What's the motive behind Chained Package clauses in Scala?

邮差的信 提交于 2019-11-29 01:57:13

You can use the syntax without brackets in the way your example shows, but I never saw this in "real life". I think almost always the new feature is simply used to get parent packages in scope:

package bobrockets.navigation
package tests

//now the content of bobrockets.navigation is in scope

This is basically the same as writing

package bobrockets.navigation.test
import bobrockets.navigation._

However, the first version follows the DRY principle. E.g. if you rename the package bobrockets to robertsrockets, you could forget to change the import in the second version (which might point to some "old" code), which is impossible in the first version. In a sense, this (together with the possibility to have modifiers like private[bobsrockets.navigation]) allows to use package groups as "modules" or "superpackages" with a very lightweight syntax.

This is the main usage I'm aware of, but Scala shows often surprising synergy effects, and is blurring the lines (e.g. between objects, packages and package objects, between vals and objects, between defs and functions etc) in interesting ways. So the future will show if this feature has other useful applications.

[Update] Here is a new article about this topic by Martin Odersky himself: http://www.artima.com/scalazine/articles/chained_package_clauses_in_scala.html

易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容,如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!