Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make opaque type refinements of inline proxy objects abstract type constructors #20903

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

EugeneFlesselle
Copy link
Contributor

Change the rhs of the added refinements from TypeAliases to RealTypeBoundss.
This allows the opaque types to remain abstract type constructors, which is necessary for the MatchTypeCasePattern.AbstractTypeConstructor logic.

In particular, an AppliedType where the tycon was a reference to the refinement, used to dealias before proceeding with the comparison of the tycons, which is a requirement of the aforementioned AbstractTypeConstructor case of the MatchReducer.

Fixes #20427
Alternative to #20457

smarter and others added 2 commits July 1, 2024 13:26
The inliner tries to handle opaque types by replacing prefixes containing them
by proxy objects with type aliases. When the type we're mapping is a match type
application, this can end up breaking its reduction.
Change the rhs of the added refinements from `TypeAlias`es to `RealTypeBounds`s.
This allows the opaque types to remain abstract type constructors,
which is necessary for the `MatchTypeCasePattern.AbstractTypeConstructor` logic.

In particular, an AppliedType where the tycon was a reference to the refinement,
used to dealias before proceeding with the comparison of the tycons,
which is a requirement of the aforementioned `AbstractTypeConstructor`
case of the MatchReducer.

Fixes scala#20427
Alternative to scala#20457
@sjrd
Copy link
Member

sjrd commented Jul 1, 2024

This bound (ah ah!) to be break something. There are very real things we can do with type aliases that we cannot do with abstract type members of equal bounds. For example, manipulating arrays:

scala> class Foo { type T = Int }
// defined class Foo
                                                                                                    
scala> val foo = new Foo
val foo: Foo = Foo@2ca54da9
                                                                                                    
scala> val a: Array[Int] = { val b = new Array[foo.T](1); b }
val a: Array[Int] = Array(0)
                                                                                                    
scala> class Foo { type T >: Int <: Int }
// defined class Foo
                                                                                                    
scala> val foo = new Foo
val foo: Foo = Foo@2bfc2f8b
                                                                                                    
scala> val a: Array[Int] = { val b = new Array[foo.T](1); b }
-- [E172] Type Error: ----------------------------------------------------------
1 |val a: Array[Int] = { val b = new Array[foo.T](1); b }
  |                                                 ^
  |                                           No ClassTag available for foo.T
1 error found

@EugeneFlesselle
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sjrd Indeed, but that (specific issue) should not be a problem for inlining right ? since implicit resolution is already done by that point.
i.e. val b = Array[foo.T](1) is an error,
but val b = Array[foo.T](1)(using evidence$1$proxy1 : ClassTag[Int]) is ok.

I am by no means claiming there is nothing else that could be impacted though.

@sjrd
Copy link
Member

sjrd commented Jul 1, 2024

Perhaps. There are definitely other things that require an actual type alias. Extending or instantiating an aliased class, for example. And that will remain through inlining.

@EugeneFlesselle
Copy link
Contributor Author

Again, just an empirical observation, but they both seem to work in the following simple test:

object A:
  opaque type W[T] = T

  inline def foo[T: ClassTag](x: T): Array[W[T]] =
    Array[W[T]](x)

  class Bar
  inline def bar =
    class Baz extends W[Bar]
    new W[Bar]

def Test =
  A.foo[Int](0) // ok
  A.bar // ok

@EugeneFlesselle
Copy link
Contributor Author

It would be great to know if the changes break anything in the openCB, @WojciechMazur would it be possible to test that ?

@WojciechMazur
Copy link
Contributor

I've started the OpenCB, I'll report the results when it's done

@EugeneFlesselle
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've started the OpenCB, I'll report the results when it's done

Cool, thank you!

@WojciechMazur
Copy link
Contributor

We've tested 1591 projects, 61 of them were already failing in last week nightly (3.5.1-RC1-bin-20240626-41f1489-NIGHTLY) and there are no new regressions found since that nightly version

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

NamedTuple selection on the result of NamedTuple.Concat doesn't work
4 participants