Allow using clauses to introduce Scala-2 conversions #13662
Conversation
Notably, `(using A <:< B)` should introduce an implicit conversion. Previously that did not work since we tried to elaborate the context parameter as a `scala.Conversion`.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unless I'm blind, this makes (using map: Map[String, Int]) a problem again. I think we should "just" special-case <:< (and thus its subclass =:=): I know it's a special-casing, but I see it as a retroactive definition of them as subclasses of Conversion. Perhaps it can even be special-cased that way: stick Conversion as <:<'s base class or interfaces?
No, we do require that the implicit candidate returns a |
|
I think we do have a test. But I have not looked it up.
…On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 10:08 AM Dale Wijnand ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** approved this pull request.
Ah, right. Thanks! Do we have or want to add a test to safe guard against
that Map puzzler?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#13662 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGCKVVJFUPPUERXSO7WDJTUFFOGJANCNFSM5FHMAJYA>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
--
Martin Odersky
Professor, Programming Methods Group (LAMP)
Faculty IC, EPFL
Station 14, Lausanne, Switzerland
|
Notably,
(using A <:< B)should introduce an implicit conversion.Previously that did not work since we tried to elaborate the context
parameter as a
scala.Conversion.