tpd#New: Make constructor TermRefs non-ambiguous #730
Merged
Conversation
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
|
Otherwise LGTM. Nice to see the simplification this entails. |
Before this change, the prefix of a constructor TermRef was the prefix
of the class, this means that it was possible for two constructors to
have the same prefix, the same name ("<init>") and the same signature.
This could cause double binding errors.
smarter
force-pushed
the
fix/constructor-prefix
branch
from
8ee09bf to
1f1f1a2
Compare
|
Comment addressed. |
|
/rebuild |
odersky
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 19, 2015
tpd#New: Make constructor TermRefs non-ambiguous
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Before this change, the prefix of a constructor TermRef was the prefix
of the class, this means that it was possible for two constructors to
have the same prefix, the same name (
<init>) and the same signature.This could cause double binding errors.
Review by @odersky