I have been reading Bruno's TypeClasses paper and he mentioned that implicits in the argument list are projected/propagated into the implicit scope. I followed the example with this code:
package theory
import cats.implicits.toShow
import java.io.PrintStream
import java.util.Date
object Equality extends App {
import cats.Eq
// assert(123 == "123")
println(Eq.eqv(123, 123).show)
implicit val out: PrintStream = System.out
def log(m: String)(implicit o: PrintStream ): Unit =
o.println(m)
def logTime(m: String)(implicit o: PrintStream): Unit =
log(s"${new Date().getTime} : $m")
}
The kicker is that this code will not compile, with:
ambiguous implicit values:
both value out in object Equality of type java.io.PrintStream
and value o of type java.io.PrintStream
match expected type java.io.PrintStream
log(s"${new Date().getTime} : $m")
So, I assume that the compiler sees 2 instances of the same implicit and complains. I was able to silence the compiler by explicitly adding the PrintStream passed as an argument as the second argument to log:
def logTime(m: String)(implicit o: PrintStream): Unit =
log(s"${new Date().getTime} : $m")(o)
This works, but am I missing something? Why is there confusion inside the body of logTime()? I thought Bruno was implying that the implicit from the caller would be projected into the scope of the method. His example does not add the extra parameter to the log() call. Why does scalac see these as 2? I suppose I assumed that the implicit from the outer method would "hide" the val out. Not so.
If anyone can explain why I see this, it would be appreciated.