weaken constraint on ParallelApOps and ParallelApplyOps methods - #4078
Conversation
|
It is all about syntax changes only, right? I think it may be worth to fix |
|
|
||
| implicit final def catsSyntaxParallelAp1[M[_], A](ma: M[A]): ParallelApOps[M, A] = | ||
| new ParallelApOps(ma) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FlatMap also didn't get used so have removed it as a constraint for using the NonEmptyParallel syntax
| @deprecated("Kept for binary compatibility", "2.8.0") | ||
| implicit final def catsSyntaxParallelAp[M[_]: FlatMap, A](ma: M[A]): ParallelApOps[M, A] = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| @deprecated("Kept for binary compatibility", "2.8.0") | |
| implicit final def catsSyntaxParallelAp[M[_]: FlatMap, A](ma: M[A]): ParallelApOps[M, A] = | |
| @deprecated("Kept for binary compatibility", "2.8.0") | |
| private[syntax] final def catsSyntaxParallelAp[M[_]: FlatMap, A](ma: M[A]): ParallelApOps[M, A] = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you reverted this because MiMa was complaining about missing static methods? I think it is is safe to filter those, because they only affect Java and I think it would be unusual for Java code to be using these syntax extensions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it may be okay to leave it public if private[syntax] breaks BC. The only thing – the implicit modifier should be pulled off the identifier, but as I can see, it is already done here.
Co-authored-by: Arman Bilge <armanbilge@gmail.com>
satorg
left a comment
satorg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks really good to me. Thank you for investing your time into it.
|
any clue why the tests aren't compiling now? can't spot it and intellij is happy 🤔 |
|
Looks like the tests are failing for Scala 2.12.15, but IntelliJ compiles with Scala 2.13.7 as this is a default Scala version. |
|
Try |
fix syntax compilation on 2.12.15
|
latest commit seems to be necessary to get the syntax to work on 2.12.15 |
armanbilge
left a comment
armanbilge
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for all your effort to fix this bincompatibly, much appreciated! :)
3 participants
Addresses #4077, following the technique in #3997 to ensure bincompat