also is it completely mandatory to have `expected`...

# announcements

[Jorge Castillo]

also is it completely mandatory to have expected on a common module and actual in a platform one?

[yole]

why would you want to do something different?

[Jorge Castillo]

just some dark thoughts about whether it could be used to provide injection (implicits)

[Jorge Castillo]

I assume it’s not the goal, but if you could be allowed to expect contracts and provide actual implementations on the same module, you could build some DI with that and not just constraint the approach to multiplatform projects

[yole]

expect/actual matching is done by FQ name, and having two classes with the same FQ name in the same module would be quite problematic

[pablisco]

FQ?

[yole]

fully qualified

[pablisco]

ah! But I'm sure no one is talking about having multiple FQ names, in the same way that Service injection works on JVM, but much better 🙂

[Jorge Castillo]

The point is that expected and actual definitions match in terms of FQ name, so he means given the actual implementation of the feature and how it performs the matching it wouldn’t be possible to have both under the same module

[Jorge Castillo]

So types do not have anything to do on the matching ?

[ilya.gorbunov]

Types in method signatures should also match otherwise it would be an error.