diff options
author | Aleksandar Prokopec <axel22@gmail.com> | 2012-06-27 16:30:35 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Aleksandar Prokopec <axel22@gmail.com> | 2012-06-27 16:30:35 +0200 |
commit | 5362f3df48a363308e41434b17fca60a0d4d84da (patch) | |
tree | e493caacebcaf04f194ca52fa7c2033a6f47db55 /test/files/run/t5680.scala | |
parent | 9a28ee1ffc085bc680c48b12ad632b9133adf020 (diff) | |
download | scala-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 'test/files/run/t5680.scala')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions