Type literals might actually require some special ...

# language-proposals

[dmitry.petrov]

Type literals might actually require some special syntax: Some::type currently can resolve to a member reference for Some.type

[eddie]

Why not just Some? Only confusion I see arising is it's similarity to constructor references ::Some, but that doesn't seem like such a big deal.

[kingsley]

Some is already a valid reference to the companion object. That would be a good reason

[eddie]

Doh. Forgot about those. 🙂 That's kind of a shame.

[kirillrakhman]

Also a constructor reference