I wonder from a language design perspective why Scala has removed Java's class literal (e. g. String.class
) and replaced it with classOf[String]
, but has then added a "type literal" with its Singletons like Singleton.type
instead of something like typeOf[Singleton]
?
A class literal is an expression consisting of the name of a class, interface, array, or primitive type followed by a .
A classOf[T] is a value of type Class[T] . In other words, classOf[T]: Class[T] . For example: scala> val strClass = classOf[String] strClass: Class[String] = class java. lang. String scala> :t strClass Class[String]
Scala is a statically typed programming language. This means the compiler determines the type of a variable at compile time. Type declaration is a Scala feature that enables us to declare our own types.
Here is my rationalization:
classOf[T]
classOf
is defined in Predef
as a function with this signature:
def classOf[T]: Class[T]
Although it's implemented by the compiler, using the function syntax is possible without having to create any special treatment in terms of syntax. So that's one reason here to consider this option.
The alternative like String.class
would imply that each class has a companion object with a field class
. So there are two problems:
class
is a keyword, so that causes a problem where the syntax would require a special case for itclass A
without a companion object, it's would be odd to be able to refer to A.class
, which would be like accessing the class field on the companion A
.A.type:
On why typeOf[A]
may be confusing. It looks like a function call, but types don't live in the same world as function results (function results have types, but the type itself only makes sense at compile time). I can ascribe a type to a variable:
scala> val a: A.type = A a: A.type = A$@c21a68
I can't assign a type like it's returned by a function:
scala> val b = A.type <console>:1: error: identifier expected but 'type' found. val b = A.type ^
On the other hand types can be member of a object:
scala> object A { type type1 = Int } defined module A scala> val x: A.type1 = 1 x: A.type1 = 1
So it is not a big stretch to have A.type
refer to the type of object A
. Note that .type
aren't used beyond referring to types of singleton objects, so it's not really that frequent.
Actually, it is quite consistent. Singleton.type
is a dependent type of Singleton
, while classOf[Class]
is a type parameter to a method.
Consider this:
class A { class B } val a: A = new A val b: a.B = new a.B
The point here is that .
is used to indicate something that is a member of a value. It may be a val
, a var
, a def
or an object
and it may also be a type
, a class
or a trait
.
Since a singleton object is a value, then Singleton.type
is perfectly valid.
On the other hand, a class is not an object, so Class.class
doesn't make sense. Class
doesn't exist (as a value), so it is not possible to get a member of it. On the other hand, it's definition as def classOf[T]: Class[T]
is plain Scala code (even if the actual implementation is compiler magic).
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With