WIP: Support vector syntax for references #1072
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
frenchy64
changed the title
frenchy64
changed the title
|
Moved to frenchy64#13 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Adds full support for vector syntax for
-reference?'s that don't point toIntoSchema. This removes a point of confusion about the differences between using a reference and a schema.Properties are attached to the
-pointer. Children are not allowed.This changes how registries resolve IntoSchema's. The code used to recursively resolve registry entries such that
{:string-alias :string, :string (-string-schema)}would resolve[:string-alias]to an instance of(-string-schema). Now it just returns a-pointerto:string-aliaslike the (non-vector):string-aliassyntax does.I added a comment where future work could add support for user-defined "schema functions" that take and return schemas. I think we can reuse the same ideas as #1053 to make these hygienic and serializable.