improve the format used to store type information. #81
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
This basically completely changes the format though it should be backwards compatible with the old format for readers. The old format was _very_ biased towards to teal's syntax and focused on layout. This made it very hard to create definition files for anything other than teal. It also made it very hard to get any meaningful information out of the types without parsing And to top it off, forced the writer of the type to care about formatting/how the type ends up being laid out as. The new format fixes this by only focusing on the types and what for type it is. Rather than allowing people to inject syntax in the type definitions. There is however a function to turn the new format into the old one _and_ the old format is still included. So, for as long as readers don't mind extra fields they should be able to keep using the old fields as normal.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This basically completely changes the format
though it should be backwards compatible
with the old format for readers.
The old format was very biased towards
to teal's syntax and focused on layout.
This made it very hard to create definition files
for anything other than teal.
It also made it very hard to get any meaningful
information out of the types without parsing
And to top it off, forced the writer of the type
to care about formatting/how the type ends
up being laid out as.
The new format fixes this by only focusing on
the types and what for type it is. Rather than
allowing people to inject syntax in the type definitions.
There is however a function to turn the new format
into the old one and the old format is still included.
So, for as long as readers don't mind extra fields they
should be able to keep using the old fields as normal.