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

Decide upon approach to structural types #1517

Closed
felixmulder opened this issue Sep 16, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Decide upon approach to structural types #1517

felixmulder opened this issue Sep 16, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@felixmulder
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@olafurpg
Copy link
Member

Related discussion #1175.

@sirinath
Copy link

Perhaps it might be worthwhile to look into other languages like OCaml which uses structural types and also make this an opportunity to improve on structural types.

@olafurpg
Copy link
Member

olafurpg commented Oct 6, 2016

Here is a summary of structural types containing defs in the wild: olafurpg/scala-experiments#2

The sample is taken from these projects: https://github.com/olafurpg/scala-repos/tree/master/repos

Seems like many of them are in scala/scala jetbrains/intellij-scala

@edmundnoble
Copy link
Contributor

Have we considered removing structural types? From your analysis @olafurpg it looks like structural types with defs are used more in Scala's compiler tests than anywhere else, and if we came up with a story for first-class type projections I don't think they'd have any uses at all.

@smarter
Copy link
Member

smarter commented Apr 11, 2017

The latest status of structural types is the new implementation (which is not tied to Java reflection, although it can support it to) at: #1881

@odersky
Copy link
Contributor

odersky commented Apr 11, 2017

Superseded by #1886 and #1881.

@odersky odersky closed this as completed Apr 11, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants