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

No need to type check implementation files when an .fsi file exists #10201

Closed
KevinRansom opened this issue Sep 30, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #10199
Closed

No need to type check implementation files when an .fsi file exists #10201

KevinRansom opened this issue Sep 30, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #10199

Comments

@KevinRansom
Copy link
Member

Will has the details, and can fill this out more. There is a tremendous peformance gain when we don't typecheck implementation files that are not open.

@KevinRansom KevinRansom changed the title No need to type check implementation files when an FSI file exists No need to type check implementation files when an .fsi file exists Sep 30, 2020
@abelbraaksma
Copy link
Contributor

This would help sooooo much in large projects wrt tooling perf, and would be an extra benefit for adding fsi files (I usually don't).

@smoothdeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

Waiting for this optimization to land before opening again TypeChecker.fs 😄.

@heronbpv
Copy link

heronbpv commented Oct 1, 2020

This would help sooooo much in large projects wrt tooling perf, and would be an extra benefit for adding fsi files (I usually don't).

This. Never saw any reason to make a .fsi file, until now. Always seemed like redundant work.

@KevinRansom
Copy link
Member Author

@heronbpv, I'm with you, I don't like them when creating apps, however, if you are creating libraries for public consumption, they are very useful for controlling the visibility of the types and functions in the libraries.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment