-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
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
tests fail with latest Scala 2.13 due to productElementName #143
Comments
it is easy enough to add |
okay well now I really need to fix this so we can publish for 2.13.0-M5 (#144) |
but if you
so already this is odd, what's the extra static method doing there? hypothesis: is it because and then if you compile e.g.
even though
I assume this has to do with |
but why doesn't |
some I see no clear indication in the generated bytecode that the override isn't a true override |
in any case, I'm satisfied this isn't a blocker for going ahead and publishing on 2.13.0-M5 |
as a stopgap measure, #146 simply disables that part of the test |
I don't think I'm going to ever find the time to get to the bottom of this, too much else to do for 2.13.0-RC1 and 2.13.0. anyone else interested in delving into it...? |
Indeed: it looks like this method is generated in the Do I understand correctly that our ways forward here are to either run genjavadoc after |
Yes, I think so. Running way later in the compilation pipeline would probably mean undoing a lot. Maybe it's not impossible — even when you run at a later phase, you can use the compiler's "time travel" feature to ask how something looked before, so for example, even when you run after erasure, you can still see the types before they were erased. But still, it sounds like an ambitious change. Re-implementing mixin in genjavadoc sounds easier to me. But these are just my seat-of-the-pants reactions, intelligently deciding on a plan would involve a conversation between someone who knows genjavadoc better than me and someone who knows the compiler middle end better than me (Adriaan/Lukas/Jason). |
This is a longstanding issue that this 2.13 change (the addition of |
Agreed entirely. I've tried to summarize the more general issue in #163. With that I think this specific issue can be closed. |
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: