scaladoc

Why do some method descriptions in Scaladoc start with [use case] ? Example: scala.collection.immutable.StringOps.++ Is it just a placeholder to be replaced in the future? They are simplified examples of how these methods are called. Usually these methods ( ++ , map , flatMap , etc.) contain an implicit parameter, most often an argument called a builder factory which (simply put) abstracts creation of resulting collections. In most cases, a client of a collection does not specify these implicit parameters, so ScalaDoc allows defining a simplified description of the method - a use case . This

I'd like the ScalaDoc I generate with sbt to link to external libraries, and in sbt 0.13 we have autoAPIMappings which is supposed to add these links for libraries that declare their apiURL . In practice though, none of the libraries I use provide this in their pom/ivy metadata, and I suspect some of these libraries will never do so. The apiMappings setting is supposed to help with just that, but it is typed as Map[File, URL] and hence geared towards setting doc urls for unmanaged dependencies. Managed dependencies are declared as instances of sbt.ModuleID and cannot be inserted directly in

There are a lot of places in the Scala API , particularly in collections, where method signatures are wrong. For example, the scaladoc signature for Map . flatMap says def flatMap[B](f: (A) ⇒ GenTraversableOnce[B]): Map[B] But the actual signature is flatMap[B, That](f: ((A, B)) ⇒ GenTraversableOnce[B]) (implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Map[A, B], B, That]): That This one especially makes no sense because the scaladoc signature includes Map[B] , but Map has two type parameters, not one. What's going on here? Is this a mistake? Chris Martin The incorrect signatures you're see in the generated