... and what happens if you have more than one implicit? IIRC that's when it complains, as you have the same name
I'm not sure when this little "feature" got slipped into the Scala compiler, but now no longer need to choose an faux-meaningful name for your implicits. implicit val _: Show[Int] = _.toString Reality: the implicit has a name, and that name is `_`.
-
-
-
no problem implicit val __: Show[String] = _.toString implicit val ___: Show[Float] = _.toString implicit val ______________: Show[Long] = _.toString and so on :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you! Good to know.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yup, this is a scarily bad feature. Run into it several times over the last few years. The needs to be a way to get an implicit into local search scope without naming it
-
.
@mpilquist's has got your back:https://github.com/mpilquist/local-implicits … - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
How about this: implicit val `Show[Int]`: Show[Int] = _.toString
-
Pragmatic.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
yay! what version?
-
It's in 2.12.8 but not in 2.11.12. More than that, I know not...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
What if we need two implicits?
-
Then everything comes unstuck, unfortunately. They both end up being called ‘_’, accessible via backticks, but one shadows the other. See
@virus_dave's reply for a fair analysis of this aspect of it!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.