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
Deprecate -Xfuture #7328
Merged
Merged
Deprecate -Xfuture #7328
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | ||
object Test { | ||
// Treat TupleN as final under -Xfuture for the for the purposes | ||
// of the "fruitless type test" warning. | ||
// TupleN is final now, so we get a | ||
// "fruitless type test" warning. | ||
(1, 2) match { case Seq() => 0; case _ => 1 } | ||
} |
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | ||
// scalac: -Xfuture | ||
// scalac: -Xsource:3.0 | ||
// | ||
object Foo { | ||
List(1,2,3).toSet() | ||
|
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about 2.14 instead of 3.0 ? We need to spread the pain a bit :).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This represents a lot of pain, for not much gain (that I can see). Open to discuss, but my initial position is mild skepticism. I'm not yet convinced this should even be in 3.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But it's already deprecated no ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I'm not sure anymore deprecation is the right thing to do.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Anyway, I probably hold the minority opinion on this. The remaining discussion is to decide the version. We could do 2.14 if people think that's better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm, I'm surprised this is controversial at all, I would like to understand your (Adriaan's) thinking here. maybe we should discuss further in a more visible place? (scala/bug#8035, or Discourse?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we want to remove this in 2.14, I think we'll need to vote for that at a SIP meeting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since when is the committee concerned with the precise version number a deprecation happens in? It doesn't even get to specify the version in which a new feature will be implemented: https://docs.scala-lang.org/sips/sip-submission.html says
Note: asks the maintainers, it doesn't tell us. And we're also talking about the earliest version. Since deprecation is kind of the dual, we'd be asked about the latest version something should be deprecated. However, there isn't even a SIP process for deprecation -- that usually happens together with the new feature that replaces it. That particular feature will be discussed as part of the Scala 3 sip.
If you think the SIP committee mandate should be expanded to include require precise versions in which we should implement/remove things, please put that on the agenda for November. I'll say now that I'm not in favor.