Changes to eta expansion #2701
Merged
Changes to eta expansion #2701
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dottybot
reviewed
Jun 7, 2017
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello, and thank you for opening this PR! 🎉
All contributors have signed the CLA, thank you! ❤️
Commit Messages
We want to keep history, but for that to actually be useful we have
some rules on how to format our commit messages (relevant xkcd).
Please stick to these guidelines for commit messages:
- Separate subject from body with a blank line
- When fixing an issue, start your commit message with
Fix #<ISSUE-NBR>:- Limit the subject line to 72 characters
- Capitalize the subject line
- Do not end the subject line with a period
- Use the imperative mood in the subject line ("Added" instead of "Add")
- Wrap the body at 80 characters
- Use the body to explain what and why vs. how
adapted from https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit
Have an awesome day! ☀️
|
Seems dotty-bot got chatty again? |
|
It's turned quite passive aggressive lately! :) We'll look at remedying it! |
senia-psm
reviewed
Jun 7, 2017
|
|
||
| // Reasons NOT to eta expand: | ||
| // - we reference a constructor | ||
| // - we are in a patterm |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Typo. Should be "pattern"
Implements another part of scala#2570
For neg/typedapply.scala we had an infinite sequence of eta-expansions, followed by `.apply` selections.
"Expected:" always came out empty: `[]`.
I overlooked that we actually have a `closure` extractor, which would do the job of `isClosure`, if we ever needed it.
smarter
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2017
smarter
added a commit
to dotty-staging/dotty
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2017
The nightly build runs the sbt incremental compilation tests (that can be run by hand using sbt "sbt-dotty/scripted source-dependencies/*" but take a while to complete). The implicit-params test started failing after scala#2701 because B.scala contains: val y = x(3) which was supposed to fail when the implicit is not present but now succeeds with `y` getting the type `E => String`. We restore the failure by adding a type annotation to `y`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This implements the eta expansion parts of #2570, following the recommendations in my comment there:
After discussing this with @adriaanm, we are leaning towards the following compromise proposal for handling references to unapplied methods m:
If m has one or more parameters, we always eta expand
if m is nullary and the expected type is of the form () => T, we eta expand.
Based on #2691