Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8178389
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 6, 20262026-06-06T23:45:14+00:00 2026-06-06T23:45:14+00:00

Here is a simple setup with two traits, a class with a covariant type

  • 0

Here is a simple setup with two traits, a class with a covariant type parameter bounded by the previous traits, and a second class with a type parameter bounded by the other class. For both classes, a particular method is available (via implicit evidence) only if one of the two traits underlies the type parameter. This compiles fine:

trait Foo
trait ReadableFoo extends Foo {def field: Int}

case class Bar[+F <: Foo](foo: F) {
  def readField(implicit evidence: F <:< ReadableFoo) = foo.field
}

case class Grill[+F <: Foo, +B <: Bar[F]](bar: B) {
  def readField(implicit evidence: F <:< ReadableFoo) = bar.readField
}

However, since Bar is covariant in F, I shouldn’t need the F parameter in Grill. I should just require that B is a subtype of Bar[ReadableFoo]. This, however, fails:

case class Grill[+B <: Bar[_]](bar: B) {
  def readField(implicit evidence: B <:< Bar[ReadableFoo]) = bar.readField
}

with the error:

error: Cannot prove that Any <:< this.ReadableFoo.
  def readField(implicit evidence: B <:< Bar[ReadableFoo]) = bar.readField

Why is the implicit evidence not being taken into account?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-06T23:45:15+00:00Added an answer on June 6, 2026 at 11:45 pm

    The call bar.readField is possible because the evidence instance <:< allows an implicit conversion from B to Bar[ReadableFoo].

    The problem I think that to call readField you need a successive evidence parameter F <:< ReadableFoo. So my guess is, the compiler doesn’t fully substitute the type parameter of Bar in the first search stage of the implicit resolution (because to find readField, it just requires any Bar in the first place). And then it chokes on the second implicit resolution, because there is no form of ‘backtracking’ as far as I know.

    Anyway. The good thing is, you know more than the compiler and you can engage the conversion explicitly, either by using the apply method of <:<, or by using the helper method implicitly:

    case class Grill[+B <: Bar[_]](bar: B) {
      def readField(implicit evidence: B <:< Bar[ReadableFoo]) = evidence(bar).readField
    }
    
    case class Grill[+B <: Bar[_]](bar: B) {
      def readField(implicit evidence: B <:< Bar[ReadableFoo]) = 
        implicitly[Bar[ReadableFoo]](bar).readField
    }
    

    There is another possibility which might be the cleanest, as it doesn’t rely on the implementation of <:< which might be a problem as @Kaito suggests:

    case class Grill[+B <: Bar[_]](bar: B) {
      def readField(implicit evidence: B <:< Bar[ReadableFoo]) =
         (bar: Bar[ReadableFoo]).readField
    }
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

So I have a simple setup going here where I load up a file
Here's the setup. I have web site which is essentially a simple CMS. Here
I want some simple CI for a small dev setup. Two motivations -- a
Here's my problem: I'm trying to set up a simple mobile contact form with
here my simple code to add filename and their associated icon to virtualtreeview PFileInfoRec
All my code is here,quite simple,and I don't konw where it goes wrong. Person
Hi i've got here a simple program, but it's not working properly. When i
Please excuse me if I'm simple here, I want to create a simple widget
I have to be missing something simple here but it escapes me. After the
I think i must be missing something simple here but I can't figure out

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.