fix(intl): expose Intl.Common types #197
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Also adds JS artifacts for recently added tests. Not sure if they need to be tracked, but we should either add them or explicitly ignore them to prevent them from being accidentally added in other PRs. |
|
@glennsl perfect, thank you for cleaning up as well! Would you like a |
|
Thanks, but no need for my sake. I found the |
illusionalsagacity
pushed a commit
to illusionalsagacity/rescript-core
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 19, 2024
* fix(intl): expose Intl.Common types * docs: update change log * chore: add js artifacts for tests
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The Intl.Common types don't seem to be exposed. And while they technically don't need to be, since they're structural, it's useful to be able to reference them for derived APIs (as I have in a project of mine).
It might be more consistent to expose the types directly in relevant modules though, instead of the module as a whole, but this is the minimal change needed.