-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 205
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
Scala codegen support for interfaces #13349
Comments
I don't think we should work on this, unless there's a very good reason to do so. |
I agree; it exists first to determine whether there is a very good reason, so we don't forget to check that. |
* Remove unused field from `Node` * Add interface support to `transitiveClosure` Contributes to #13324 changelog_begin changelog_end This work can be reused to address #13349 and I left `TODO`s where appropriate. * Address #13557 (comment) * Address #13557 (comment) * Turn the bulk of the logic of `transitiveClosure` into a smart constructor
Prioritizing rationale: this item is a roadblock towards working with interfaces. We need to unblock other teams from implementing tests for interfaces. This is meant as a short-term measure to make use of the team's expertise. I still believe we should have a clear understanding, shared with other teams, regarding the longer-term strategy with regards to the Scala bindings. I'll be very happy to talk more about it with you soon. |
There are three "levels" of implementation:
From what @remyhaemmerle-da mentioned, there is a good chance that only doing (1) will unblock testing. It only implements the first checkbox item above, and that in a way that creates slightly invalid exercise commands according to (3), but that might be good enough, since you can technically just patch in the correct interface ID on those exercise commands. If it is not quite good enough, we should probably not just do #11350, instead doing a full #13668-like implementation. |
Thanks Steven. I will let you known if it is enough. |
Like #11350, but for Scala codegen. Design #13668 (comment) .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: