Drop Per-Run infrastructure in Definitions #6882
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Use an IFT instead of duplicating Type and Symbol definitions everywhere.
|
Based on #6871. |
odersky
force-pushed
the
change-no-per-run
branch
from
eca99e5 to
3ecfae3
Compare
|
Seems to much breaks in mysterious ways if we drop this. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Definitions employed a combinations of design patterns and helper functions to ensure that symbols of members in Definitions would be automatically updated in resident compiler if the definition was edited.
I.e. typical scenario:
scala.collection.Seqand compileNormally, you get a StaleSymbol error in (3) since the originally loaded symbol for
collection.Seqis no longer valid. The per run infrastructure in definitions makes sure that the new symbol is loaded transparently instead.This is nice, but also quite complicated to implement. I noted that often new additions did not follow the patterns and therefore exposed the StaleSymbol vulnerability.
The big question is whether it is worth it. If this PR is merged, one would have to start a new compiler after step 2 above. Is this a problem that warrants the additional complexity? I don't know.