Skip to content
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

:type doesn't understand Unit #7132

Closed
scabug opened this issue Feb 15, 2013 · 2 comments
Closed

:type doesn't understand Unit #7132

scabug opened this issue Feb 15, 2013 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@scabug
Copy link

@scabug scabug commented Feb 15, 2013

It's generally possible in the interpreter to find the type of an expression, even if the evaluation of that expression would diverge. For example:

scala> def ridiculous(n: Int): Int = ridiculous(n+1)
ridiculous: (n: Int)Int

scala> :t ridiculous(0)
Int

However, when the type of an expression is Unit, the interpreter appears to evaluate the expression instead of showing its type:

scala> def ridiculous(n: Int): Unit = ridiculous(n+1)
ridiculous: (n: Int)Unit

scala> :t ridiculous(0)
[ ... interpreter gets stuck ]

A simpler example:

scala> :t println("ridiculous")
ridiculous

In either case I'd expect no evaluation and no side effects to occur, and the interpreter to print "Unit". This worked in 2.9.x, and broke somewhere in 2.10 development.

@scabug
Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Feb 15, 2013

Imported From: https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-7132?orig=1
Reporter: Dan Rosen (mergeconflict)
Affected Versions: 2.10.0

@scabug
Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Mar 2, 2013

Dan Rosen (mergeconflict) said:
Took a stab at this and broke stuff: scala/scala#2191

@scabug scabug closed this Mar 13, 2013
@scabug scabug added the repl label Apr 7, 2017
@scabug scabug added this to the 2.10.2-RC1 milestone Apr 7, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants