New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
available spec is silent on the fact that the implicit scope of a.A includes package object a #4427
Comments
Imported From: https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-4427?orig=1 |
@odersky said: The {\em implicit scope} of a type |
@retronym said (edited on Mar 18, 2012 10:51:32 PM UTC): |
Martin Kneissl (mkneissl) said: |
Régis Jean-Gilles (rjean-gilles) said: |
@Blaisorblade said: |
@paulp said: |
Shiva Wu (shivawu) said: |
@som-snytt said (edited by @Blaisorblade on Aug 7, 2014 10:33:40 AM UTC): http://www.scala-lang.org/files/archive/spec/2.11/07-implicit-parameters-and-views.html
|
@Blaisorblade said:
Unless that's documented, that does not count even as correct, and even less as clear. Quoting from https://github.com/scala/scala/tree/2.11.x/spec:
|
@Blaisorblade said: So, it seems that the spec is in fact already correct on this point (since a while), and the question is just how to best explain it (which is extremely important, but does not deserve such an open ticket). If everybody involved agrees, we can close the ticket. |
=== Additional information ===
A straw poll reveals that Scala programmers far and wide have come to rely on the implicit scope including the package objects of the containing packages of the parts of the type.
Assuming this is intentional, or at least serendipitous, it ought to be enshrined in the spec.
Related: http://youtrack.jetbrains.net/issue/SCL-2996
=== What versions of the following are you using? ===
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: