Jon Pretty

I mean, val a: Int = a is even more minimal!

Holy, does that compile? I thought implicit search was part of the issue

val a: Int = a, step-by-step: 1. First ask the JVM for an empty int-field 2. Now, calculate the value to set it to 3. Look up the value in the field, a; turns out it's 0 4. Save the result in the field, a

Any reason why the compiler allows such a circular reference? It's seems pretty easy to catch, but I'm sure I'm missing the complications.

You'll have to ask the compiler engineers. There are some limited checks in place for similar situations: > def x: Int = x <console>:11: warning: method x does nothing other than call itself recursively

My assumption is that in the case of the trivial def, or the val which points at a stack frame, the compiler is faced with the immediate problem of what to compile this to, given there's nothing to compile.

Hm? `def x = x` is a perfectly cromulent recursive definition. Local `val`, I agree.

I wish it were opt-in for the recursive definition, and the default were... name-shadowing (as I'm a big fan). Gimme: `val username = username.toLowerCase` please. So I don't have to call them username1, _username, or whatever.