Thanks guys! ...Extremely ugly _root_ ! it is at least a weird
assumption of the scala compiler to consider the import paths relative
and not have a better way of expressing absolute path but with
_root_.
Br's,
Marius
On Sep 25, 12:20 am, "Jorge Ortiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed.
That proposal works for imports, but not for other expressions. For example,
how would you express what is currently expressed as:
import scala.collections._
val f = mutable.Map.empty
With the proposed syntax it would be:
import scala.collections._
val f = _.mutable.Map.empty
But now th
Seems like itshould be the other way around ... assume absolute paths
and if anyone want relative ones just use import _.foo.ert (as it was
suggested by someone). Much more expressive IMHO.
But not much accomplishment if we talk about this on this list :)
On Sep 25, 8:13 am, Marius <[EMAIL PROTE
Indeed. For compatibility with the upcoming version of Specs (the one we'll
need for Scala 2.7.2 compatibility), and more importantly, to plug potential
security vulnerabilities, I've _root_'ed most imports and references in
Lift's code. I definitely got all the imports, I think, but I may have
mis
I believe this is the genesis:
http://www.nabble.com/Unfortunate-package-path-conflict-(security-vulnerability-)-tc19618678.html
On Sep 24, 4:13 pm, Marius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I understand from SLS what _root_ does ... but I'm wondering what is
> the reason behind it in lift. Wha
