Skip to content
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

Order to Ordering conversion #1665

Closed
ceedubs opened this issue May 13, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Order to Ordering conversion #1665

ceedubs opened this issue May 13, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor

ceedubs commented May 13, 2017

In #1646 there's a discussion about how there's a conversion from Order to Ordering but that it won't actually be picked up where an implicit Ordering instance is expected.

It sounds like the general consensus is that we should make it so that after you've imported cats.implicits._ you pick up this functionality.

It may not make a lot of sense to expose this as an implicit in the Order companion object, because it won't be found there during an implicit search for an Ordering instance, and having it there will probably result in ambiguous implicits if someone imports both cats.implicits._ and Order._. However, we may not want to make this incompatible change to cats-kernel. @johnynek do you have thoughts on this?

@ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor Author

ceedubs commented May 13, 2017

By the way if this is added via cats.implicits._, then #1659 is a relevant change.

@johnynek
Copy link
Contributor

johnynek commented May 13, 2017 via email

@edmundnoble
Copy link
Contributor

I'll go ahead tonight and put up the fixed PR.

@edmundnoble
Copy link
Contributor

Up as #1670, #1659 will conflict a teeny tiny bit.

@ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor Author

ceedubs commented Dec 10, 2017

Resolved by #1670.

@ceedubs ceedubs closed this as completed Dec 10, 2017
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants