| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Requires a new starr.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This commit provides the new sha1 codes of the new STARR.
Moreover, it replaces the implementation of StringContext.f
to `macro ???`. The implementation is magically hardwired into
`scala.tools.reflect.MacroImplementations.macro_StringInterpolation_f`
by the new STARR.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
TypeTag.String is removed because it's unclear whether it should point to
scala.Predef.String or to java.lang.String. ClassTag.String is removed to
be consistent with TypeTag.String.
This requires re-bootstrapping, because Definitions.scala in locker
expects classTag[String] being automatically generated, whereas starr
disagrees with locker on how to generate that class tag.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1) type ClassManifest[T] = ClassTag[T] (solves a problem
with toArray[T: ClassManifest] defined on most of the collections;
if these types weren't aliases, then we won't be able to change
the signature of that method to toArray[T: ClassTag], because
that would break source compatibility for those who override
toArray in their custom collections)
2) Compiler-generated manifests no longer trigger deprecation warnings
(this is implemented by using ClassManifestFactory instead of ClassManifest
and ManifestFactory instead of Manifest)
3) Deprecation messages got improved to reflect the changes
that were introduced in 2.10.0-M4.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
More details here:
http://groups.google.com/group/scala-internals/browse_thread/thread/fbd6d9f923f1cc89
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Review by @dragos, @jsuereth. Required bootstrapping because the starr was
ant tasks were invoking locker with -Ysourcepath instead of -sourcepath.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This protects everyone from the confusion caused by stuff like this:
https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-5884
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Before 2.10 we had a notion of ClassManifest that could be used to retain
erasures of abstract types (type parameters, abstract type members) for
being used at runtime.
With the advent of ClassManifest (and its subtype Manifest)
it became possible to write:
def mkGenericArray[T: Manifest] = Array[T]()
When compiling array instantiation, scalac would use a ClassManifest
implicit parameter from scope (in this case, provided by a context bound)
to remember Ts that have been passed to invoke mkGenericArray and
use that information to instantiate arrays at runtime (via Java reflection).
When redesigning manifests into what is now known as type tags, we decided
to explore a notion of ArrayTags that would stand for abstract and pure array
creators. Sure, ClassManifests were perfectly fine for this job, but they did
too much - technically speaking, one doesn't necessarily need a java.lang.Class
to create an array. Depending on a platform, e.g. within JavaScript runtime,
one would want to use a different mechanism.
As tempting as this idea was, it has also proven to be problematic.
First, it created an extra abstraction inside the compiler. Along with class tags
and type tags, we had a third flavor of tags - array tags. This has threaded the
additional complexity though implicits and typers.
Second, consequently, when redesigning tags multiple times over the course of
Scala 2.10.0 development, we had to carry this extra abstraction with us, which
exacerbated the overall feeling towards array tags.
Finally, array tags didn't fit into the naming scheme we had for tags.
Both class tags and type tags sound logical, because, they are descriptors for
the things they are supposed to tag, according to their names.
However array tags are the odd ones, because they don't actually tag any arrays.
As funny as it might sound, the naming problem was the last straw
that made us do away with the array tags. Hence this commit.
|
| |
|
