summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/fjbg/ch/epfl/lamp
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAleksandar Prokopec <axel22@gmail.com>2012-06-27 16:30:35 +0200
committerAleksandar Prokopec <axel22@gmail.com>2012-06-27 16:30:35 +0200
commit5362f3df48a363308e41434b17fca60a0d4d84da (patch)
treee493caacebcaf04f194ca52fa7c2033a6f47db55 /src/fjbg/ch/epfl/lamp
parent9a28ee1ffc085bc680c48b12ad632b9133adf020 (diff)
downloadscala-5362f3df48a363308e41434b17fca60a0d4d84da.tar.gz
scala-5362f3df48a363308e41434b17fca60a0d4d84da.tar.bz2
scala-5362f3df48a363308e41434b17fca60a0d4d84da.zip
Fix SI-3326.
The heart of the problem - we want to retain the ordering when using `++` on sorted maps. There are 2 `++` overloads - a generic one in traversables and a map-specific one in `MapLike` - which knows about the ordering. The problem here is that the expected return type for the expression in which `++` appears drives the decision of the overload that needs to be taken. The `collection.SortedMap` does not have `++` overridden to return `SortedMap`, but `immutable.Map` instead. This is why `collection.SortedMap` used to resort to the generic `TraversableLike.++` which knows nothing about the ordering. To avoid `collection.SortedMap`s resort to the more generic `TraverableLike.++`, we override the `MapLike.++` overload in `collection.SortedMap` to return the proper type `SortedMap`.
Diffstat (limited to 'src/fjbg/ch/epfl/lamp')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions