Skip to content

Fix #2795: Fix name kind testing logic #2798

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 23, 2017
Merged

Conversation

odersky
Copy link
Contributor

@odersky odersky commented Jun 23, 2017

The previous logic would have UniqueNames shadow everything else. So if one starts
with a UniqueName(prefix, sep, number), and then does a qualified name, one gets a
unique name over a qualified name. The resulting name should still be recognized as a
qualified name, however. The change in this commit achieves that.

odersky added 3 commits June 23, 2017 17:38
The previous logic would have UniqueNames shadow everything else. So if one starts
with a UniqueName(prefix, sep, number), and then does a qualified name, one gets a
unique name or a qualified name. the resulting name should still be recognized as a
qualified name, however. The change in this commit achieves that.
When enabled, we print trees with their uniqueIds. This was useful
in diagnosing the issue, because that way we could find out when a
tree that was missing in one version was created in the other.
@odersky odersky requested a review from nicolasstucki June 23, 2017 15:48
@@ -233,17 +233,25 @@ object Names {
}
}

/** Is it impossible that trees of kind `kind` qualify as
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you mean names, not trees, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops. Of course.

@odersky odersky merged commit 9513ed2 into scala:master Jun 23, 2017
@allanrenucci allanrenucci deleted the fix-#2795 branch December 14, 2017 19:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants