Skip to content

Conversation

htoooth
Copy link
Contributor

@htoooth htoooth commented Sep 12, 2025

No description provided.

@zth zth requested review from cknitt and cometkim September 12, 2025 12:46
Copy link

pkg-pr-new bot commented Sep 12, 2025

Open in StackBlitz

rescript

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript@7881

@rescript/darwin-arm64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/darwin-arm64@7881

@rescript/darwin-x64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/darwin-x64@7881

@rescript/linux-arm64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/linux-arm64@7881

@rescript/linux-x64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/linux-x64@7881

@rescript/runtime

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/runtime@7881

@rescript/win32-x64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/win32-x64@7881

commit: ea0573f

@cknitt
Copy link
Member

cknitt commented Sep 12, 2025

@htoooth Thank you for your contribution! 👍

Instead of two bindings per function like

@send external getInt16: (t, int) => int = "getInt16"
@send external getInt16LittleEndian: (t, int, @as(1) _) => int = "getInt16"

could you do single bindings like

@send external getInt16: (t, int, ~littleEndian: bool=?) => int = "getInt16"

please?

(Bonus points for adding doc strings with tests/code examples 🙂.)

@htoooth
Copy link
Contributor Author

htoooth commented Sep 12, 2025

@cknitt

  1. I did it this way because I saw that's how it was done in the previous v11.
  2. The idea of encapsulating polymorphic functions mentioned in the document is also to encapsulate for different situations.
  3. This makes it easier to migrate old code.

By the way, I also initially thought of adding a parameter like your said @cknitt

Where to add tests and documentation? I couldn't find the previous documents and test cases

@cometkim
Copy link
Member

Using @as(1) _ here is neat btw

@cknitt
Copy link
Member

cknitt commented Sep 12, 2025

I did it this way because I saw that's how it was done in the previous v11.

In previous ReScript versions, the approach with the optional argument was not really ergonomic because a trailing unit argument was required.

Now that it has become feasible, we have moved to single bindings in the stdlib where possible, as this is much clearer to JS devs, basically resulting in a 1:1 correspondence with the JS APIs as documented on MDN.

E.g. Float.toString with optional parameter radix, deprecating Float.toStringWithRadix. There are many more such examples in the new stdlib.

Therefore, also the DataView bindings should follow suit.

Docstrings are in a corresponding .resi file and contain examples that are automatically verified as test assertions during the CI build.

Example:

`toString(v)` return a `string` representing the given value.

@htoooth
Copy link
Contributor Author

htoooth commented Sep 13, 2025

@cknitt I have made the revisions and added the doc.

Copy link
Member

@cknitt cknitt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!
CI does not build yet though.

@htoooth
Copy link
Contributor Author

htoooth commented Sep 15, 2025

@cknitt

image image

CI in Windows is passed, but others are not.
I ran 'make format', but nothing changed.
Can you help me?

@htoooth
Copy link
Contributor Author

htoooth commented Sep 16, 2025

@cknitt I have passed the CI

@cknitt
Copy link
Member

cknitt commented Sep 16, 2025

@htoooth Looks great now! One last thing - could you add a CHANGELOG entry, please?

@htoooth
Copy link
Contributor Author

htoooth commented Sep 16, 2025

@htoooth Looks great now! One last thing - could you add a CHANGELOG entry, please?

done

@cknitt cknitt merged commit 1bef891 into rescript-lang:master Sep 16, 2025
25 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants