Scala: generic method using implicit evidence doesn't compile

672 Views Asked by At

I'm learning Scala by working the exercises from the book "Scala for the Impatient". One question asks:

Given a mutable Pair[S, T] class, use a type constraint to define a swap method that can be called if the type parameters are the same.

My code:

class Pair[T, S](var first: T, var second: S) {
  def swap(implicit ev: T =:= S) {
    val temp = first
    first = second // doesn't compile
    second = temp
  }
}

The code above fails to compile with the complaint that first and second are different types. Well, I just nicely told the compiler that they're not. How can I tell it to shut up?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

18
On BEST ANSWER

You've just told the compiler that types passed to your class as T and S should be equal - you just require an evidence of their equality, which can be used to infer actual T and S correctly when you pass actual types (but not inside generic class itself). It doesn't mean that T and S are interchangable. Btw, it doesn't change anything but you did a mistake by defining new S and T, should be:

  class Pair[T, S](var first: T, var second: S) {
    def swap(implicit ev: T =:= S) { //without [S, T] - they are unrelated to original ones, it's whole new names
      val temp = first
      first = second // doesn't compile
      second = temp
    }
  }

However it's still doesn't compile. Why? Just think of it:

 def getBoth(implicit ev: T =:= S) = List(first, second)

So what is return type compiler should infer? List[T] or List[S]. the only it can do is List[Any]. So having same and different types simulteniously has no sense. If you want different names - just use type S = T no evidence will be needed.

And what is the real case of having S and T different in constructor and same in some method. It's simply logically incorrect (when talking about abstract types - not concrete substitutions).

Btw, =:= is not the compiler feature - there is no special processing for that in compiler. The whole implementation is it inside scala Predef:

@implicitNotFound(msg = "Cannot prove that ${From} =:= ${To}.")
  sealed abstract class =:=[From, To] extends (From => To) with Serializable
  private[this] final val singleton_=:= = new =:=[Any,Any] { def apply(x: Any): Any = x }
  object =:= {
     implicit def tpEquals[A]: A =:= A = singleton_=:=.asInstanceOf[A =:= A]
  }

So it's just tpEquals[A] implicit which takes type A and gives you A =:= A - when you require T =:= U it's trying to make such conversion which is possible only for equal types. And the process of checking implicit itself actually happens only when you pass actual T and U, not when you defining them.

About your particular problem:

class Pair[T, S](var first: T, var second: S) {
    def swap(implicit ev: T =:= S) { 
      val temp = first
      first = second.asInstanceOf[T] 
      second = temp.asInstanceOf[S]
    }
}

scala> new Pair(5,6)
res9: Pair[Int,Int] = Pair@6bfc12c4

scala> res9.swap

scala> res9.first
res11: Int = 6

Or just (as @m-z and @Imm suggested):

class Pair[T, S](var first: T, var second: S) {
    def swap(implicit ev: T =:= S, ev2: S =:= T) {
      val temp = first
      first = second 
      second = temp
    }
}

T =:= S extends T => S and this implicitly added function (even as an object) is interpreted as implicit conversion from T to S in Scala, so it works like both types are equal, which is pretty cool.