Use of abstract type in a concrete class?

Question

scala> class A { type T <: String; def f(a: T) = println("foo")}
defined class A

scala> (new A).f("bar")
<console>:9: error: type mismatch;
found   : java.lang.String("bar")
required: _1.T where val _1: A
             (new A).f("bar")
                       ^

Class A has an abstract type T, but is not an abstract class. Creating an object of A (as shown) does not define type T.

My first thought was, I am allowed to pass any type as T which is a subclass of String, but I am not. So what type actually is T in the object and what am I allowed to pass through ?

Answer 1

As you say, T in A is abstract; therefore you won't find any value you can put into method f, until you have a subtype of A which actually fixes T.

(new A { type T = String }).f("bar")

The idea is that the type can be successively refined:

trait Var[A] { def get: A; def set(v: A): Unit }

trait Sys {
  type V[A] <: Var[A]

  def swap[A](x: V[A], y: V[A]): Unit = {
    val tmp = x.get
    x.set(y.get)
    y.set(tmp)
  }
}

trait HistVar[A] extends Var[A] { def created: java.util.Date }

trait HistSys extends Sys {
  type V[A] <: HistVar[A]

  def newest[A](x: V[A], y: V[A]): A =
    if (x.created after y.created) x.get else y.get
}

But of course you're question is good -- there is no reason why you would want a concrete instantiation of a class whose type parameter is not fixed. I can't think of a case where that makes sense. (Well of course, you could still have functionality that is accessible, if it does not involve type T)

---

Further searching finds the following, quasi duplicate, SO question. You can find there a reference to a Scala ticket which outlines it as a 'feature' -- still doesn't show a case where this 'feature' is actually useful :)