Enumeration must DIE... - scala-internals

Das alte Google Groups wird demnächst nicht mehr unterstützt. Die neue Version ist jedoch nicht kompatibel mit Ihrem Browser.
« Google Groups-Startseite
scala-internals
Nachricht von Diskussion Enumeration must DIE...
Analysierte anzeigen - Nur Nachrichtentext zeigen
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of som.sn...@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.45;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPaMnL5eOVk5MDDPW--MTvht090f5oZavXyhzBnPxv-gH7v...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Enumeration must DIE...
From: Som Snytt <som.sn...@gmail.com>
To: scala-internals <scala-internals@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9ccd476f853a704cc724eac

--14dae9ccd476f853a704cc724eac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

...where DIE = Divergent Implicit Expansion.

While looking at the DIE issue with mapping Enumeration values
https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-5534

I noticed that one quick fix is to make Value no longer Ordered.

My question is whether the "id" or "ordinal" for Enumeration.Values should
be internal detail.  By extension, we can remove Ordered.  I moved the
Ordering[Value] to a related companion class.

As an example, Reporter.Severity is a Value used just as an int wrapper. I
had to add Ordered back to Severity for INFO < ERROR tests.

I reread the DIE page of the spec, combed through the -Yinfer-debug, and
more/less understand what's intended by the newCBF for SortedSet.  However,
my understanding is only 66% so far on the implicit problem, so I don't
want to suggest that this is the optimal fix.

Also of interest, ValueSet uses an underlying BitSet, so you lose a bit of
range:
https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-6094
but probably ValueSet doesn't want to create sparse BitSets with huge
ranges anyway and should switch to a different representation after a
relatively small topId - bottomId.

If ids were only ordinals, with bottomId always zero, the conceptual model
would be as simple as it really is.

--14dae9ccd476f853a704cc724eac
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

...where DIE =3D Divergent Implicit Expansion.<br><br>While looking at the =
DIE issue with mapping Enumeration values<br><a href=3D"https://issues.scal=
a-lang.org/browse/SI-5534" target=3D"_blank">https://issues.scala-lang.org/=
browse/SI-5534</a><br>


<br>I noticed that one quick fix is to make Value no longer Ordered.<br><br=
>My question is whether the &quot;id&quot; or &quot;ordinal&quot; for Enume=
ration.Values should be internal detail.=A0 By extension, we can remove Ord=
ered.=A0 I moved the Ordering[Value] to a related companion class.<br>

<br>As an example, Reporter.Severity is a Value used just as an int wrapper=
. I had to add Ordered back to Severity for INFO &lt; ERROR tests.<br><br>I=
 reread the DIE page of the spec, combed through the -Yinfer-debug, and mor=
e/less understand what&#39;s intended by the newCBF for SortedSet.=A0 Howev=
er, my understanding is only 66% so far on the implicit problem, so I don&#=
39;t want to suggest that this is the optimal fix. <br>
<br>Also of interest, ValueSet uses an underlying BitSet, so you lose a bit=
 of range:<br>
<a href=3D"https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-6094" target=3D"_blank">=
https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-6094</a><br>but probably ValueSet d=
oesn&#39;t want to create sparse BitSets with huge ranges anyway and should=
 switch to a different representation after a relatively small topId - bott=
omId.<br>

<br>If ids were only ordinals, with bottomId always zero, the conceptual mo=
del would be as simple as it really is.<br><br>

--14dae9ccd476f853a704cc724eac--
Gruppe erstellen - Google Groups - Google-Startseite - Nutzungsbedingungen - Datenschutzbestimmungen
Account Options
