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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Unify input and local declarations in data model #799
Unify input and local declarations in data model #799
Changes from 1 commit
ac4d83a
44f3767
5310b04
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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'm not fond of the blanket
value: Expression
, which requires this wording here. I'd much prefer if the data model didn't need these additional validity constraints. I think the current data model achieves this to a larger extent.I wouldn't want anyone to think that it's OK to have
.input {:func}
or.input {|1|}
-- which I think the proposed change does suggest.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.
This change is in fact removing a MUST validity constraint on
InputDeclaration
, in addition to removing a similar implicit constraint on theLocalDeclaration
that it must not contain in itsvalue
aVariableExpression
which uses the samename
as used at the top level of the declaration.Could you explain how this proposed language suggests that something like
.input {:func}
is ok? As it explicitly requires the expression to have aVariableRef
argument with a matchingname
, isn't that the same set of requirements that are expressed in the syntax?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.
This is an interesting suggestion worth pursuing in a separate PR.