Change protected accessors #4568
Closed
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
May 23, 2018
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 ("Add" instead of "Added")
- 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! ☀️
odersky
force-pushed
the
change-protected-accessors
branch
from
07174c6 to
1501dcb
Compare
|
It turns out that the rules governing super accessors and protected accessors are more subtle and intertwined than it looks at first. The root cause of this is that traits extend classes in Scala but not in the JVM. |
New phase to check protected accessors. We now create accessors also for Scala symbols. Previously this was not done as it was assumed that such symbols will always be mapped to public. We create the accessors anyway in order to better test the functionality, so that we can at some point avoid the access widening from protected to public.
Protected accessor names are no longer pickled, but inline accessors are. Adapt name tags accordingly. Bump major Tasty version.
…classes Superaccessors handles this already correctly by generating a super accessor in this case.
Fix remaining problems, mostly having to do with choosing between super accessors and protected accessors.
odersky
force-pushed
the
change-protected-accessors
branch
from
db116ff to
7777c70
Compare
odersky
added a commit
to dotty-staging/dotty
that referenced
this pull request
May 26, 2018
Import AccessProxies changes from scala#4568
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.
Generate protected accessors after pickling in a mini-phase.
Change rules so that accessors are also created for Scala-defined protected definitions, if
the access comes from outside the definitions visibility boundary and the class enclosing
the access is not a subclass. This prepares half of the way towards leaving such definitions
protected instead of widening their accessibility to public. The other half of the way would be
to forbid access from nested packages, but this will not be done in this PR.