Static type-pattern based feature spec for scoped static extension methods #292
Conversation
This file contains 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
eernstg
changed the title
|
Abandoned: We chose to use an approach based on type inference rather than type patterns. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR is a static variant of the PR #284. It adds the file 'feature-specification-using-static-type-patterns.md' to the directory which is concerned with static scoped extension methods.
It is an initial version of a feature specification of static scoped extension methods where only the core is covered (the extension methods themselves and their static and dynamic semantics, but no static methods or other "auxiliary" features that extensions could have).
It is based on using type patterns (#170) to specify how to extract the type arguments of the statically known type of the given receiver.
This means that extension methods can be considered to be a thin layer of syntactic sugar on top of global functions and their invocation.
However, static type patterns are more powerful than the static+dynamic ones used by #284, because we do not have to enforce that the type patterns are 'subtype robust', which means that they can work as a somewhat more powerful constraint language.