Quick sketch of a not very general implementation of boilerplate-free coyoneda'd constructors

FreeMacros.scala

import scala.language.experimental.macros
import scala.reflect.macros.whitebox

class FreeMacros(val c: whitebox.Context) {
  import c.universe._

  def smartName(name: String): String = (
    name.toList match {
      case h :: t => h.toLower :: t
      case Nil => Nil
    }
  ).mkString

  def liftedImpl[F[_]](implicit t: c.WeakTypeTag[F[_]]): Tree = {
    val atc = t.tpe.typeConstructor

    val constructors = t.tpe.typeSymbol.asClass.knownDirectSubclasses.map {
      case constructor: ClassSymbol =>
        val companion = constructor.companion
        val ctpe = constructor.typeSignature
        val ctc = ctpe.typeConstructor

        val methodName = TermName(smartName(constructor.name.toString))
        val A = TypeName(c.freshName())

        val (params, names) = ctpe.decls.collect {
          case m: MethodSymbol if m.isCaseAccessor =>
            m.typeSignatureIn(atc) match {
              case NullaryMethodType(returnType) =>
                val param =
                  if (returnType.typeSymbol == ctc.typeParams.head)
                    q"val ${m.name}: $A"
                  else
                    q"val ${m.name}: $returnType"

                (param, m.name)
                
          }
        }.unzip

        q"""
          def $methodName[$A](..$params): _root_.cats.free.FreeC[$atc, $A] =
            _root_.cats.free.Free.liftFC[$atc, $A](
              $companion.apply[$A](..$names)
            )
        """
    }

    q"new { ..$constructors }"
  }
}

object FreeMacros {
  def liftConstructors[F[_]]: Any = macro FreeMacros.liftedImpl[F]
}

Another idea that would probably be similar code is to add a fold/catamorphism on the type constructor. Perhaps also have the option of hiding the data constructors so that you would only introduce ADTs via the well typed constructors and eliminate them with the fold.

If we can do something like given the type constructor return a Set of the type signatures of the data constructors, the free constructors, well types constructors, and the fold should be super easy.

Going to try to hack on the annotation macro version of this some more.

On a related note, it seems the current code falls over for something like:

sealed abstract class KvOp[A]
final case class Put(k: String, v: String) extends KvOp[Unit]
final case class Get(k: String) extends KvOp[Option[String]]

The problem I think being there's no type param on the data constructors.. adding them appears to make it work.

Yeah, the next step is lining up the type parameter on each constructor with the appropriate one on the ADT type (if needed). This will fix your case, as well as the case where the constructors have other type parameters.

I'll take a stab at that this evening. It should look roughly the same for the macro annotation version.