On 1 September 2010 10:05, Ricky Clarkson <ricky.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does Scala on .NET work past .NET 1.0 yet? > > If so, does it support .NET generics? > That's a double-edged sword... Scala's type system is richer than that embedded into the .NET IL spec, so it's impossible to fully reify on the platform. At best, some form of partial-erasure might theoretically be possible, but I certainly don't know of anyone even considering such an approach. The current behaviour is to fully erase types, in line with behaviour on the JVM 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. Is there a solution to the mismatch between .NET's > PublicMethodNamesInCapitals and Scala's lowerCaseForAlmostEverything? > Isn't this just a convention? If it's a requirement, then it seems like a pretty restrictive thing to force on a language! I see no reason why a Scala program couldn't choose to follow such a convention for any .NET-facing interface. It's not much different from having to offer restricted APIs for consumption by Java. > 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 :) > Ricky. > > -- > Ricky Clarkson > Java and Scala Programmer, AD Holdings > +44 1928 706373 > Skype: ricky_clarkson > > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Roland Tepp <luol...@gmail.com> 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 <java.arti...@gmail.com> 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 javapo...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > > 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 javapo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wave: kev.lee.wri...@googlewave.com 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 javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
