-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFLX.RFLX_Types.Operators package #1126
Comments
Sounds reasonable to me.
What exactly do you mean with backward compatibility here? |
If we move the operator definitions to the child package I think we will get errors in the currently generated code as it doesn't know about the operators and therefor cannot use the types as intended. So we would have to add |
I think that would be a good thing. I don't see a good reason to allow the old/default operator behavior. |
The operators for the types defined in
RFLX.RFLX_Types
are currently also defined in this package. As the types in this package are only subtypes the operators are not primitive functions of these types and therefore not visible by usinguse type
. To use these operators the whole package has to be used. Additionally theuse type
is still required for the default operators of these types. The reason is that they're defined in the package that provides the types for the generic types implementation. It seems there is no way around usinguse
anduse type
.To avoid withing the whole
RFLX_Types
package I suggest to implement the operators inRFLX.RFLX_Types.Operators
so only this package has to be used completely. This avoids all the visibility and ambiguity issues that come by usingRFLX_Types
.To ensure backwards compatibility one could also think of only renaming the operators in the
Operators
child package.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: