Re: Implicit type conversion

Jon Pretty wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> 
> Tony Morris wrote:
>> I have found what appears to be an anomaly in implicit type coercion. I
>> have attempted to trivialise my example, but it is still 50 or so LOC. I
>> have annotated the code with the relevant question in the relevant place
>> in the code with comments. The problem is that this code will not
>> compile.
> 
> Note that implicit defs (which were called 'views' prior to Scala 2) are
> not applied transitively. If the compiler finds a function call with no
> matching definition, it will then check to see if, by applying any of
> the exact implicit defs within scope to any of the parameters, it can
> find a matching function definition.  If it can't, then it complains.  I
> believe it complains in the event of any ambiguity with overloaded
> definitions or multiple 'useful' implicit defs within scope.
> 
> Implicit definitions should be used with care.  Having many implicit
> definitions within scope can be confusing, and it was a conscious design
> decision to disallow transitivity.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jon
> 
> 

OK, so that explains why one compiles and the other doesn't. Though,
I'll express my disappointment at the lack of transitivity.

Thanks.

Tony Morris
http://tmorris.net/

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature