Details
-
Type:
Bug
-
Status: Open
-
Priority:
Major
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Affects Version/s: None
-
Fix Version/s: Scala 2.10.0-M3, Scala 2.10.0
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:
Description
Compiled in -M2, not presently.
object C {
|
def join(in: Seq[List[_]]): Int = error("TODO")
|
def join[S](in: Seq[List[S]]): String = error("TODO")
|
|
|
join(Seq[List[Int]]())
|
//
|
// ./a.scala:13: error: ambiguous reference to overloaded definition,
|
// both method join in object C of type [S](in: Seq[List[S]])String
|
// and method join in object C of type (in: Seq[List[_]])Int
|
// match argument types (Seq[List[Int]])
|
// join(Seq[List[Int]]())
|
// ^
|
// one error found
|
}
|
Attachments
Activity
Looking closely at 6.26.3 and the implementation of isAsSpecificAs I believe that it is correct to report an ambiguity in this case: the spec provides no justification for preferring the polymorphic join[S] over the monomorphic (albeit existential) join.
It seems that Dotty agrees that this should be ambiguous.
Miles convinced me this should be ambiguous. See https://github.com/scala/scala/pull/5376
reverted in https://github.com/scala/scala/pull/5573
I'm not seeing the justification for reopening this. The behaviour is in line with the spec.
But it's not fixed since I had to revert my type inference hack that somehow made this work
Understood, but the description is misleading now that we've established that ambiguity is the correct result.
fixed by https://github.com/adriaanm/scala/commit/3e20bebd192444d8c1b079489292011e8030b532