter/map etc.
I've read the resources here, here and here, but am struggling to understand how to translate this to Arrays (or collections other than the ones in the examples). Am I on the right track with this sort of structure?
class OneBasedArray[T]
extends Array[T]
with GenericTraversableTemplate[T, OneBasedArray]
with ArrayLike[T, OneBasedArray]
Are there any further resources that help explain extending collections?
For a in depth overview of new collections API: The Scala 2.8 Collections API
For a nice view of the relation between main classes and traits this
By the way I don't think Array is a collection in Scala.
Here is an example of pimping iterables with a method that always returns the expected runtime type of the iterable it operates on:
import scala.collection.generic.CanBuildFrom
trait MapOrElse[A] {
val underlying: Iterable[A]
def mapOrElse[B, To]
(m: A => Unit)
(pf: PartialFunction[A,B])
(implicit cbf: CanBuildFrom[Iterable[A], B, To])
: To = {
var builder = cbf(underlying.repr)
for (a <- underlying) if (pf.isDefinedAt(a)) builder += pf(a) else m(a)
builder.result
}
}
implicit def toMapOrElse[A](it: Iterable[A]): MapOrElse[A] =
new MapOrElse[A] {val underlying = it}
The new function mapOrElse is similar to the collect function but it allows you to pass a method m: A => Unit in addition to a partial function pf that is invoked whenever pf is undefined. m can for example be a logging method.
An Array is not a Traversable -- trying to work with that as a base class will cause all sorts of problems. Also, it is not immutable either, which makes it completely unsuited to what you want. Finally, Array is an implementation -- try to inherit from traits or abstract classes.
Array isn't a typical Scala collection... It's simply a Java array that's pimped to look like a collection by way of implicit conversions.
Given the messed-up variance of Java Arrays, you really don't want to be using them without an extremely compelling reason, as they're a source of lurking bugs.
(see here: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Java-Puzzlers)
Creaking a 1-based collection like this isn't really a good idea either, as you have no way of knowing how many other collection methods rely on the assumption that sequences are 0-based. So to do it safely (if you really must) you'll want add a new method that leaves the default one unchanged:
class OneBasedLookup[T](seq:Seq) {
def atIdx(i:Int) = seq(i-1)
}
implicit def seqHasOneBasedLookup(seq:Seq) = new OneBasedLookup(seq)
// now use `atIdx` on any sequence.
Even safer still, you can create a Map[Int,T], with the indices being one-based
(Iterator.from(1) zip seq).toMap
This is arguably the most "correct" solution, although it will also carry the highest performance cost.
Not an array, but here's a one-based immutable IndexedSeq implementation that I recently put together. I followed the example given here where they implement an RNA class. Between that example, the ScalaDocs, and lots of "helpful" compiler errors, I managed to get it set up correctly. The fact that OneBasedSeq is genericized made it a little more complex than the RNA example. Also, in addition to the traits extended and methods overridden in the example, I had to extend IterableLike and override the iterator method, because various methods call that method behind the scenes, and the default iterator is zero-based.
Please pardon any stylistic or idiomadic oddities; I've been programming in Scala for less than 2 months.
import collection.{IndexedSeqLike, IterableLike}
import collection.generic.CanBuildFrom
import collection.mutable.{Builder, ArrayBuffer}
// OneBasedSeq class
final class OneBasedSeq[T] private (s: Seq[T]) extends IndexedSeq[T]
with IterableLike[T, OneBasedSeq[T]] with IndexedSeqLike[T, OneBasedSeq[T]]
{
private val innerSeq = s.toIndexedSeq
def apply(idx: Int): T = innerSeq(idx - 1)
def length: Int = innerSeq.length
override def iterator: Iterator[T] = new OneBasedSeqIterator(this)
override def newBuilder: Builder[T, OneBasedSeq[T]] = OneBasedSeq.newBuilder
override def toString = "OneBasedSeq" + super.toString
}
// OneBasedSeq companion object
object OneBasedSeq {
private def fromSeq[T](s: Seq[T]) = new OneBasedSeq(s)
def apply[T](vals: T*) = fromSeq(IndexedSeq(vals: _*))
def newBuilder[T]: Builder[T, OneBasedSeq[T]] =
new ArrayBuffer[T].mapResult(OneBasedSeq.fromSeq)
implicit def canBuildFrom[T, U]: CanBuildFrom[OneBasedSeq[T], U, OneBasedSeq[U]] =
new CanBuildFrom[OneBasedSeq[T], U, OneBasedSeq[U]] {
def apply() = newBuilder
def apply(from: OneBasedSeq[T]): Builder[U, OneBasedSeq[U]] = newBuilder[U]
}
}
// Iterator class for OneBasedSeq
class OneBasedSeqIterator[T](private val obs: OneBasedSeq[T]) extends Iterator[T]
{
private var index = 1
def hasNext: Boolean = index <= obs.length
def next: T = {
val ret = obs(index)
index += 1
ret
}
}
Related
When implementing Typeclasses for our types, we can use different syntaxes (an implicit val or an implicit object, for example). As an example:
A Typeclass definition:
trait Increment[A] {
def increment(value: A): A
}
And, as far as I know, we could implement it for Int in the two following ways:
implicit val fooInstance: Increment[Int] = new Increment[Int] {
override def increment(value: Int): Int = value + 1
}
// or
implicit object fooInstance extends Increment[Int] {
override def increment(value: Int): Int = value + 1
}
I always use the first one as for Scala 2.13 it has an abbreviation syntax that looks like this:
implicit val fooInstance: Increment[Int] = (value: Int) => value + 1
But, is there any real difference between them? or is there any recommendation or standard to do this?
There is a related question about implicit defs and implicit classes for conversions, but I'm going more to the point of how to create (best practices) instances of Typeclasses, not about implicit conversions
As far as I know the differences would be:
objects have different initialization rules - quite often they will be lazily initialized (it doesn't matter if you don't perform side effects in constructor)
it would also be seen differently from Java (but again, you probably won't notice that difference in Scala)
object X will have a type X.type which is a subtype of whatever X extends or implements (but implicit resolution would find that it extends your typeclass, though perhaps with a bit more effort)
So, I wouldn't seen any difference in the actual usage, BUT the implicit val version could generate less JVM garbage (I say garbage as you wouldn't use any of that extra compiler's effort in this particular case).
I am reading and working on the exercises on the book Funcional Programming in Scala. In the chapter about property testing, one exercise ask to implement def listOf[A](g: Gen[A]): SGen[List[A]], here is the relevant code:
case class Gen[+A](sample: State[RNG, A]) {
def flatMap[B](f: A ⇒ Gen[B]): Gen[B] =
Gen(sample.flatMap(f(_) sample))
/* A method alias for the function we wrote earlier. */
def listOfN(size: Int): Gen[List[A]] =
Gen.listOfN(size, this)
def listOfN(size: Gen[Int]): Gen[List[A]] =
size flatMap (Gen listOfN (_, this))
}
object Gen {
def listOfN[A](n: Int, g: Gen[A]): Gen[List[A]] =
Gen(State.sequence(List.fill(n)(g.sample)))
def listOf[A](g: Gen[A]): SGen[List[A]] =
// SGen { n ⇒ g.listOfN(n) }
// SGen{listOfN(_, g)}
}
case class SGen[+A](forSize: Int ⇒ Gen[A])
As you can see, listOf[A](g: Gen[A]): SGen[List[A]] is implemented in two ways, the second one is the one I thought, and the first one is the solution provided by the book.
My question is, is there any difference between creating that SGen via the companion object and creating it using the listOfN method on the generator g? I suppose as long as both implementations ends up using g to generate the values, there is little difference.
There's really no practical difference in this example. You can see from the implementation that Gen.listOfN(size: Int) is just calling the companion object implementation. One of the advantages of the method alias is that you could use simpler syntax in the companion object like this:
object Gen {
...
def listOf[A](g: Gen[A]): SGen[List[A]] =
SGen(g.listOfN)
}
Having these different syntax options can make a bigger impact on clarity when users make larger compositions.
I'm looking for a very simple example of subclassing a Scala collection. I'm not so much interested in full explanations of how and why it all works; plenty of those are available here and elsewhere on the Internet. I'd like to know the simple way to do it.
The class below might be as simple an example as possible. The idea is, make a subclass of Set[Int] which has one additional method:
class SlightlyCustomizedSet extends Set[Int] {
def findOdd: Option[Int] = find(_ % 2 == 1)
}
Obviously this is wrong. One problem is that there's no constructor to put things into the Set. A CanBuildFrom object must be built, preferably by calling some already-existing library code that knows how to build it. I've seen examples that implement several additional methods in the companion object, but they're showing how it all works or how to do something more complicated. I'd like to see how to leverage what's already in the libraries to knock this out in a couple lines of code. What's the smallest, simplest way to implement this?
If you just want to add a single method to a class, then subclassing may not be the way to go. Scala's collections library is somewhat complicated, and leaf classes aren't always amenable to subclassing (one might start by subclassing HashSet, but this would start you on a journey down a deep rabbit hole).
Perhaps a simpler way to achieve your goal would be something like:
implicit class SetPimper(val s: Set[Int]) extends AnyVal {
def findOdd: Option[Int] = s.find(_ % 2 == 1)
}
This doesn't actually subclass Set, but creates an implicit conversion that allows you to do things like:
Set(1,2,3).findOdd // Some(1)
Down the Rabbit Hole
If you've come from a Java background, it might be surprising that it's so difficult to extend standard collections - after all the Java standard library's peppered with j.u.ArrayList subclasses, for pretty much anything that can contain other things. However, Scala has one key difference: its first-choice collections are all immutable.
This means that they don't have add methods that modify them in-place. Instead, they have + methods that construct a new instance, with all the original items, plus the new item. If they'd implemented this naïvely, it'd be very inefficient, so they use various class-specific tricks to allow the new instances to share data with the original one. The + method may even return an object of a different type to the original - some of the collections classes use a different representation for small or empty collections.
However, this also means that if you want to subclass one of the immutable collections, then you need to understand the guts of the class you're subclassing, to ensure that your instances of your subclass are constructed in the same way as the base class.
By the way, none of this applies to you if you want to subclass the mutable collections. They're seen as second class citizens in the scala world, but they do have add methods, and rarely need to construct new instances. The following code:
class ListOfUsers(users: Int*) extends scala.collection.mutable.HashSet[Int] {
this ++= users
def findOdd: Option[Int] = find(_ % 2 == 1)
}
Will probably do more-or-less what you expect in most cases (map and friends might not do quite what you expect, because of the the CanBuildFrom stuff that I'll get to in a minute, but bear with me).
The Nuclear Option
If inheritance fails us, we always have a nuclear option to fall back on: composition. We can create our own Set subclass that delegates its responsibilities to a delegate, as such:
import scala.collection.SetLike
import scala.collection.mutable.Builder
import scala.collection.generic.CanBuildFrom
class UserSet(delegate: Set[Int]) extends Set[Int] with SetLike[Int, UserSet] {
override def contains(key: Int) = delegate.contains(key)
override def iterator = delegate.iterator
override def +(elem: Int) = new UserSet(delegate + elem)
override def -(elem: Int) = new UserSet(delegate - elem)
override def empty = new UserSet(Set.empty)
override def newBuilder = UserSet.newBuilder
override def foreach[U](f: Int => U) = delegate.foreach(f) // Optional
override def size = delegate.size // Optional
}
object UserSet {
def apply(users: Int*) = (newBuilder ++= users).result()
def newBuilder = new Builder[Int, UserSet] {
private var delegateBuilder = Set.newBuilder[Int]
override def +=(elem: Int) = {
delegateBuilder += elem
this
}
override def clear() = delegateBuilder.clear()
override def result() = new UserSet(delegateBuilder.result())
}
implicit object UserSetCanBuildFrom extends CanBuildFrom[UserSet, Int, UserSet] {
override def apply() = newBuilder
override def apply(from: UserSet) = newBuilder
}
}
This is arguably both too complicated and too simple at the same time. It's far more lines of code than we meant to write, and yet, it's still pretty naïve.
It'll work without the companion class, but without CanBuildFrom, map will return a plain Set, which may not be what you expect. We've also overridden the optional methods that the documentation for Set recommends we implement.
If we were being thorough, we'd have created a CanBuildFrom, and implemented empty for our mutable class, as this ensures that the handful of methods that create new instances will work as we expect.
But that sounds like a lot of work...
If that sounds like too much work, consider something like the following:
case class UserSet(users: Set[Int])
Sure, you have to type a few more letters to get at the set of users, but I think it separates concerns better than subclassing.
I have a list of simple scala case class instances and I want to print them in predictable, lexicographical order using list.sorted, but receive "No implicit Ordering defined for ...".
Is there exist an implicit that provides lexicographical ordering for case classes?
Is there simple idiomatic way to mix-in lexicographical ordering into case class?
scala> case class A(tag:String, load:Int)
scala> val l = List(A("words",50),A("article",2),A("lines",7))
scala> l.sorted.foreach(println)
<console>:11: error: No implicit Ordering defined for A.
l.sorted.foreach(println)
^
I am not happy with a 'hack':
scala> l.map(_.toString).sorted.foreach(println)
A(article,2)
A(lines,7)
A(words,50)
My personal favorite method is to make use of the provided implicit ordering for Tuples, as it is clear, concise, and correct:
case class A(tag: String, load: Int) extends Ordered[A] {
// Required as of Scala 2.11 for reasons unknown - the companion to Ordered
// should already be in implicit scope
import scala.math.Ordered.orderingToOrdered
def compare(that: A): Int = (this.tag, this.load) compare (that.tag, that.load)
}
This works because the companion to Ordered defines an implicit conversion from Ordering[T] to Ordered[T] which is in scope for any class implementing Ordered. The existence of implicit Orderings for Tuples enables a conversion from TupleN[...] to Ordered[TupleN[...]] provided an implicit Ordering[TN] exists for all elements T1, ..., TN of the tuple, which should always be the case because it makes no sense to sort on a data type with no Ordering.
The implicit ordering for Tuples is your go-to for any sorting scenario involving a composite sort key:
as.sortBy(a => (a.tag, a.load))
As this answer has proven popular I would like to expand on it, noting that a solution resembling the following could under some circumstances be considered enterprise-grade™:
case class Employee(id: Int, firstName: String, lastName: String)
object Employee {
// Note that because `Ordering[A]` is not contravariant, the declaration
// must be type-parametrized in the event that you want the implicit
// ordering to apply to subclasses of `Employee`.
implicit def orderingByName[A <: Employee]: Ordering[A] =
Ordering.by(e => (e.lastName, e.firstName))
val orderingById: Ordering[Employee] = Ordering.by(e => e.id)
}
Given es: SeqLike[Employee], es.sorted() will sort by name, and es.sorted(Employee.orderingById) will sort by id. This has a few benefits:
The sorts are defined in a single location as visible code artifacts. This is useful if you have complex sorts on many fields.
Most sorting functionality implemented in the scala library operates using instances of Ordering, so providing an ordering directly eliminates an implicit conversion in most cases.
object A {
implicit val ord = Ordering.by(unapply)
}
This has the benefit that it is updated automatically whenever A changes. But, A's fields need to be placed in the order by which the ordering will use them.
To summarize, there are three ways to do this:
For one-off sorting use .sortBy method, as #Shadowlands have showed
For reusing of sorting extend case class with Ordered trait, as #Keith said.
Define a custom ordering. The benefit of this solution is that you can reuse orderings and have multiple ways to sort instances of the same class:
case class A(tag:String, load:Int)
object A {
val lexicographicalOrdering = Ordering.by { foo: A =>
foo.tag
}
val loadOrdering = Ordering.by { foo: A =>
foo.load
}
}
implicit val ord = A.lexicographicalOrdering
val l = List(A("words",1), A("article",2), A("lines",3)).sorted
// List(A(article,2), A(lines,3), A(words,1))
// now in some other scope
implicit val ord = A.loadOrdering
val l = List(A("words",1), A("article",2), A("lines",3)).sorted
// List(A(words,1), A(article,2), A(lines,3))
Answering your question Is there any standard function included into the Scala that can do magic like List((2,1),(1,2)).sorted
There is a set of predefined orderings, e.g. for String, tuples up to 9 arity and so on.
No such thing exists for case classes, since it is not easy thing to roll off, given that field names are not known a-priori (at least without macros magic) and you can't access case class fields in a way other than by name/using product iterator.
The unapply method of the companion object provides a conversion from your case class to an Option[Tuple], where the Tuple is the tuple corresponding to the first argument list of the case class. In other words:
case class Person(name : String, age : Int, email : String)
def sortPeople(people : List[Person]) =
people.sortBy(Person.unapply)
The sortBy method would be one typical way of doing this, eg (sort on tag field):
scala> l.sortBy(_.tag)foreach(println)
A(article,2)
A(lines,7)
A(words,50)
Since you used a case class you could extend with Ordered like such:
case class A(tag:String, load:Int) extends Ordered[A] {
def compare( a:A ) = tag.compareTo(a.tag)
}
val ls = List( A("words",50), A("article",2), A("lines",7) )
ls.sorted
My personal favorite method is using the SAM(Single abstraction method) with 2.12 as mentioned over the below example:
case class Team(city:String, mascot:String)
//Create two choices to sort by, city and mascot
object MyPredef3 {
// Below used in 2.11
implicit val teamsSortedByCity: Ordering[Team] = new Ordering[Team] {
override def compare(x: Team, y: Team) = x.city compare y.city
}
implicit val teamsSortedByMascot: Ordering[Team] = new Ordering[Team] {
override def compare(x: Team, y: Team) = x.mascot compare y.mascot
}
/*
Below used in 2.12
implicit val teamsSortedByCity: Ordering[Team] =
(x: Team, y: Team) => x.city compare y.city
implicit val teamsSortedByMascot: Ordering[Team] =
(x: Team, y: Team) => x.mascot compare y.mascot
*/
}
object _6OrderingAList extends App {
//Create some sports teams
val teams = List(Team("Cincinnati", "Bengals"),
Team("Madrid", "Real Madrid"),
Team("Las Vegas", "Golden Knights"),
Team("Houston", "Astros"),
Team("Cleveland", "Cavaliers"),
Team("Arizona", "Diamondbacks"))
//import the implicit rule we want, in this case city
import MyPredef3.teamsSortedByCity
//min finds the minimum, since we are sorting
//by city, Arizona wins.
println(teams.min.city)
}
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