I'm interested in the problem of conforming a specific type to a more general structural type. Consider the following examples:
trait Sup
trait Sub extends Sup
type General = {
def contra(o: Sub): Unit
def co(): Sup
def defaults(age: Int): Unit
def defaults2(age: Int): Unit
def defaults3(first: String): Unit
}
trait Specific {
def contra(o: Sup): Unit // doesn't conform
def co(): Sub // conforms
def defaults(age: Int, name: String = ""): Unit // doesn't conform
def defaults2(name: String = "", age: Int = 0): Unit // doesn't conform
def defaults3(first: String = "", last: String = ""): Unit // doesn't conform
}
In each of the non-conforming cases, a call to the method in General
can safely be resolved to the corresponding method in Specific
. A more interesting practical example can be found in this question:
trait Versionable[T] {
self: { def copy(version: Int): T } =>
val version = 0
def incrementVersion = copy(version = version + 1)
}
case class Customer(name: String, override val version: Int)
extends Versionable[Customer] {
def changeName(newName: String) = copy(name = newName)
}
Here, the Customer's copy
method does not conform to the signature in Versionable's self-type annotation. Note, however, that if the compiler allowed, copy
could be invoked just as it is in Versionable.incrementVersion
. Clearly, the actual signature of Customer's copy
method is too specific for use in Versionable, since it carries the irrelevant knowledge that one can optionally supply a name
parameter.
Are there ways to work around these limitations? Are there reasons that such generalized conformance would be a bad idea?