compiler: Fixtures to show challenge with setters #29593
Closed
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
I quickly experimented with enabling support for get/set syntax. This confirmed my suspicion that these won't be safe without additional work. The "set" fixture example shows how we assume PropertyStore is only a Store effect on the object, but with a setter it needs to be modeled as an arbitrary mutation. If we were to support getters and setters I think we'd need to: * Support `this` syntax (maybe limited to just within object methods) * Enforce that getters cannot mutate any free variables, cannot mutate `this` * Enforce that setters cannot mutate any free variables (but allow mutating `this`). In other words, enforce that you're using getters/setters in a reasonable way that matches our modeling (get is a read, set is a store to the object). [ghstack-poisoned]
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
facebook-github-bot
added
the
React Core Team
josephsavona
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2024
I quickly experimented with enabling support for get/set syntax. This confirmed my suspicion that these won't be safe without additional work. The "set" fixture example shows how we assume PropertyStore is only a Store effect on the object, but with a setter it needs to be modeled as an arbitrary mutation. If we were to support getters and setters I think we'd need to: * Support `this` syntax (maybe limited to just within object methods) * Enforce that getters cannot mutate any free variables, cannot mutate `this` * Enforce that setters cannot mutate any free variables (but allow mutating `this`). In other words, enforce that you're using getters/setters in a reasonable way that matches our modeling (get is a read, set is a store to the object). ghstack-source-id: ca6337f6fd13ac77da5f6e7dc7aaa6e671035db4 Pull Request resolved: #29593
|
Comparing: b078c81...6d75e61 Critical size changesIncludes critical production bundles, as well as any change greater than 2%:
Significant size changesIncludes any change greater than 0.2%: Expand to show
|
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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
I quickly experimented with enabling support for get/set syntax. This confirmed my suspicion that these won't be safe without additional work. The "set" fixture example shows how we assume PropertyStore is only a Store effect on the object, but with a setter it needs to be modeled as an arbitrary mutation.
If we were to support getters and setters I think we'd need to:
thissyntax (maybe limited to just within object methods)thisthis).In other words, enforce that you're using getters/setters in a reasonable way that matches our modeling (get is a read, set is a store to the object).