| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I have finally overcome my fear of positions and got to cleaning up its
public interface.
Apparently it isn’t so bad, since there’s a sane core of methods (thanks
to whoever wrote the comments to internal#Position):
1) Checks to distinguish offsets, opaque ranges and transparent ranges
2) Essentials that inclide start, point, end and source
3) Factories that create new positions based on existing ones
It looks like methods from the 3rd group are exactly what we’ve been looking
for in SI-6931, so we have nothing to add in this commit.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
When warning about stray "foo $bar" under `-Xlint`,
which may be missing an interpolator id, suppress
the warning if we're in the middle of a macro
expansion, since we have no useful heuristic to
apply to the expanded tree.
The test for whether the string is part of an
expanded tree is to check all open macros for
an expanded tree that contains the literal tree
under scrutiny. (This is deemed more paranoid
than looking for a macro application that is an
enclosing position.)
|
