Fixing support for recursive ADTs and user-defined implicits #85
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Binary compatibility is broken on a package-private method (which should be just private to begin with). |
julienrf
approved these changes
May 14, 2021
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Apparently, the combination of user-defined implicits and recursive ADTs never worked. The code wasn't appropriately preserving laziness.
That is to say, 9.0.0 was also broken in that respect, it's just that it completely ignored user-defined
Formats (as opposed toOFormat) values. As a result, the bug wasn't apparent sincederivedre-derived all of the formats on its own and that was sufficiently lazy. In 10.0.1 we started picking up user-defined implicits, and that revealed the bug.Fixes #84.