Skip to content

Use given instead of implicit #7177

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

nicolasstucki
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@nicolasstucki nicolasstucki self-assigned this Sep 6, 2019
@nicolasstucki nicolasstucki force-pushed the use-given-in-quoted branch 5 times, most recently from 48b780b to 399d8fe Compare September 6, 2019 15:14
@nicolasstucki nicolasstucki marked this pull request as ready for review September 6, 2019 15:46
@@ -42,8 +42,7 @@
url = https://github.com/dotty-staging/scala-xml
[submodule "community-build/community-projects/shapeless"]
path = community-build/community-projects/shapeless
url = https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless
branch = shapeless-3
url = https://github.com/dotty-staging/shapeless
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@milessabin, to make some small changes to shapeless I forked it and used a new branch. I will upstream those changes once this PR is merged.

@smarter
Copy link
Member

smarter commented Sep 6, 2019

Maybe best to wait until #7151 is resolved before merging this ?

@nicolasstucki
Copy link
Contributor Author

I would say we should not wait. This PR modified only a few definitions using given. It misty updates the use sites by adding the missing imports.

Copy link
Contributor

@liufengyun liufengyun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Discussed with @nicolasstucki , it's good to merge this, so that we can see whether the syntax change plays well with real code or not.

@odersky
Copy link
Contributor

odersky commented Sep 9, 2019

I vote for holding off. If we change the syntax we will disallow the old given syntax, so we will have a major migration hassle on our hands.

@nicolasstucki
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok, then I'll reopen this PR when #7151 is in.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants