Changes in Implicit Resolution

Edit this page on GitHub

Implicit resolution uses a new algorithm which caches implicit results more aggressively for performance. There are also some changes that affect implicits on the language level.

Types of implicit values and result types of implicit methods must be explicitly declared. Excepted are only values in local blocks where the type may still be inferred:

class C {

  val ctx: Context = ...        // ok

  /*!*/ implicit val x = ...    // error: type must be given explicitly

  /*!*/ implicit def y = ...    // error: type must be given explicitly

  val y = {
    implicit val ctx = this.ctx // ok
    ...
  }

Nesting is now taken into account for selecting an implicit. Consider for instance the following scenario:
```
def f(implicit i: C) = {
  def g(implicit j: C) = {
    implicitly[C]
  }
}
```
This will now resolve the implicitly call to j, because j is nested more deeply than i. Previously, this would have resulted in an ambiguity error. The previous possibility of an implicit search failure due to shadowing (where an implicit is hidden by a nested definition) no longer applies.
Package prefixes no longer contribute to the implicit scope of a type. Example:
```
package p
given a as A

object o {
  given b as B
  type C
}
```
Both a and b are visible as implicits at the point of the definition of type C. However, a reference to p.o.C outside of package p will have only b in its implicit scope but not a.
The treatment of ambiguity errors has changed. If an ambiguity is encountered in some recursive step of an implicit search, the ambiguity is propagated to the caller. Example: Say you have the following definitions:
```
class A
class B extends C
class C
implicit def a1: A
implicit def a2: A
implicit def b(implicit a: A): B
implicit def c: C
```
and the query implicitly[C].

This query would now be classified as ambiguous. This makes sense, after all there are two possible solutions, b(a1) and b(a2), neither of which is better than the other and both of which are better than the third solution, c. By contrast, Scala 2 would have rejected the search for A as ambiguous, and subsequently have classified the query b(implicitly[A]) as a normal fail, which means that the alternative c would be chosen as solution!

Scala 2's somewhat puzzling behavior with respect to ambiguity has been exploited to implement the analogue of a "negated" search in implicit resolution, where a query Q1 fails if some other query Q2 succeeds and Q1 succeeds if Q2 fails. With the new cleaned up behavior these techniques no longer work. But there is now a new special type scala.implicits.Not which implements negation directly. For any query type Q: Not[Q] succeeds if and only if the implicit search for Q fails.
The treatment of divergence errors has also changed. A divergent implicit is treated as a normal failure, after which alternatives are still tried. This also makes sense: Encountering a divergent implicit means that we assume that no finite solution can be found on the given path, but another path can still be tried. By contrast most (but not all) divergence errors in Scala 2 would terminate the implicit search as a whole.
Scala-2 gives a lower level of priority to implicit conversions with call-by-name parameters relative to implicit conversions with call-by-value parameters. Dotty drops this distinction. So the following code snippet would be ambiguous in Dotty:
```
implicit def conv1(x: Int): A = new A(x)
implicit def conv2(x: => Int): A = new A(x)
def buzz(y: A) = ???
buzz(1)   // error: ambiguous
```
The rule for picking a most specific alternative among a set of overloaded or implicit alternatives is refined to take context parameters into account. All else being equal, an alternative that takes some context parameters is taken to be less specific than an alternative that takes none. If both alternatives take context parameters, we try to choose between them as if they were methods with regular parameters. The following paragraph in the SLS is affected by this change:

Original version:

An alternative A is more specific than an alternative B if the relative weight of A over B is greater than the relative weight of B over A.

Modified version:

An alternative A is more specific than an alternative B if
- the relative weight of A over B is greater than the relative weight of B over A, or
- the relative weights are the same, and A takes no implicit parameters but B does, or
- the relative weights are the same, both A and B take implicit parameters, and A is more specific than B if all implicit parameters in either alternative are replaced by regular parameters.

[//]: # todo: expand with precise rules