Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use Simulacrum for Traverse syntax #1153

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 13, 2016

Conversation

ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor

@ceedubs ceedubs commented Jun 20, 2016

Fixes #1146.

I followed the convention for Functor (okay I copied it and did a find/replace). Considering the recent fix for SI-2712, we'll probably want to handle the Unapply differently, but I'd be inclined to solve all of that at once under #1073.

Fixes typelevel#1146.

I followed the convention for `Functor` (okay I copied it and did a find/replace). Considering the recent fix for SI-2712, we'll probably want to handle the `Unapply` differently, but I'd be inclined to solve all of that at once under typelevel#1073.
@ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor Author

ceedubs commented Jun 20, 2016

For some reason this didn't trigger a Travis build. I'm going to try reopening it to see if that does.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jun 20, 2016

Current coverage is 88.83%

Merging #1153 into master will increase coverage by 0.04%

@@             master      #1153   diff @@
==========================================
  Files           233        233          
  Lines          3077       3071     -6   
  Methods        3024       3018     -6   
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches         50         50          
==========================================
- Hits           2732       2728     -4   
+ Misses          345        343     -2   
  Partials          0          0          

Sunburst

Powered by Codecov. Last updated by 7dfee51...2c6690d

@kailuowang
Copy link
Contributor

👍 and bravo the new examples in the docs.

@ceedubs
Copy link
Contributor Author

ceedubs commented Jun 20, 2016

@kailuowang I just moved the examples from the Ops class into the type class. One thing that I don't quite like about this is that the examples don't directly use the method that they are attached to - they actually use the Ops version of the method. I'm wondering whether it's better to have the example use the syntax since that's the easier way to use these or they should summon the type class instance and call methods on it, since that would should an example of actually using the method the scaladoc is for. Sometimes the the data type used in the example will already have the method directly on it (such as List.filter), so the example wouldn't actually use the type class at all!

@kailuowang
Copy link
Contributor

Ah, didn't realize that. I agree that using syntax in examples makes more sense. Maybe we can address that in a different PR?

@peterneyens
Copy link
Collaborator

This looks good 👍

We could probably create a new issue on how to handle the ScalaDoc examples for the type class methods versus the enriched syntax methods we get from Simulacrum.

@kailuowang kailuowang merged commit 786f480 into typelevel:master Jul 13, 2016
@stew stew removed the in progress label Jul 13, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Use Simulacrum Ops for Traverse syntax
5 participants