| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the first commit in the series. This commit only:
1) Splits Context into BlackboxContext and WhiteboxContext
2) Splits Macro into BlackboxMacro and WhiteboxMacro
3) Introduces the isBundle property in the macro impl binding
Here we just teach the compiler that macros can now be blackbox and whitebox,
without actually imposing any restrictions on blackbox macros. These
restrictions will come in subsequent commits.
For description and documentation of the blackbox/whitebox separation
see the official macro guide at the scaladoc website:
http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/macros/blackbox-whitebox.html
Some infrastructure work to make evolving macros easier:
compile partest-extras with quick so they can use latest library/reflect/...
|
| |
|
|
| |
Removes the stubs left out to appease the old starr, fixes macro tests.
|
|
|
After a discussion on a reflection meeting on Jul 17
we concluded that we should split staticModule into
staticModule and staticPackage to remove the ambiguity
between packageless objects and packageless packages
(more in the comments in the body of the commit).
The motivation is verbosely outlined in the comments,
but the bottom line is that Scala allows packages and
packageless objects to have the same name within the same program.
Therefore at times we need to disambiguate, hence the introduction
of the staticPackage method.
As of such staticModule no longer works for packages.
In the same fashion staticPackage doesn't work for modules.
This is done to ensure robustness of reification.
I would like to do the same for getModule in Definitions,
but we have to maintain backward compatibility. That's why I retained
the old behavior, but replaced getModule invocations with getPackage
where appropriate to be in line with staticModule and staticPackage.
Another important thing that follows from the discussion is that
both staticClass and staticModule prefer parent packages over parent objects
in cases of ambiguity. Say, if we have the following snippet of code:
object B { class C } next to package B { class C }
then staticClass("B.C") will never even consider a C inside the object B.
This is how scalac operates, so we decided to be consistent here.
Finally reification logic got changed to distinguish between
staticModule and staticPackage, and to allow for the fact that
staticClass and staticModule prefer parent packages to parent objects.
|
