Why not with varargs like on below?
case class Link(pathParts: String*)
and I can say Link(a, b)?
- Vesa
On 3 marras, 00:15, Jim Barrows jim.barr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Vesa brut...@gmail.com wrote:
You're right about that. You probably wouldn't get very far
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Vesa brut...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not with varargs like on below?
case class Link(pathParts: String*)
and I can say Link(a, b)?
At this point, we can't overload the object Link.apply method because the
compiler will get confused.
If this is bothering you
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Vesa brut...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering few thing while reading lift examples. Could the Link
class be turned into a case class so reading would improve? new Link
(a :: b :: nil, false) could be RecursiveLink(a, b) and new
Link(a :: b :: Nil) could
You're right about that. You probably wouldn't get very far without
understanding that. I'm still concerned that I have to type
unnecessary stuff to express myself without getting any gains in (new
Link(a :: b :: nil) vs Link(a, b)) :D
- Vesa
On 2 marras, 22:27, Jim Barrows
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Vesa brut...@gmail.com wrote:
You're right about that. You probably wouldn't get very far without
understanding that. I'm still concerned that I have to type
unnecessary stuff to express myself without getting any gains in (new
Link(a :: b :: nil) vs Link(a,
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Jim Barrows jim.barr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Vesa brut...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering few thing while reading lift examples. Could the Link
class be turned into a case class so reading would improve? new Link
(a :: b
Also some plain true or false doesn't really explain it's purpose very
well and with AbsoluteLink(a, b) I wouldn't have to guess the
meaning or look it up from API documentation.
- Vesa
On 2 marras, 22:34, Vesa brut...@gmail.com wrote:
You're right about that. You probably wouldn't get very
+1
On 2 Nov 2009, at 20:27, Jim Barrows wrote:
Shouldn't the reader already be aware of Scala's list construction,
since that is in fact the language we're using?
If you think Scala's list construction is difficult to for a new
reader, I think explaining a case class would be even more
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Vesa brut...@gmail.com wrote:
You're right about that. You probably wouldn't get very far without
understanding that. I'm still concerned that I have to type
unnecessary stuff to express myself without getting any gains in (new
A comma separated list of
