But has anything bad happened about it that I missed?
-
-
Replying to @mandubian
Yeah, Martin seems to have changed his mind and wants to put a new Top type that could also maybe do all this.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @posco @mandubian
Didn't people complain Scala looks like a mishmash of overlapping features? Now it's bad when Martin tries to avoid it?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Also, "maybe" seems a bit uncharitable. The idea here is just value classes fixed, and there's a design document with details in the thread.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Blaisorblade @mandubian1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @posco @Blaisorblade and
I fear it creates a lot of weird special cases when also used to represent unboxed newtype.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @posco @Blaisorblade and
Is case class Foo(x: Int) extends Top legit? (I guess no). class Bar(x: Int, y: String) extends Top (I guess no again).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @posco @Blaisorblade and
Is class Foo(x: Int) extends Any okay? If so, does it box? Seems like complex rules between extends AnyVal, extends Any, extends Top
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @posco @Blaisorblade and
I didn’t see any of this answered. Opaque type is much more contained and lacking most of these consistency questions.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @posco @Blaisorblade and
The SIP still doesn't explain what happens here: (x: Unsigned) match { case y: Int => ... } I wouldn't say it "lacks consistency questions".
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Maybe it just needs a bit more work to get past a bunch of corner cases. Hopefully, because it looks like an improvement to value classes!
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.