Implement for clauses for implied imports
#6594
Conversation
If we have a situation like this: ``` type A type B <: A implied a for A implied b for B ``` we should recognize `b` to be more specific than `a`. Before this commit that was not the case, since `a: A$`, `b: B$` and `B$` is not a subtype of `A$`.
odersky
force-pushed
the
change-implied-imports
branch
from
b789e87 to
0f7e939
Compare
In a `for` clause of an implied imports, allow several bounds,
separated by commas. Writing
```
import a.b.{for C, D}
```
is equivalent to
```
import a.b.{for C | D}
```
but feels more natural.
Need to use normalizedCompatible instead of `<:<`.
odersky
force-pushed
the
change-implied-imports
branch
from
d10e0cb to
4a488c8
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Some minor comments about the syntax:
-
In the case
import implied path.{for A, B}, it would be nicer to writeimport implied path._ for A, B -
In
import implied path.{for A, B}, the keywordimpliedseems repetitive, asforalready expresses the intent. It will be annoying if this is going to be the common case. -
Inside the brace, I feel something is missing before
for. What aboutimport implied path.{d, _ for A, B}? I agree the_is meaningless unless we allow{ d for A, f for B}.
| renamed <- reverseMapping.keys | ||
| denot <- pre.member(reverseMapping(renamed)).altsWith(_ is implicitFlag) | ||
| } yield { | ||
| yield { | ||
| val original = reverseMapping(renamed) | ||
| val ref = TermRef(pre, original, denot) | ||
| if (renamed == original) ref |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hum ... It doesn't look like valid Scala code to me, actually :-s Maybe with the indentation-based syntax, but that shouldn't be enabled there? Is the parser too lenient?
|
Merging this for now, but we can continue the discussion about what's the best syntax to use. |
Syntax:
More details in
import-implied.md.