Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix typo in extension.md #3

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 3, 2018
Merged

Fix typo in extension.md #3

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 3, 2018

Conversation

vendethiel
Copy link

I think extension if is supposed to be extension <id> there

@vendethiel
Fix typo in extension.md
3c2892a 
I think `extension if` is supposed to be `extension <id>` there
odersky
odersky approved these changes Apr 3, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@odersky odersky left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the fix!

@odersky odersky merged commit d6ec8b2 into dotty-staging:add-common Apr 3, 2018
odersky added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2019
@odersky
Use perRun for Definition members #3
24f808f
odersky added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2019
@odersky
Use perRun for Definition members #3
7d4c8fe
odersky added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 18, 2019
@odersky
Use perRun for Definition members #3
700e564
odersky added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 18, 2019
@odersky
Use perRun for Definition members #3
1abbf4e
odersky added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2019
@odersky
Revert: Use perRun for Definition members #3
c6b1fa2 
(reverted from commit 1abbf4e)
smarter pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 12, 2020
@robstoll
Merge pull request #3 from tegonal/doc-adt
d5bdeee 
doc(adt): link to enum
bishabosha pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 28, 2023
@sjrd
Merge pull request #3 from smarter/spec-literal
cad00d5 
Port syntax
odersky added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2023
@odersky
Restrict the new rules to givens that don't define a new class
9c8108d 
`given ... with` or `given ... = new { ... }` kinds of definitions now follow
the old rules. This allows recursive `given...with` definitions as they are
found in protoQuill.

We still have the old check in a later phase against directly recursive methods.
Of the three loops in the original i15474 we now detect #2 and #3 with new new
restrictions. #1 slips through since it is a loop involving a `given...with` instance
of `Conversion`, but is caught later with the recursive method check.

Previously tests #1 and #3 were detected with the recursive methods check and #2 slipped
through altogether.

The new rules are enough for defining simple givens with `=` without fear of looping.
odersky added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2023
@odersky
Restrict the new rules to givens that don't define a new class
f56aa22 
`given ... with` or `given ... = new { ... }` kinds of definitions now follow
the old rules. This allows recursive `given...with` definitions as they are
found in protoQuill.

We still have the old check in a later phase against directly recursive methods.
Of the three loops in the original i15474 we now detect #2 and #3 with new new
restrictions. #1 slips through since it is a loop involving a `given...with` instance
of `Conversion`, but is caught later with the recursive method check.

Previously tests #1 and #3 were detected with the recursive methods check and #2 slipped
through altogether.

The new rules are enough for defining simple givens with `=` without fear of looping.
odersky added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2024
@odersky
Restrict the new rules to givens that don't define a new class
5cf62f8 
`given ... with` or `given ... = new { ... }` kinds of definitions now follow
the old rules. This allows recursive `given...with` definitions as they are
found in protoQuill.

We still have the old check in a later phase against directly recursive methods.
Of the three loops in the original i15474 we now detect #2 and #3 with new new
restrictions. #1 slips through since it is a loop involving a `given...with` instance
of `Conversion`, but is caught later with the recursive method check.

Previously tests #1 and #3 were detected with the recursive methods check and #2 slipped
through altogether.

The new rules are enough for defining simple givens with `=` without fear of looping.
Kordyjan pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 23, 2024
@odersky @Kordyjan
Restrict the new rules to givens that don't define a new class
a48a759 
`given ... with` or `given ... = new { ... }` kinds of definitions now follow
the old rules. This allows recursive `given...with` definitions as they are
found in protoQuill.

We still have the old check in a later phase against directly recursive methods.
Of the three loops in the original i15474 we now detect #2 and #3 with new new
restrictions. #1 slips through since it is a loop involving a `given...with` instance
of `Conversion`, but is caught later with the recursive method check.

Previously tests #1 and #3 were detected with the recursive methods check and #2 slipped
through altogether.

The new rules are enough for defining simple givens with `=` without fear of looping.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@odersky odersky odersky approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@vendethiel @odersky