// ok
val sam0: MySamWithEmptyParameter = () => 100
// doesn't work
// val sam1: MySamWithParameterless = () => 100
trait MySamWithEmptyParameter {
def receive(): Int
}
trait MySamWithParameterless {
def receive: Int
}
Why sam1 fails to override the receive method? The scalac compile both of traits to same code.
abstract trait TestSAM$MySamWithEmptyParameter extends Object {
def receive(): Int
};
abstract trait TestSAM$MySamWithParameterless extends Object {
def receive(): Int
};
SI-10555 talks exactly about this. This was a simple design decision to only support an explicit empty parameter list, even though the two compile down to an empty parameter list anyway.
The relevant part of the Specification says (emphasis mine):
the method m must have a single argument list;
This is indeed a bit awkward as eta expansion does work for methods with an empty parameter list.
Edit
Contacted the guys at Lightbend. Here is a response by Adrian Moors, Scala team lead:
The original reason was to keep the spec simple, but perhaps we should revisit. I agree it’s surprising that it works for def a(): Int, but not in your example.
Internally, methods that don’t define an argument list at all, and those that do (even if empty) are treated differently.
This has led to confusion/bugs before — to name just one: https://github.com/scala/scala-dev/issues/284.
In 2.13, we’re reworking eta-expansion (it will apply more aggressively, but ()-insertion will happen first). We’ve been back and forth on this, but the current thinking is:
0-ary methods are treated specially: if the expected type is sam-equivalent to Function0, we eta-expand; otherwise, () is inserted (in dotty, you are required to write the () explicitly, unless the method is java-defined) — I’m still not sure about whether we should ever eta-expand here
for all other arities, a method reference is eta-expanded regardless of the expected type (if there’s no type mismatch, this could hide errors when you refactor a method to take arguments, but forget to apply them everywhere. However, since functions are first-class values, it should be easy to construct them by simplify referring to a method value).
The upshot is that we can deprecate method value syntax (m _), since it’s subsumed by simply writing m. (Note that this is distinct from placeholder syntax, as in m(, _).)
(See also the thread around this comment: https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty/issues/2570#issuecomment-306202339)
value classes can be used to achieve type safety without the overhead of unboxing.
I had the impression that in runtime such types/classes would "not exist", being seen as simple types (for instance, a value class case class X(i: Int) extends AnyVal would be a simple Int on runtime).
But if you do call a .toString method on a value class instance it would print something like:
scala> val myValueClass = X(3)
myValueClass: X = 3
scala> myValueClass.toString
res5: String = X(3)
so I guess the compiler includes some information after all?
Not really. The compiler creates a static method (in Scala this corresponds to the class's companion object) which is called with your int value as a parameter in order to simulate calling a method on your value class-typed object.
Your value class itself only exists in the source code. In compiled bytecode an actual primitive int is used and static methods are called rather than new object instances with real method calls. You can read more about this mechanism here.
Value classes are designed so that adding or removing extends AnyVal (if legal) shouldn't change the results of calculations (except even non-case value classes have equals and hashCode defined automatically like case classes). This requires that in some circumstances they survive, e.g.
def toString(x: Any) = x.toString
toString(myValueClass)
but the situation in your question isn't one of them.
http://docs.scala-lang.org/sips/completed/value-classes.html#expansion-of-value-classes explains more precisely how value classes are implemented and is useful to see in what cases they survive, though some details may have changed since.
How can you make code in a Scala library call type-specific code for objects supplied by a caller to that library, where the decision about which type-specific code to call is made at compile-time (statically), not at run-time?
To illustrate the concept, suppose I want to make a library function that prints objects one way if there's a CanMakeDetailedString defined for them, or just as .toString if not. See nicePrint in this example code:
import scala.language.implicitConversions
trait CanMakeDetailedString[A] extends (A => String)
def noDetailedString[A] = new CanMakeDetailedString[A] {
def apply(a: A) = a.toString
}
object Util {
def nicePrint[A](a: A)
(implicit toDetail: CanMakeDetailedString[A] = noDetailedString[A])
: Unit = println(toDetail(a))
def doStuff[A](a: A)
: Unit = { /* stuff goes here */ nicePrint(a) }
}
Now here is some test code:
object Main {
import Util._
case class Rototiller(name: String)
implicit val rototillerDetail = new CanMakeDetailedString[Rototiller] {
def apply(r: Rototiller) = s"The rototiller named ${r.name}."
}
val r = Rototiller("R51")
nicePrint(r)
doStuff(r)
}
Here's the output in Scala 2.11.2:
The rototiller named R51.
Rototiller(R51)
When I call nicePrint from the same scope where rototillerDetail is defined, the Scala compiler finds rototillerDetail and passes it implicitly to nicePrint. But when, from the same scope, I call a function in a different scope (doStuff) that calls nicePrint, the Scala compiler doesn't find rototillerDetail.
No doubt there are good reasons for that. I'm wondering, though, how can I tell the Scala compiler "If an object of the needed type exists, use it!"?
I can think of two workarounds, neither of which is satisfactory:
Supply an implicit toDetail argument to doStuff. This works, but it requires me to add an implicit toDetail argument to every function that might, somewhere lower in the call stack, have a use for a CanMakeDetailedString object. That is going to massively clutter my code.
Scrap the implicit approach altogether and do this in object-oriented style, making Rototiller inherit from CanMakeDetailedString by overriding a special new method like .toDetail.
Is there some technique, trick, or command-line switch that could enable the Scala compiler to statically resolve the right implicit object? (Rather than figuring it out dynamically, when the program is running, as in the object-oriented approach.) If not, this seems like a serious limitation on how much use library code can make of "typeclasses" or implicit arguments. In other words, what's a good way to do what I've done badly above?
Clarification: I'm not asking how this can be done with implicit val. I'm asking how you can get the Scala compiler to statically choose type-appropriate functions in library code, without explicitly listing, in every library function, an implicit argument for every function that might get called lower in the stack. It doesn't matter to me if it's done with implicits or anything else. I just want to know how to write generic code that chooses type-specific functions appropriately at compile-time.
implicits are resolved at compile time so it can't know what A is in doStuff without more information.
That information can be provided through an extra implicit parameter or a base type / interface as you suggested.
You could also use reflection on the A type, use the getType that returns the child type, cast the object to that type, and call a predefined function that has the name of the type that writes the string details for you. I don't really recommend it as any OOP or FP solution is better IMHO.
Is scala really designed and implemented so that there is no way to transform a tuple into something acceptable as an argument list? In How to pass a tuple argument the best way? it goes the other way around - transforming the argument accepting method. This does not seem to cover a trivial use case:
At the lack of such a way, code becomes clumsy for example when you try to extend a class that takes parameters, e.g. when you wish to extend an arguments-taking-class you can't modify the source code of. In such case you need to spawn out a factory object for overcoming the above limitation, as no function can be substituted for the argument list of the class being extended. So you work around it by creating a factory object that instantiates the class you wish to extend rather than just extending it, as a workaround. This kind of workaround is conspicuous and non-economical to me.
Thanks in advance.
This can be achieved using standard language features.
You can define an extending class that only translates from a tuple to the arguments expected by the original class definition.
Example
class TakeTwo(a: Int, b: Int)
class TakeTwoTuple( t : (Int,Int) ) extends TakeTwo(t._1, t._2)
scala> val tuple = (3,4)
tuple: (Int, Int) = (3,4)
scala> new TakeTwoTuple(tuple)
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.