Skip to content

Add information about unapply method #1573

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
Nov 14, 2019
Merged

Conversation

vegerot
Copy link
Contributor

@vegerot vegerot commented Nov 6, 2019

The documentation currently just states "we're calling the unapply method", without giving any indication to how it's being called initially. Saying something like "we're calling the unapply method with CustomerID.unapply(customer1ID)" or "we're calling the unapply method with name=CustomerID.unapply(customer1ID)" earlier, while maybe not strictly accurate, helps give readers a better understanding of what's going on. I think we should move (or copy) the section that starts with "This is equivalent to..." up above, and reiterate the point below. I know for me personally I found this very confusing, and a line or two about this earlier would have been very helpful.

The documentation currently just states "we're calling the unapply method", without giving any indication to *how* it's being called.  Saying something like "we're calling the unapply method with `CustomerID.unapply(customer1ID)`" or "we're calling the unapply method with `name=CustomerID.unapply(customer1ID)`", while maybe not strictly accurate, helps give readers a better understanding of what's going on.  I know for me personally I found this very confusing, and a line or two about this would have been very helpful.
@SethTisue SethTisue merged commit b4c2a12 into scala:master Nov 14, 2019
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

thank you!

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.

2 participants