feat(compiler)!: Explicit abstract types #1680
Conversation
ospencer
requested review from
phated,
peblair,
marcusroberts and
jozanza
as code owners
|
The errors for non-provided types appearing in provided modules could be expanded to display the specific offending item, but this is a bit complicated and IMO is not necessary for the initial feature. If this PR is approved, I'll create an issue to expand those errors. |
| @@ -2189,7 +2189,7 @@ let nondep_instance = (env, level, id, ty) => { | |||
| list (nl2, tl2). raise Not_found if impossible */ | |||
| let complete_type_list = (~allow_absent=false, env, nl1, lv2, mty2, nl2, tl2) => { | |||
| let id2 = Ident.create("Pkg"); | |||
| let env' = Env.add_module(id2, mty2, None, env); | |||
| let env' = Env.add_module(id2, mty2, None, Location.dummy_loc, env); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@phated The dummy_locs are all for places where location information isn't available.
| @@ -2189,7 +2189,7 @@ let nondep_instance = (env, level, id, ty) => { | |||
| list (nl2, tl2). raise Not_found if impossible */ | |||
| let complete_type_list = (~allow_absent=false, env, nl1, lv2, mty2, nl2, tl2) => { | |||
| let id2 = Ident.create("Pkg"); | |||
| let env' = Env.add_module(id2, mty2, None, env); | |||
| let env' = Env.add_module(id2, mty2, None, Location.dummy_loc, env); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I missed getting my comment in soon enough! Just because there's no location information available (this is mostly for module types, a bit of a holdover from OCaml).
| @@ -150,5 +150,5 @@ exceptions › exception_4 | |||
| (call $_gmain) | |||
| ) | |||
| ) | |||
| ;; custom section \"cmi\", size 1238 | |||
| ;; custom section \"cmi\", size 1284 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why would these increase in size instead of decrease?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We include location information in CMIs now (we previously stripped all location information), so sizes went up. This doesn't affect final binary sizes and will also help with LSP features, like go to definition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(I did this because the check just literates the signature, and I essentially am doing a "go to definition" to report the error wherever the error is.)
|
Not really... I think we gave this a fair amount of bikeshedding, but if we truly find something we like better we can always send it before 0.6 lands. |
Previously, any type defined in a module that was not provided was still provided by the compiler as an abstract type. Now, types must explicitly be marked with a new
abstractkeyword to indicate that the type should be visible but the implementation hidden.This is a breaking change because types not marked with
provideorabstractno longer appear in module signatures. If a value is provided by a module but uses a type that is not also provided or abstract, the compiler shows an error, as this type is private and not accessible by consuming modules.Closes #1240