You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We want to have methods that operate on AlgebraicTypes that have been validated as type definitions / type uses for client codegen. Currently the relevant methods (AlgebraicType::is_valid_for_client_type_def / AlgebraicType::is_valid_for_client_type_use) return bool, but they should be upgraded / have new methods added that return enums AlgebraicTypeDef / AlgebraicTypeUse storing precisely the information we want. (Parse, don't validate).
That is, UNLESS we want a deeper reworking of the type system to actually bake notions of separate "structural" and "nominal" types into the type system, or some other approach, cc @cloutiertyler. But this approach is easy to implement and will suffice for now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We want to have methods that operate on
AlgebraicType
s that have been validated as type definitions / type uses for client codegen. Currently the relevant methods (AlgebraicType::is_valid_for_client_type_def
/AlgebraicType::is_valid_for_client_type_use
) returnbool
, but they should be upgraded / have new methods added that return enumsAlgebraicTypeDef
/AlgebraicTypeUse
storing precisely the information we want. (Parse, don't validate).That is, UNLESS we want a deeper reworking of the type system to actually bake notions of separate "structural" and "nominal" types into the type system, or some other approach, cc @cloutiertyler. But this approach is easy to implement and will suffice for now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: