Skip to content

clean up: remove procedure syntax, add return types #69

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 29, 2017

Conversation

Sciss
Copy link
Contributor

@Sciss Sciss commented Dec 1, 2017

  • deprecated procedure syntax has been removed
  • where return types are unambiguous, they have been explicitly added
  • where structural types are returned or overridden methods return
    more explicit return type, return type is not annotated (checking
    these would be work for another pull request), to avoid possible
    problems with binary compatibility
  • -Xfuture is added to build file, so we can verify that no
    deprecated syntax remains
  • demo and example files have not been touched, yet

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

this looks great! really nice to see the code getting some love. and, nice catch on enabling MiMa

one thing, though: I'm not sure that it's a good idea to leave -Xfuture in place, because it's a pretty big grab bag — I'd be nervous that in addition to making noise about old bad things, it might also allow questionable/experimental new things that we don't want, or change the semantics of normal code. in general, -Xfuture is intended for experiments rather than production

@Sciss
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sciss commented Dec 1, 2017

I removed the -Xfuture; it was helpful to detect all the uses of procedure syntax.

- deprecated procedure syntax has been removed
- where return types are unambiguous, they have been explicitly added
- where structural types are returned or overridden methods return
  more explicit return type, return type is not annotated (checking
  these would be work for another pull request), to avoid possible
  problems with binary compatibility
- demo and example files have not been touched, yet
@Sciss
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sciss commented Dec 28, 2017

What happens now?

@benhutchison
Copy link
Contributor

This would be where I come in and merge! Apologies for the delay.

@Sciss can you wait for these changes to out with the next routine release?

@benhutchison benhutchison merged commit 6f85bea into scala:2.0.x Dec 29, 2017
@Sciss
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sciss commented Dec 29, 2017

Yes sure; I have a couple of other things I would produce pull requests for; a release could wait.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants