Getting Scala type bound error: not found: type <%<

Question

So I've been trying to learn Scala through the twitter Scala school. But I'm currently stuck at one of their type bound examples.

In particular, it's the one where the type is bound to be viewable as a certain type, using the <%< type-relation operator.

When I execute the following code in my Scala console:

scala> class Container[A](value: A) { def addIt(implicit evidence: A <%< Int) = 123 + value }

... I get the following errors:

<console>:7: error: not found: type <%<
       class Container[A](value: A) { def addIt(implicit evidence: A <%< Int) = 123 + value }
                                                                     ^
<console>:7: error: overloaded method value + with alternatives:
  (x: Double)Double <and>
  (x: Float)Float <and>
  (x: Long)Long <and>
  (x: Int)Int <and>
  (x: Char)Int <and>
  (x: Short)Int <and>
  (x: Byte)Int <and>
  (x: String)String
 cannot be applied to (A)
       class Container[A](value: A) { def addIt(implicit evidence: A <%< Int) = 123 + value }

My question is, why is the Scala interpreter complaining?

I've been trying to look through the Scala documentation but I haven't been able to find information that operator anywhere. I can see that the Scala school was created on the basis of Scala 2.8.0, and I'm running Scala 2.10.0 - so maybe this have been removed? If this is the case, why is this as it seems like a useful operator?

Answer 1

The constraint A <%< B in Scala 2.8 is defined as

  sealed abstract class <%<[-From, +To] extends (From => To)
  object <%< {
    implicit def conformsOrViewsAs[A <% B, B]: A <%< B = new (A <%< B) {def apply(x: A) = x}
  }

So you can always bring it back that way. However, I'm guessing that the reason it's deprecated is that a view bound is just asking for an implicit function from A to B, and there's a perfectly good way to express that particular constraint in a generalised way already:

class Container[A](value: A) { def addIt(implicit evidence: A => Int) = 123 + value }

As an aside, it's worth noting that is isn't an operator, but a class in infix position as you can see from the definition. The same is true for =>, which is just another way of referencing the Function1 type constructor.