You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
My approach is to replace them all with modules. I think the remaining issue is purely syntactical: How to decide whether "module foo" in the first line is a "module declaration" or a module with no contents? Multiple options, including making the line mandatory, or adding {}.
I'm not convinced that the openness of packages is as useful in Scala as in Java, except for separate compilation. Everything else we do that requires packages to be open could be done other ways. Then we could lose packages, and package objects wouldn't need to exist either
Anyway, that's entirely speculative. I don't think they're going anywhere!
"One (public) class per file" was quite annoying in Java. I don't think the idea of "all classes in a package go into a single file" will go down well: Either devs would create spurious "packages" so that they can place different types in different files, or: huge source files.
Oh, I wasn't proposing that. There would still need to be a way to do separate compilation, with the same "object" or "package" still potentially split across several files. But its entire contents would be statically known.
Package openness is pretty useful, e.g. when you want to publish http://propensive.foo and http://propensive.bar packages from separate repos
I think there is a tension depending on whether your namespace is nested (e. g. Scala) or not (e. g. Java), but I think there is nothing that prevents publishing things as separate modules in practice.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
