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

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • 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 6696461
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 26, 20262026-05-26T06:20:40+00:00 2026-05-26T06:20:40+00:00

I noticed that the ScalaDoc for immutable Stack refers to a method prepend with

  • 0

I noticed that the ScalaDoc for immutable Stack refers to a method prepend with the following signature:

class Stack[A+] ...
  def +: (elem: A): Stack[A]

That method signature looked wrong to me because Stack is covariant in the A type parameter (so the type of elem should be a compiler error). What’s more, Scaladoc says that the definition of this method is in GenSeqLike but it doesn’t appear to be there.

SeqLike has an implementation of +: that I imagine is the one that’s being used by Stack.

trait SeqLike[+A, +Repr] ...
  def +:[B >: A, That](elem: B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That = {
    val b = bf(repr)
    b += elem
    b ++= thisCollection
    b.result
  }

This doesn’t look to be as efficient as Stack.push.

When I try to provide my own implementation of +: (as push), I do get the expected compiler errors that the method I’m overriding doesn’t exist and about the covariance issue.

class Stack2[+A] extends Stack[A] {
  override def +: (elem: A): Stack[A] = this push elem
}

scalac Stack2.scala gives:

Stack2.scala:4: error: method +: overrides nothing
  override def +: (elem: A): Stack[A] = this push elem
               ^
Stack2.scala:4: error: covariant type A occurs in contravariant position in type A of value elem
  override def +: (elem: A): Stack[A] = this push elem
                   ^
two errors found

Is it possible to implement +: efficiently using push?

  • 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
    2026-05-26T06:20:40+00:00Added an answer on May 26, 2026 at 6:20 am

    The documentation is a little confusing here. You’ll notice that that method is marked as a use case. The actual signature is this one:

    def +: [B >: A, That] (elem: B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Stack[A], B, That]): That
    Prepends an element to this immutable stack
    

    The use case is just showing a typical way you might use it (and even though the real signature changed in SeqLike, the use case didn’t change from GenSeqLike, hence the apparently incorrect attribution).

    You’re correct that the implementation of +: is not efficient, though you couldn’t tell this for certain given the code that you posted. b ++= thisCollection could notice that the rest of it is just a stack and push elem on the front. But it doesn’t; b is just an ArrayBuffer underneath the hood.

    So use a list instead, like the doc suggests.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I noticed that if I use generics on a method signature to accomplish something
I noticed that I can extend a class and at the same time pass
I noticed that Google maps is providing directions in my local language (hungarian) when
I noticed that you can call Queue.Synchronize to get a thread-safe queue object, but
I noticed that my Designer.vb file of one of my forms has a lot
We noticed that lots of bugs in our software developed in C# (or Java)
i noticed that paypal displays a very different favicon, one that's not just a
I noticed that there is one change about ASP.NET Routing. I cannot understand why
Just noticed that the style of the navigation menu on windows.com is just what
I noticed that the generic IEnumerator<T> inherits from IDisposable, but the non-generic interface IEnumerator

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.