Imported From: https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-7313?orig=1
Reporter: Pavel Glushchenko (codenamestif)
Affected Versions: 2.10.0, 2.10.1

@retronym said:
The point in the current implementation that checks this:

      case mt1 @ MethodType(params1, res1) =>
        tp2 match {
          case mt2 @ MethodType(params2, res2) =>
            // sameLength(params1, params2) was used directly as pre-screening optimization (now done by matchesQuantified -- is that ok, performancewise?)
            mt1.isImplicit == mt2.isImplicit &&
            matchingParams(params1, params2, mt1.isJava, mt2.isJava) &&
            matchesQuantified(params1, params2, res1, res2)

Originally introduced in 2005 by Martin: scala/scala@0baff37#L30R834

The spec is silent:

Two method types(§3.3.1) are equivalent if they have equivalent resulttypes, both have the same number of parameters, and corresponding parameters have equivalent types. Note that the names of parameters do not matter for method type equivalence.

Assigning to Martin for clarification; it seems to me like it's intentional and the spec needs an update.

@paulp said:
It's definitely intentional. "The spec needs an update" is a non-sequitur at this point. Yes, the spec needs an update, and I need a flying car.

@gkossakowski said:
Unassigning and rescheduling to M7 as previous deadline was missed.

@adriaanm said:
Fixed in the upcoming markdown version of the spec.