- About Scala
- Documentation
- Code Examples
- Software
- Scala Developers
Is any formal process required here?
Thu, 2011-05-19, 18:40
I'm working on a scalac patch to generalise the logic around @BeanProperty, allowing for the generation of synthetic methods with the symbol entry and AST injection being split across the Namer and Typer phases as appropriate.
It's probably no surprise that I intend this for use by plugins, and it wouldn't change the (un-plugged) language in any way. Is there any need for an SID or similar to outline the changes in more detail?
--
Kevin Wright
gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wright@gmail.comkev.lee.wright@gmail.commail: kevin.wright@scalatechnology.com
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wrightquora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright
twitter: @thecoda
"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra
Mon, 2011-05-23, 11:37
#2
Re: Is any formal process required here?
I should be good to go. I'm already reasonably familiar with what happens in the analyser, and just getting up to speed with the changes made in 2.9 to push structures into reflect.generic.
I'll get back to you once the proof of concept code has settled a bit, it's still very much in flux at the moment as I'm exploring the problem.
On 23 May 2011 08:57, Lukas Rytz <lukas.rytz@epfl.ch> wrote:
--
Kevin Wright
gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wright@gmail.comkev.lee.wright@gmail.commail: kevin.wright@scalatechnology.com
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wrightquora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright
twitter: @thecoda
"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra
I'll get back to you once the proof of concept code has settled a bit, it's still very much in flux at the moment as I'm exploring the problem.
On 23 May 2011 08:57, Lukas Rytz <lukas.rytz@epfl.ch> wrote:
Cool, I'd be happy to help / collaborate on this. I don't think you need to go through toomuch process, maybe outline your ideas on this list when you have a general view ofhow this could be done?
Thanks: Lukas
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 19:40, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm working on a scalac patch to generalise the logic around @BeanProperty, allowing for the generation of synthetic methods with the symbol entry and AST injection being split across the Namer and Typer phases as appropriate.
It's probably no surprise that I intend this for use by plugins, and it wouldn't change the (un-plugged) language in any way. Is there any need for an SID or similar to outline the changes in more detail?
--
Kevin Wright
gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wright@gmail.comkev.lee.wright@gmail.commail: kevin.wright@scalatechnology.com
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wrightquora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright
twitter: @thecoda
"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra
--
Kevin Wright
gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wright@gmail.comkev.lee.wright@gmail.commail: kevin.wright@scalatechnology.com
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wrightquora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright
twitter: @thecoda
"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra
Thanks: Lukas
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 19:40, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@gmail.com> wrote: