summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/test/files/neg/macro-blackbox-dynamic-materialization
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* some renamingsEugene Burmako2014-02-151-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | It’s almost 1am, so I’m only scratching the surface, mechanistically applying the renames that I’ve written down in my notebook: * typeSignature => info * declarations => decls * nme/tpnme => termNames/typeNames * paramss => paramLists * allOverriddenSymbols => overrides Some explanation is in order so that I don’t get crucified :) 1) No information loss happens when abbreviating `typeSignature` and `declarations`. We already have contractions in a number of our public APIs (e.g. `typeParams`), and I think it’s fine to shorten words as long as people can understand the shortened versions without a background in scalac. 2) I agree with Simon that `nme` and `tpnme` are cryptic. I think it would be thoughtful of us to provide newcomers with better names. To offset the increase in mouthfulness, I’ve moved `MethodSymbol.isConstructor` to `Symbol.isConstructor`, which covers the most popular use case for nme’s. 3) I also agree that putting `paramss` is a lot to ask of our users. The double-“s” convention is very neat, but let’s admit that it’s just weird for the newcomers. I think `paramLists` is a good compromise here. 4) `allOverriddenSymbols` is my personal complaint. I think it’s a mouthful and a shorter name would be a much better fit for the public API.
* *boxContext => *box.Context , *boxMacro => *box.MacroEugene Burmako2014-01-121-2/+2
| | | | | | | | | | Performs the following renamings: * scala.reflect.macros.BlackboxContext to scala.reflect.macros.blackbox.Context * scala.reflect.macros.BlackboxMacro to scala.reflect.macros.blackbox.Macro * scala.reflect.macros.WhiteboxContext to scala.reflect.macros.whitebox.Context * scala.reflect.macros.WhiteboxMacro to scala.reflect.macros.whitebox.Macro https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scala-internals/MX40-dM28rk
* blackbox restriction #3: can't affect implicit searchEugene Burmako2013-11-122-0/+29
When an application of a blackbox macro is used as an implicit candidate, no expansion is performed until the macro is selected as the result of the implicit search. This makes it impossible to dynamically calculate availability of implicit macros.