import - Why does the Scala API have two strategies for organizing types? -

I have noticed that Scala standard library uses two different strategies for organizing classes, traits and single objects. .

1. Using those packages whose members are imported, for example, how you get access to scala.collection.mutable.ListBuffer This technique is familiar with Java, Python, etc.

2. Using the members of the type of properties For example, how does this get you access to the parser type? You first need to mix in scala.util.parsing.combinator.Parsers . This technique is not familiar with Java, Python, etc., and is not used much in third party libraries.

   I think that (2) has an advantage that it organizes both methods and types, but Scala 2.8 can be done by using light (1) in objects of objects is. Why are both strategies?

   The note here is . This option is number 2 which you talk about, and I will only talk about it. Unless you solve the problem by this, you should always take the option number 1.

   Do you miss that Parser class parser class really, parser class depends on itself that < Code> Input is defined on parser :

     Abstract class parser [+ T] extended (input => parscult [t] )   
    type  input  is defined as:  
     type input = reader [alam]   
    and  Elem  is an example, for example,  RegexParsers  and  TokenParsers  and Four. Defines the pre  eel  as the  four , while later it defines it as the  token . This means that the  parser  is different for each, more importantly, because  Parser is the subclass of 
    
    
    
    
      parser  But you will ensure that when you  RegexParsers   parser  to  token parser  or vice versa As a matter of fact, you will not be able to pass  parser  near another example of  RegexParsers .