|
| 1 | +------ SERGIO COMMENTS -------- |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +In general |
| 4 | + - Consider grouping type types into "big boxes" - is it possible to split types into groups of types? |
| 5 | + - I can go tomorrow over the things below. |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +Page 2 |
| 8 | + - I think the the use of inferred on the example can be a bit muddied: |
| 9 | + "// without Type Annotation, the type is inferred to be `Thing` |
| 10 | + val inferred = getThing" |
| 11 | +Maybe an example of a different domain? |
| 12 | + "trait Dog |
| 13 | + def getDog = new Dog |
| 14 | + // without Type Annotation, the type of laika is inferred to be `Dog` |
| 15 | + val laika = getDog" |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | + - "Related hint: Including Type Annotations speeds up compilation, also it's generally nice to see the return type of a method." -> I would personally put these two ideas in the next paragraph, saying something like "Best practices are ... for ... reasons" |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +Page 3 |
| 20 | + - "typesystem" or "type system"? |
| 21 | + - Java primitive list is missing char |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +Page 4 |
| 24 | + - I really like the style of the example at the beginning of this page, the comments clarly showing what´s going on under the bonnet. |
| 25 | + - "This way, by having a smart compiler and treating everything as an object in this common hierarchy we're able to get away from the "but primitives are different" edge-cases, at least at the level of our Scala source code - the compiler takes care of it for us." -> I think this is too hard to read due to length, consider breaking it down. Also, I would say "but primitives are different" sounds a bit whiny, I would remove the "but". |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +Page 6 |
| 28 | + - I would talk about calling type with the verbose option before the example, as in "by using :type again on it with the verbose option to get some extra info..." |
| 29 | + - Last phrase I would remove the "I" and make the subject of the phrase the example ("This example nicely exemplifies the core functionality...") |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +Page 7 |
| 32 | + - Maybe break "Coming back to the subject why the common Type for our if statement with an AnyVal on one code block and a null on the other one was Any and not something else" down into two? |
| 33 | + - "obviously" as an adverb is modifying the verb "implemented", which I´m not sure if it´s what you are going for. Maybe substitute for "As it is obvious, since it is..."? |
| 34 | + - "How it might look like in your code is explained by the bellow example:" -> I would join with the previous paragraph and revert it: "You can see how the code would look on the below example" |
| 35 | + - On type variance, I would try to elaborate a bit more at the beginning - don't make paragraphs with a single line. |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +Page 8 |
| 38 | + - "One being "any collection", where we'll use a List[A] as our example, and functions." -> Don´t understand the "and functions" at the end. |
| 39 | + - "Scala..., which..., under..." -> I feel this phrase has bad rythm, try not make it a bit more fluid: "Scala has Traits, which in other languages -such as Ruby- are known with the name of Mixins" |
| 40 | + - "First..." -> maybe it´s a good idea to explain what a trait is before going on into detail? |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | +Page 9 |
| 43 | + - "diamond problem" or "The Diamond Problem" |
| 44 | + - A reader could ask, why are we not sure? Also, the usage of "Basically" feels colloquial. "Basically "The Diamond Problem" is a situation during multiple inheritance where we're not sure to what we want to refer to." |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +Page 10 |
| 47 | + - "This introduces an ambiguity when calling the common method in D , did we inherit the version of the method from C or from B ?" -> Make point of view homogeneous. |
| 48 | + - What is "In Scala's case the case with only one overriding method is very simple - the override wins." referring to? |
| 49 | + - "always (and deterministically) able to determine what will be called" -> "always able to deterministically identify which method implementation will be called" |
| 50 | + - On the examples, I would do away with the asserts, make it more like the previous ones. |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +Page 11 |
| 53 | + - "So for example in our case ( D1 ), the superclass of C is B." -> What about poor D2? You could say smthing such as "and viceversa fro D2" to keep symmetry. |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +Page 12 |
| 56 | + - "Using this trick the ### definition now suddenly "makes sense!" -> Disagree, have no idea what just happened :P Explain more! |
| 57 | + - "Let's now go deeper into the..." -> I would remove the "taking the readers along" metaphor, it is very difficult to maintain on a long and technically deep text. |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +Page 14 |
| 60 | + - All text under Type constructor I found difficult to parse. |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +Page 15 |
| 63 | + - "used this trick before" -> did we? Link back to section maybe? |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +Page 16 |
| 66 | + - "why this us so nice interesting... [example] ...And we can do the" -> you didn´t tell the reader why it was so nice/interesting, something like ¨Look at the type of the parameter..." |
| 67 | + - I would join the example for stop to the start one and expand on the case for either (smthing like "What if you need to accept parameters in a subset of states...") |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +Page 17 |
| 70 | + - Love the example, but don´t understand "//takes a java.io.File (implements Closeable)" |
| 71 | + - "Another fact " -> "An important fact" |
| 72 | + - "investitage the generated bytecode for scala (or java) classes, by using :javap in the Scala REPL, so you can check it out yourself." -> "investigate" and remove commas. |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +Page 18 |
| 75 | + - Repeated the performance warning, either remove or lampshade/excuse the repeat. |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +Page 20 |
| 78 | + - On existential types, I feel the example is difficult to understand on its own, and the explanation expects a lot from the reader. |
| 79 | + - "We know though that List is a type constructor, * -> *" -> do we? I would try to expand on this paragraph and make it more accessible. |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +Page 21 |
| 82 | + - You said the "M" word! Scary! Is it possible to have a more pedestrian example? |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +Page 23 |
| 85 | + - This sounds a bit weird -> "You can try it out (it's copy paste ready) in your Scala 2.10+ REPL - if you don't have one at hand: yeah, the output would be:" -> just say somehting like "The output would be" |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +Page 24 |
| 88 | + - "Yeah, you figured it out already I guess." -> Well no, I didn´t... |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +------- END OF SERGIO COMMENTS ------- |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +----------- BAMBUCZA ------------- |
| 93 | +Łukasz Dubiel @ 01:06 |
| 94 | +Nie wiem czy w momencie kiedy tłumaczysz trochę curring nie przydałby się rysunek do tego |
| 95 | +brakuje calli przy type projection |
| 96 | +tzn pobrałeś wartości do vali |
| 97 | + |
| 98 | +ktoso @ 01:07 |
| 99 | +hm, jakies defy chcesz tam? |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +Łukasz Dubiel @ 01:07 |
| 102 | +wiesz jak wcześniej miałeś, że typy się nie zgadzają to tutaj by już mogły |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +ktoso @ 01:07 |
| 105 | +oh ok |
| 106 | + |
| 107 | +----------- END OF BAMBUCZA ------------- |
| 108 | + |
| 109 | +------------------ DAN ------------- |
| 110 | + |
| 111 | +structurals need more of an intro |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +----------- END OF DAN ------------- |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | + |
| 116 | +------------- JOSH SECTION -------------- |
| 117 | +a higher kind is not exactly a type constructor. A type constructor enables higher kinds - in methods for example. |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +show how List[_] gets desugared into forSome, show also that we can abstract over that value |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +`type of object` section can be made longer - it's actually how the compiler looks up all the types. |
| 122 | +On the object of java.lang#String it looks for String. // projection or path dependent here? actually |
| 123 | + |
| 124 | +Expand section on type level - include >: and <: and those. |
| 125 | +------------- END OF JOSH SECTION -------------- |
0 commit comments