Super weird, anyone got an idea?https://twitter.com/quii/status/810421139029852160 …
-
-
Replying to @kaffeecoder
@quii Yes: never use implicit with generic standard types. This is just one way of getting bitten (List[A] <: Int => A)3 replies 3 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @rolandkuhn
how can a sub-type of Int exist, since it's final, https://github.com/scala/scala/blob/v2.12.0/src/library/scala/Int.scala#L1 …?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gentmen @rolandkuhn
The types can exist even if they can't possibly have values. But you can still use them as generic params and bounds.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
though you can also cast to a subtype (e.g. Int with Foo) and by erasure it works provided you don't call Foo#anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And finally, every stable ident or literal value gives rise to a singleton type (a subtype) with only one value.
8:01 AM - 18 Dec 2016
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
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.