-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
Move ValueClass checking errors to case class scheme #2505
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
Merged
felixmulder
merged 2 commits into
scala:master
from
ennru:ennru_ValueClassErrorsToCaseClasses
May 24, 2017
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks weird to me - a value class may only have one constructor parameter - as such, these cases should never occur and the
_
case should tell you this, right?Was there a reason I'm not seeing for which you needed these?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, there is.
The "may not be var" error would never show. For
class MyClass(var i: Int) extends AnyVal
it becomes aList(acc1, acc2)
for set and get access, the existing code expectsList(acc)
which does not happen forvar
s. A different choice is to skip the more specific error "may not be var" and just keep the "must be exactly one val".There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I see what you mean!
You're not looking at the class constructor here, to do that you'd call
clazz.asClass.primaryConstructor
. You're instead looking at the parameter accessors - andvar
s get a setter which is why you're seeing two items.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you saying, we should change to look at the constructor parameters?
Makes more sense to me. The exisiting check looks at the accessors - any connection to the check for Phantom types?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure - @nicolasstucki
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Phantoms should not affect this. But you should not assume that the constructor will have 1 parameter. There could potentially be an illegal constructor with more or less parameters. In these cases you can just disregard this error as another one will be emitted for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You should also probably try to get them from
clazz.asClass.primaryConstructor
. It sounds cleaner.