Skip to content

Scala 3 union types don't always play nicely with choice #455

Description

@FlorianCassayre
  • Scala: 3.X
  • scala-parser-combinators: 2.1.1

Consider the following motivating example:

import scala.util.parsing.combinator.Parsers

enum Token {
  case A()
  case B()
  case C()
}

object Parser extends Parsers {
  override type Elem = Token

  def tokenA: Parser[Token.A] = ???
  def tokenB: Parser[Token.B] = ???
  def tokenC: Parser[Token.C] = ???

  def tokenABC: Parser[Token.A | Token.B | Token.C] =
    tokenA | tokenB | tokenC  // error
}

Unfortunately the definition tokenABC doesn't compile:

Found:    Parser[Token]
Required: Parser[Token.A | Token.B | Token.C]
    tokenA | tokenB | tokenC

A workaround is to ascribe tokenA to the desired union type:

def tokenABC: Parser[Token.A | Token.B | Token.C] =
  (tokenA: Parser[Token.A | Token.B | Token.C]) | tokenB | tokenC

However this looks unnatural and arguably not very intuitive.

If we look at the source, this is how the choice operator is defined:

def | [U >: T](q: => Parser[U]): Parser[U]

And it is now evident why the code in the above example fails to compile. The obvious change would be to update the signature to:

def | [U](q: => Parser[U]): Parser[T | U]

Which would definitely break cross compatibility and therefore wouldn't be a viable solution.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions