Skip to content

Commit 972f809

Browse files
committed
Merge branch 'master' into type-class
2 parents 049c14a + cf8f01a commit 972f809

28 files changed

+29
-29
lines changed

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/crash.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
11
---
22
name: "\U0001F4A5 Crash report"
3-
about: Report a Dotty Compiler compiler crash
3+
about: Report a Dotty compiler crash
44
title: ''
55
labels: itype:bug, itype:crash
66
assignees: ''

docs/blog/_posts/2016-02-03-essence-of-scala.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ property was shown with a mechanized, (i.e. machine-checked) proof:
6565
Formulating the precise soundness theorem and proving it was unexpectedly hard,
6666
because it uncovered some technical challenges that had not been
6767
studied in depth before. In DOT - as well as in many programming languages -
68-
you can have conflicting definitions. For instance you might have an abstract
68+
you can have conflicting definitions. For instance, you might have an abstract
6969
type declaration in a base class with two conflicting aliases in subclasses:
7070
```scala
7171
trait Base { type A }

docs/blog/_posts/2016-05-05-multiversal-equality.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ For instance, one might want to introduce a proxy for some data structure so tha
1818

1919
## Where Are We Today?
2020

21-
The problems of universal equality in Scala are of course well known. Some libraries have tried to fix it by adding another equality operator with more restricted typing. Most often this safer equality is written `===`. While `===` is certainly useful, I am not a fan of adding another equality operator to the language and core libraries. It would be much better if we could fix `==` instead. This would be both simpler and would catch all potential equality problems including those related to pattern matching.
21+
The problems of universal equality in Scala are of course well-known. Some libraries have tried to fix it by adding another equality operator with more restricted typing. Most often this safer equality is written `===`. While `===` is certainly useful, I am not a fan of adding another equality operator to the language and core libraries. It would be much better if we could fix `==` instead. This would be both simpler and would catch all potential equality problems including those related to pattern matching.
2222

2323
How can `==` be fixed? It looks much harder to do this than adding an alternate equality operator. First, we have to keep backwards compatibility. The ability to compare everything to everything is by now baked into lots of code and libraries. Second, with just one equality operator we need to make this operator work in all cases where it makes sense. An alternative `===` operator can choose to refuse some comparisons that should be valid because there's always `==` to fall back to. With a unique `==` operator we do not have this luxury.
2424

docs/blog/_posts/2016-12-05-implicit-function-types.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ abstraction to Scala_". What do I mean by this?
1414
**Abstraction**: The ability to name a concept and use just the name afterwards.
1515

1616
**Contextual**: A piece of a program produces results or outputs in
17-
some context. Our programming languages are very good in describing
17+
some context. Our programming languages are very good at describing
1818
and abstracting what outputs are produced. But there's hardly anything
1919
yet available to abstract over the inputs that programs get from their
2020
context. Many interesting scenarios fall into that category,

docs/blog/_posts/2017-12-01-fifth-dotty-milestone-release.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ are currently two backends using the TASTY frontend:
109109
different backends...
110110

111111
### Generic java signatures [#3234](https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty/pull/3234)
112-
Dotty now emits generic signatures for classes and methods. Theses signatures are used by compilers,
112+
Dotty now emits generic signatures for classes and methods. Those signatures are used by compilers,
113113
debuggers and to support runtime reflection. For example:
114114

115115
```scala

docs/blog/_posts/2019-05-23-15th-dotty-milestone-release.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ val res3: Int = 3
8383

8484
To smoothen the migration, the deprecation warnings will only be emitted if you compile with the `-strict` flag under Scala 3. Alphanumeric methods that are defined without the `@infix` annotation used in an infix position will be deprecated by default starting with Scala 3.1.
8585

86-
For more information, see the the [documentation](https://dotty.epfl.ch/docs/reference/changed-features/operators.html#the-infix-annotation). Note that the `@alpha` annotation also described in the documentation is planned for the future and is not available in this release.
86+
For more information, see the [documentation](https://dotty.epfl.ch/docs/reference/changed-features/operators.html#the-infix-annotation). Note that the `@alpha` annotation also described in the documentation is planned for the future and is not available in this release.
8787

8888
## `given` clause comes last
8989
In the previous release, you could write something like this:

docs/blog/_posts/2019-11-04-20th-dotty-milestone-release.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ The main reasons for dropping `private[this]` are:
5959
- Its effect over `private` is purely local and can be easily inferred.
6060
- It leads to bike shedding: should I use `private` or `private[this]`? One is shorter but the other might be more efficient.
6161

62-
`protected[this]` by now influences compiler decisions in no way at all. Hence it is is reasonable to drop it.
62+
`protected[this]` by now influences compiler decisions in no way at all. Hence it is reasonable to drop it.
6363

6464
## `with` keyword's new role
6565
`with` keyword can now optionally precede the class body. So that you can write your classes as follows:

docs/blog/_posts/2019-12-20-21th-dotty-milestone-release.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ For more details also follow the [Migrating the Ecosystem](https://www.scala-lan
6363

6464
Firstly thank you for all the hard work in issue reporting! Being feature complete means that our
6565
issue tracker will now be more important than ever. We encourage you to stress
66-
the compiler and report self contained test-cases! Bug minimization is hard and
66+
the compiler and report self-contained test-cases! Bug minimization is hard and
6767
an art form! Help us unearth those nasty bugs! ✊
6868

6969
Last but not least we restate the mission of Scala 3. Scala has pioneered the

docs/blog/_posts/2020-04-29-24th-dotty-milestone-release.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ authorImg: /images/anatolii.png
66
date: 2020-04-29
77
---
88

9-
Hello! We are excited to announce 0.24.0-RC1 of Dotty. In this version, we have updated the standard library to 2.13.2. Also, we have made some work to make error messages more user friendly and a bunch of other polishings to the language.
9+
Hello! We are excited to announce 0.24.0-RC1 of Dotty. In this version, we have updated the standard library to 2.13.2. Also, we have made some work to make error messages more user-friendly and a bunch of other polishings to the language.
1010

1111
You can try out this version right now, from the comfort of your SBT, by visiting the [home page](https://dotty.epfl.ch/) and scrolling down to the "Create a Dotty Project" section.
1212

docs/docs/contributing/procedures/release.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ Note that after the first stage of the release cycle (see "Publishing artifacts
4141
- `<stable-version>` *tag* of the stable version being released
4242
- `<rc-version>` *tag* of the RC version being released
4343

44-
However you may end up with as many as 6 tasks being run. The auxiliary tasks may include:
44+
However, you may end up with as many as 6 tasks being run. The auxiliary tasks may include:
4545

4646
- *commit* tests of the *tags* specified above. You may have two of these, corresponding to the two tags. You should see them appearing to have the same commit hash in the CI, but one of them will have the tag next to it and the other one will not. The *tag* one must remain, as the CI tasks on tags publish to maven. CI tasks on commits do not. So it is safe to cancel the task running on the commit, if the commit hash is the same as that of the tag's task commit.
4747
- Older commit from the `master` branch. Look for all the tasks run on the `master` branch in the CI and see if there are more than one of these. Then, find the one testing the most recent commit of the branch. The others can safely be canceled.

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)