Skip to content
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

RawModuleDef should include fewer names, allowing the host to generate names consistently #1893

Closed
kazimuth opened this issue Oct 23, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
abi-break A PR that makes an ABI breaking change release-1.0

Comments

@kazimuth
Copy link
Contributor

With phoebe's addition of accessor_name for indexes, the name field in various RawModuleDefs become redundant. Currently, the module bindings are allowed to specify names for RawIndexDef / RawConstraintDef / RawScheduleDef. These names are (almost?) completely auto-generated. The user-specified name for indexes is already its own field, accessor_name, distinct from these.

The problem right now is that we have to re-implement name generation in both the C# and Rust module bindings. It's a pain to make these consistent. It's much easier to just not bother, and then have the host generate all names uniformly during RawModuleDef validation. Names are almost entirely an internal implementation detail anyway.

@kazimuth kazimuth added abi-break A PR that makes an ABI breaking change release-1.0 labels Oct 23, 2024
@kazimuth kazimuth self-assigned this Oct 23, 2024
@kazimuth kazimuth changed the title RawModuleDef should include fewer names, allowing the Host to generate names consistently RawModuleDef should include fewer names, allowing the host to generate names consistently Oct 23, 2024
@bfops bfops closed this as completed Nov 25, 2024
@bfops
Copy link
Collaborator

bfops commented Nov 25, 2024

Closed because it is marked done

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
abi-break A PR that makes an ABI breaking change release-1.0
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants