package scala /** * The `scala.language` object controls the language features available to the programmer, as proposed in the * [[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nlkvpoIRkx7at1qJEZafJwthZ3GeIklTFhqmXMvTX9Q/edit '''SIP-18 document''']]. * * Each of these features has to be explicitly imported into the current scope to become available: * {{{ * import language.postfixOps // or language._ * List(1, 2, 3) reverse * }}} * * The language features are: * - [[dynamics `dynamics`]] enables defining calls rewriting using the [[scala.Dynamic `Dynamic`]] trait * - [[postfixOps `postfixOps`]] enables postfix operators * - [[reflectiveCalls `reflectiveCalls`]] enables using structural types * - [[implicitConversions `implicitConversions`]] enables defining implicit methods and members * - [[higherKinds `higherKinds`]] enables writing higher-kinded types * - [[existentials `existentials`]] enables writing existential types * - [[experimental `experimental`]] contains newer features that have not yet been tested in production * * @groupname production Language Features * @groupname experimental Experimental Language Features * @groupprio experimental 10 */ object language { import languageFeature._ /** Where enabled, direct or indirect subclasses of trait scala.Dynamic can * be defined. Unless dynamics is enabled, a definition of a class, trait, * or object that has Dynamic as a base trait is rejected. Dynamic member * selection of existing subclasses of trait Dynamic are unaffected; * they can be used anywhere. * * '''Why introduce the feature?''' To enable flexible DSLs and convenient interfacing * with dynamic languages. * * '''Why control it?''' Dynamic member selection can undermine static checkability * of programs. Furthermore, dynamic member selection often relies on reflection, * which is not available on all platforms. * * @group production */ implicit lazy val dynamics: dynamics = languageFeature.dynamics /** Only where enabled, postfix operator notation `(expr op)` will be allowed. * * '''Why keep the feature?''' Several DSLs written in Scala need the notation. * * '''Why control it?''' Postfix operators interact poorly with semicolon inference. * Most programmers avoid them for this reason. * * @group production */ implicit lazy val postfixOps: postfixOps = languageFeature.postfixOps /** Only where enabled, accesses to members of structural types that need * reflection are supported. Reminder: A structural type is a type of the form * `Parents { Decls }` where `Decls` contains declarations of new members that do * not override any member in `Parents`. To access one of these members, a * reflective call is needed. * * '''Why keep the feature?''' Structural types provide great flexibility because * they avoid the need to define inheritance hierarchies a priori. Besides, * their definition falls out quite naturally from Scala’s concept of type refinement. * * '''Why control it?''' Reflection is not available on all platforms. Popular tools * such as ProGuard have problems dealing with it. Even where reflection is available, * reflective dispatch can lead to surprising performance degradations. * * @group production */ implicit lazy val reflectiveCalls: reflectiveCalls = languageFeature.reflectiveCalls /** Only where enabled, definitions of implicit conversions are allowed. An * implicit conversion is an implicit value of unary function type `A => B`, * or an implicit method that has in its first parameter section a single, * non-implicit parameter. Examples: * * {{{ * implicit def stringToInt(s: String): Int = s.length * implicit val conv = (s: String) => s.length * implicit def listToX(xs: List[T])(implicit f: T => X): X = ... * }}} * * implicit values of other types are not affected, and neither are implicit * classes. * * '''Why keep the feature?''' Implicit conversions are central to many aspects * of Scala’s core libraries. * * '''Why control it?''' Implicit conversions are known to cause many pitfalls * if over-used. And there is a tendency to over-use them because they look * very powerful and their effects seem to be easy to understand. Also, in * most situations using implicit parameters leads to a better design than * implicit conversions. * * @group production */ implicit lazy val implicitConversions: implicitConversions = languageFeature.implicitConversions /** Only where this flag is enabled, higher-kinded types can be written. * * '''Why keep the feature?''' Higher-kinded types enable the definition of very general * abstractions such as functor, monad, or arrow. A significant set of advanced * libraries relies on them. Higher-kinded types are also at the core of the * scala-virtualized effort to produce high-performance parallel DSLs through staging. * * '''Why control it?''' Higher kinded types in Scala lead to a Turing-complete * type system, where compiler termination is no longer guaranteed. They tend * to be useful mostly for type-level computation and for highly generic design * patterns. The level of abstraction implied by these design patterns is often * a barrier to understanding for newcomers to a Scala codebase. Some syntactic * aspects of higher-kinded types are hard to understand for the uninitiated and * type inference is less effective for them than for normal types. Because we are * not completely happy with them yet, it is possible that some aspects of * higher-kinded types will change in future versions of Scala. So an explicit * enabling also serves as a warning that code involving higher-kinded types * might have to be slightly revised in the future. * * @group production */ implicit lazy val higherKinds: higherKinds = languageFeature.higherKinds /** Only where enabled, existential types that cannot be expressed as wildcard * types can be written and are allowed in inferred types of values or return * types of methods. Existential types with wildcard type syntax such as `List[_]`, * or `Map[String, _]` are not affected. * * '''Why keep the feature?''' Existential types are needed to make sense of Java’s wildcard * types and raw types and the erased types of run-time values. * * '''Why control it?''' Having complex existential types in a code base usually makes * application code very brittle, with a tendency to produce type errors with * obscure error messages. Therefore, going overboard with existential types * is generally perceived not to be a good idea. Also, complicated existential types * might be no longer supported in a future simplification of the language. * * @group production */ implicit lazy val existentials: existentials = languageFeature.existentials /** The experimental object contains features that have been recently added but have not * been thoroughly tested in production yet. * * Experimental features '''may undergo API changes''' in future releases, so production * code should not rely on them. * * Programmers are encouraged to try out experimental features and * [[http://issues.scala-lang.org report any bugs or API inconsistencies]] * they encounter so they can be improved in future releases. * * @group experimental */ object experimental { import languageFeature.experimental._ /** Where enabled, macro definitions are allowed. Macro implementations and * macro applications are unaffected; they can be used anywhere. * * '''Why introduce the feature?''' Macros promise to make the language more regular, * replacing ad-hoc language constructs with a general powerful abstraction * capability that can express them. Macros are also a more disciplined and * powerful replacement for compiler plugins. * * '''Why control it?''' For their very power, macros can lead to code that is hard * to debug and understand. */ implicit lazy val macros: macros = languageFeature.experimental.macros } }