> Scala's type system is richer than that embedded into the .NET IL spec, so > it's impossible to fully reify on the platform.
It is possible to reify what is supported by IL and reify the rest via Manifest or a similar solution. > Coming from the other direction, allowing Scala to consume reified type > parameters from other languages on .NET, the plan is to expose this > information via Manifests, though it isn't implemented yet. This direction is probably more important. >> Is there a solution to the mismatch between .NET's >> PublicMethodNamesInCapitals and Scala's lowerCaseForAlmostEverything? > > Isn't this just a convention? Yes, as far as I know, but a) mixing case conventions in one program is ugly b) Scala treats identifiers that begin with uppercase differently in cases. Ok, scrap this question then. >> Does Scala on .NET support .NET's properties without having to write >> Get_X and Set_X > > By design, there's no separation between methods and properties in Scala; so > it definitely can't be automated. > I don't see any reason though why properties couldn't be specified by an > annotation, we already do that with @BeanProperty when compiling to Java > bytecode :) I mean that it would be poor to have C# code: x.Y += a.B; translated to Scala: x.Set_Y(x.Get_Y() + a.Get_B()); Even for single-character names it's ugly; when you have real identifiers in there it's close to obfuscation. >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Roland Tepp <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Oh, I beg to differ. >> > >> > Using Scala (at least on the language level) does not necessarily mean >> > you have to use JVM. >> > >> > In fact it is quite possible to write Scala source and compile it >> > to .Net >> > >> > The only thing tying your Scala programs to JVM is your own use of >> > Java libraries. >> > >> > On 31 aug, 14:40, Jan Goyvaerts <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I didn't say you need to be there. >> >> >> >> Wait until the day after to read about it - when they stopped throwing >> >> the >> >> eggs and rotten tomato's. :-) >> >> >> >> Anyway, it's now owned by them and switching to Scala (or anything else >> >> JVM >> >> related) won't change a thing. >> > >> > -- >> > 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. >> > >> > >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Kevin Wright > > mail/google talk: [email protected] > wave: [email protected] > pulse: kev.lee.wright > skype: kev.lee.wright > twitter: @thecoda > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
