> The current policy is that the first declaration wins. > So the final structure of B will contain: > All methods from B plus > All methods from A not matching any existing signature from B > All methods from C not matching any existing signature from A or B > > > This is actually by design, as B should be able to explicitly provide any > methods that would otherwise be delegated. If the demand is there and this > throws up problems for people, then I can always emit a compiler warning > for possible conflicts.
I'm not the best to cast judgement on this, I've only really dipped my toe into Scala. With the little experience I have being in Java, the idea of ordering in a definition affecting the type seems new (that's single inheritance I guess). Correct me if I'm wrong but there is precedent for a type's behaviour changing based on order (i.e. stackable traits), so it would be fitting for Scala (at least, it does while looking through the narrow blinkers of a lack of experience). ~ Graham -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
