We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
See comment here (#1600 (comment)).
We should be able to create a new Value type and follow the same flow as intrinsics rather than having a separate ForeignCall instruction.
Remove ForeignCall instruction and maintain same foreign call functionality
The existing work is an alternative as foreign calls work as expected. The solution in this issue will enable us to remove an instruction.
No response
No
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
oops, mistaken issue
Sorry, something went wrong.
@vezenovm can this be closed?
Yes closed by #1644
vezenovm
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
Problem
See comment here (#1600 (comment)).
We should be able to create a new Value type and follow the same flow as intrinsics rather than having a separate ForeignCall instruction.
Happy Case
Remove ForeignCall instruction and maintain same foreign call functionality
Alternatives Considered
The existing work is an alternative as foreign calls work as expected. The solution in this issue will enable us to remove an instruction.
Additional Context
No response
Would you like to submit a PR for this Issue?
No
Support Needs
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: