The common Enrich-My-Library pattern seems to be something like
class Foo(value: Int)
implicit def int2Foo(i: Int) = new Foo(i)
Why isn't it possible to just add the implicit
to the constructor itself like this
class Foo implicit (value: Int)
considering that the constructor isn't much mo开发者_开发百科re than a method with some additional restriction?
Surprisingly, the following does work:
class Foo(value: Int) {
implicit def this(a: String) = this(a.toInt)
}
If I understand your question correctly (see my comment above) what you are thinking of amounts to this:
implicit class Foo(val i : Int) {
...
}
Would amount to:
implicit def int2Foo(x : Int) = new Foo(x)
class Foo(val i : Int) {
...
}
If it's more than desugaring you have in mind, there probably is some more thought to be given to the problem to avoid over-complexifying the semantics of the constructor declaration.
But as far as the small-scale syntax addition goes, this has been suggested, and has received nuanced but relatively positive comments from Martin Odersky, but I have no news on implementation yet.
精彩评论