-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 413
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
refactor(melange): move stanza definition #6775
refactor(melange): move stanza definition #6775
Conversation
It should exist in [Melange_stanzas] Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg <me@rgrinberg.com> ps-id: bee92f9b-6ded-4f47-b13a-25052ac6ff48
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not sure I understand the benefits of this new approach. Also, Dune_project.Melange_syntax
can prob be removed.
But otherwise looks good.
@@ -345,12 +345,6 @@ end | |||
|
|||
module Melange_syntax = struct | |||
let name = "melange" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it make sense to leave just name
here? The only consumer is Melange_stanzas.syntax
, so maybe it could be moved to that module. Or even inlined in syntax
definition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wish I could remove it but it has to stay because it's used to define the dialect for rescript.
@@ -2274,7 +2274,6 @@ type Stanza.t += | |||
| Cram of Cram_stanza.t | |||
| Generate_sites_module of Generate_sites_module.t | |||
| Plugin of Plugin.t | |||
| Melange_emit of Melange_stanzas.Emit.t |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wasn't this approach more exhaustive from a type checking perspective? What are the advantages of the new approach?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wasn't this approach more exhaustive from a type checking perspective
I think it's equivalent. There's no exhaustiveness checking on open types no matter how you define their constructors.
What are the advantages of the new approach?
That we isolate the melange rules from the rest as much as possible. This should make it easy for us to change things without impacting the rest of the code base.
* main: (148 commits) refactor(rpc): remove mutable callback (ocaml#6786) refactor(stdune): make [Id.t] immediate (ocaml#6795) refactor(melange): share mode handling (ocaml#6799) refactor(scheduler): remove duplicate types (ocaml#6785) refactor: move cram stanza definition (ocaml#6800) fix: correctly validate argument to top-module (ocaml#6796) refactor: move generate_sites_module to own module (ocaml#6798) fix(melange): check rules (ocaml#6789) refactor(rpc): make [Call.to_dyn] public (ocaml#6797) refactor(rpc): invalid session errors (ocaml#6787) refactor(melange): remove js globs (ocaml#6782) doc: fix version indication for "dune ocaml top-module" (ocaml#6792) refactor: print shutdown exception (ocaml#6784) refactor(rpc): add [Call.to_dyn] (ocaml#6790) fix: do not impose no_sandboxing on ocamldep (ocaml#6749) refactor(melange): move stanza definition (ocaml#6775) fix: handle missing CLICOLOR_FORCE correctly (ocaml#6781) Revert --display tui (ocaml#6780) fix: render pending messages refactor(coq): inline coqc_rule ...
It should exist in [Melange_stanzas]
Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg me@rgrinberg.com
ps-id: bee92f9b-6ded-4f47-b13a-25052ac6ff48