Don't write (using ctx: Context)
#8639
Merged
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
odersky
force-pushed
the
change-ctx
branch
5 times, most recently
from
560afa1 to
d04df74
Compare
|
On hold until #8654 is completed. |
odersky
force-pushed
the
change-ctx
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9dc5480 to
ac14eb2
Compare
|
New state: unblocked, since #8654 is merged. We are using By now, all files in |
|
I am going to merge this later today. The footprint of changes makes it very hard to keep up-to-date. So I think it's better to merge this quickly. |
The new way we organize context passing has one downside. We start with `(using Context)` because it is less cluttered, but then if in the body we have to refer to the current context we go back to `(using ctx: Context)`. I havealso seen occurrences of `(using ctx: Context)` without an actual usage of `ctx` in the body. This going back and forth is awkward. Fortnately, there's an alternative: `Contexts` contains a method `curCtx` which summons the current context. We should always use `curCtx` instead of `ctx`, which means we never need to write `(using ctx: Context)`. Or maybe we can even go back renaming `curCtx` to `ctx`? Then we could simply drop all `ctx` names in parameters and hopefully get the same meaning and performance.
Prefer this over defining contexts locally. It's less sensitive to accidental recursions. Rename withContext -> withCompilerContext in compilerSupport
Explicit declarations is `ctx` are risky since after changing all usaages of `(implicit ctx: Context)` to `(using Context)` they risk accidental rebindings. Before the change, `ctx` might have referred to an implicit parameter, but after the change it might refer to an outer binding of `ctx`. Systematically renaming all `ctx` bindings (except the one in `Contexts`) avoids this trap.
DocStrings failed -Ytest-pickler, since a `given _` in an importy clause started with a position that spanned the whole string, and ended after unpickling with a position that just contained the `given`.
Plus other refactorings
odersky
force-pushed
the
change-ctx
branch
3 times, most recently
from
ef0e7e0 to
7641518
Compare
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.
The new way we organize context passing has one downside. We start with
(using Context)because it is less cluttered, but then if in the body we have to refer to the current
context we go back to
(using ctx: Context). I have also seen occurrences of(using ctx: Context)without an actual usage of
ctxin the body.This going back and forth is awkward. Fortunately, there's an alternative:
Contextscontainsa method
curCtxwhich summons the current context. We should always usecurCtxinstead ofctx, which means we never need to write(using ctx: Context).Or maybe we can even go back renaming
curCtxtoctx? Then we could simply drop allctxnamesin parameters and hopefully get the same meaning and performance.