-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
Change "super trait" to be annotation-based #10239
Comments
Here are some suggestions of names, coming from the PR that introduced super traits: #9032
My opinion would be to go with |
And then there is |
I think |
I'm not sure that reasoning applies to some of the built-in types that we are targeting. Is it a valid reasoning for I would also like to apply it to |
I think so. |
Hum ... all right. |
Fix #10239: `@mixin trait` instead of `super trait`
IMO this is a very confusing name. Any trait that is meant to be mixed into
a class is called a mixin by people.
I guess I'm too late but I would have suggested "auxiliary" or something in
that direction.
The difference between traits like Product and HasSummaryAndDetailStrings
or SeqLike is not whether they are a mixin. And if I have a list of things
that only have Product in common I want it to be inferred.
The question should only be what to infer when there are other types to
infer. So the question is about making some traits second-tier when
inferring a union type or LUB.
Hence I would use a name that suggests secondary-ness, like auxiliary.
…On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:15 PM odersky ***@***.***> wrote:
Closed #10239 <#10239> via 67017d7
<67017d7>
.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#10239 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAYAUGHUOZN5UMLBOARSITSPA5U5ANCNFSM4TPFF5YQ>
.
|
At the last SIP meeting, we concluded that the functionality of super traits was desirable but it
We need to make sure to do this before we release 3.0.0-RC1.
We have not decided on a name for the annotation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: