This problem arose in a module I'm writing, but I have made a minimal case that exhibits the same behaviour.
class Minimal[T](x : T) {
def doSomething = x
}
object Sugar {
type S[T] = { def doSomething : T }
def apply[T, X <: S[T]] (x: X) = x.doSomething
}
object Error {
val a = new Minimal(4)
Sugar(a) // error: inferred [Nothing, Minimal[Int]] does not fit the bounds of apply
Sugar[Int, Minimal[Int]](a) // works as expected
}
The problem is that the compiler manages to figure out the inner parameter for Minimal
(Int
), but then sets the other occurrence of T
to Nothing
, which obviously does not match apply
. These are definitely the same T
, as removing the first parameter makes the second complain that T is not defined.
Is there some ambiguity that means that the compiler cannot infer the first parameter, or is this a bug? Can I work around this gracefully?
Further information: This code is a simple example of an attempt at syntactic sugar. The original code tries to make |(a)|
mean the modulus of a
, where a is a vector. Clearly |(a)|
is better than writing |[Float,Vector3[Float]](a)|
, but unfortunately I can't use unary_|
to make this easier.
The actual error:
inferred type arguments [Nothing,Minimal[Int]] do not conform to method apply's type parameter bounds [T,X <: Sugar.S[T]]
Type inference is a Java compiler's ability to look at each method invocation and corresponding declaration to determine the type argument (or arguments) that make the invocation applicable.
In some cases type inference can be easier to read and understand because it is simpler than explicit type specification.
If you don't specify the type of value you need, Swift uses type inference to work out the appropriate type. Type inference enables a compiler to deduce the type of a particular expression automatically when it compiles your code, simply by examining the values you provide.
This isn't a Scala compiler bug, but it's certainly a limitation of Scala's type inference. The compiler wants to determine the bound on X
, S[T]
, before solving for X
, but the bound mentions the so far unconstrained type variable T
which it therefore fixes at Nothing
and proceeds from there. It doesn't revisit T
once X
has been fully resolved ... currently type inference always proceeds from left to right in this sort of case.
If your example accurately represents your real situation then there is a simple fix,
def apply[T](x : S[T]) = x.doSomething
Here T
will be inferred such that Minimal
conforms to S[T]
directly rather than via an intermediary bounded type variable.
Update
Joshua's solution also avoids the problem of inferring type T
, but in a completely different way.
def apply[T, X <% S[T]](x : X) = x.doSomething
desugars to,
def apply[T, X](x : X)(implicit conv : X => S[T]) = x.doSomething
The type variables T
and X
can now be solved for independently (because T
is no longer mentioned in X
's bound). This means that X
is inferred as Minimal
immediately, and T
is solved for as a part of the implicit search for a value of type X => S[T]
to satisfy the implicit argument conv
. conforms
in scala.Predef
manufactures values of this form, and in context will guarantee that given an argument of type Minimal
, T
will be inferred as Int. You could view this as an instance of functional dependencies at work in Scala.
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