Difference between revisions of "Scala (Language)"
From Jtkwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* Also, the interpretation of "x == y" as "x.==(y)" might result in an asymmetry (loss of commutativity) which may prove particularly problematic. I'd generally consider it a good idea to have a mechanism that just is commutative, rather than having to rely on adherence to some kind of contract to ensure commutativity where that is required. | * Also, the interpretation of "x == y" as "x.==(y)" might result in an asymmetry (loss of commutativity) which may prove particularly problematic. I'd generally consider it a good idea to have a mechanism that just is commutative, rather than having to rely on adherence to some kind of contract to ensure commutativity where that is required. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* According the "op1.operator(op2) is equivalent to op1 operator op2" rule, "op1 operator" represents a unary function that takes the missing operand. Hmm... is that awkward or just something to get used to? | * According the "op1.operator(op2) is equivalent to op1 operator op2" rule, "op1 operator" represents a unary function that takes the missing operand. Hmm... is that awkward or just something to get used to? | ||
[[Category:Computing]] | [[Category:Computing]] | ||
Revision as of 05:33, 26 November 2011
Notes
On "An Overview of the Scala Programming Language" An Overview of the Scala Programming Language, Second Edition, by Martin Odersky et.al
- The point of Scala's pattern matching feature is not quite clear to me.
- Scala's "id: type" syntax is rather less easy to read than Java's "type id" syntax.
- The "optional semicolon" idea is very problematic, delimitation of statements should be unambiguous, and the significance of tokens (whether semicolon or newline) should be unambiguous as well. Interpreting newline as a statement terminator if a statement terminator makes sense here is an idea that has wrought havoc in R already.
- The "value oriented" interpretation of the == operator seems problematic to me. What should the Scala programmer use to test for object identity?
- Also, the interpretation of "x == y" as "x.==(y)" might result in an asymmetry (loss of commutativity) which may prove particularly problematic. I'd generally consider it a good idea to have a mechanism that just is commutative, rather than having to rely on adherence to some kind of contract to ensure commutativity where that is required.
- According the "op1.operator(op2) is equivalent to op1 operator op2" rule, "op1 operator" represents a unary function that takes the missing operand. Hmm... is that awkward or just something to get used to?
