Fix constToLiteral #14853
Merged
Fix constToLiteral #14853
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We previously converted an expression with constant type to a literal if the expression was idempotent. This can hide side effects in the case where the expression is a selection from an object or lazy val. Demanding purity instead prodcues tons of errors involving inline vals on objects. We now demand idempotency if the expression refers to an inline val (or an operation over an inline val), and purity elsewhere. Fixes scala#2266
bishabosha
approved these changes
Apr 6, 2022
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We previously converted an expression with constant type to a literal if
the expression was idempotent. This can hide side effects in the case where
the expression is a selection from an object or lazy val. Demanding purity
instead prodcues tons of errors involving inline vals on objects.
We now demand idempotency if the expression refers to an inline val (or
an operation over an inline val), and purity elsewhere.
Fixes #2266