How to write strongly typed generic extension func

问题:

Focus on the strong and generic parts.

Let's say I have this extension function:

fun <E> Collection<E>.myContains(item: E) : Boolean {
    // quite pointless, I know, but a simple example
    return item in this
}

the intention is to write a function that only accepts types of the collection elements (E), but this is not validated by the compiler?!

val isItInside: Boolean = listOf(1, 2).myContains("1")

happily compiles. My guess is that E is inferred to be Any.

How can I enforce this restriction within the Kotlin type system/generics?

(Kotlin version 1.3.41)

---

Original context

An exercise to try to write a small assertion framework. A bit more complicated, but tried to get the simplest repro above.

class Asserter<T>(val value: T)

infix fun <T> T.should(block: Asserter<T>.() -> Unit) =
    Asserter(this).block()

fun <T : Collection<*>> Asserter<T>.haveSize(size: Int) {
    check(this.value.size == size) {
        "expecting ${this.value} to be of size $size"
    }
}

fun <E, T : Collection<E>> Asserter<T>.contain(item: E) {
    check(item in this.value) {
        "$item does not exist in $item"
    }
}

class ShouldTest {

    @Test fun intList() {
        listOf(1, 2) should {
            haveSize(2)
            contain(1)
            contain("2") // this shouldn't compile
        }
    }

    @Test fun stringList() {
        listOf("1", "2") should {
            haveSize(2)
            contain(1) // this shouldn't compile
            contain("2")
        }
    }
}

回答1:

This appears to be due to the variance on the Collection interface's parameter, which is defined as Collection<out E>.

This means that Collection<Any> is a supertype of Collection<E>, and so (apparently) the Collection<Any>.myContains() extension can be called on a Collection<Int>.

You can confirm this by replacing it with the invariant MutableCollection (and also the listOf() with mutableListOf()); you then get the compile-time ‘Type mismatch’ error as expected.

This surprised me, though.  I guess the compiler must infer E using both the receiver type and the parameter type.  (Can anyone confirm this?)  And, as you point out, it has the annoying effect of preventing stricter type-safety.

回答2:

This looks like a solution:

class Asserter<in T>(val value: @UnsafeVariance T)