summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/test/files/run/t6860.scala
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.
* SI-8118 simplifies Annotation down to a plain TreeEugene Burmako2014-02-141-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | As per https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/scala-internals/8v2UL-LR9yY, annotations don’t have to be represented as AnnotationInfos and can be reduced to plain Trees. Due to compatibility reasons and because of the limitations of the cake pattern used in implementing current version of Reflection, we can’t just say `type Annotation = Tree`, however what we can definitely do is to deprecate all the methods on Annotation and expose `tree: Tree` instead.
* SI-2577, SI-6860: annotation type inference.Paul Phillips2013-01-261-0/+20
This is less than ideal: scala> class Bippy[T] extends annotation.StaticAnnotation defined class Bippy scala> def f: Int @Bippy = 5 f: Int @Bippy[T] Turns out we can infer such types. Now it says: scala> def f: Int @Bippy = 5 f: Int @Bippy[Nothing] This should put to rest many an issue with parameterized annotations.