Skip to content
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

Doc standard for tremor function params and return types #378

Open
anupdhml opened this issue Aug 6, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Doc standard for tremor function params and return types #378

anupdhml opened this issue Aug 6, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request language

Comments

@anupdhml
Copy link
Contributor

anupdhml commented Aug 6, 2020

Describe the problem you are trying to solve

The stdlib function docs roughly include information on the function params as well as the return type but that is not amenable to structured processing needed for tasks like generating params/type info as part of function doc completions in tremor-language-server.

Adding a structured way to encode these info would also improve the consistency of the auto-generated function docs.

Describe the solution you'd like

Should entail enhancement of the tremor-script’s existing FnDoc struct.

Also see if we can get rid of the older doc structs in the codebase (meant to house the parse result of earlier markdown based docs and currently needed for showing trickle’s aggregate function docs via tremor-language-server).

And any doc standard that we come up with, we should also document so that tremor’s end users can also utilize it in their own functions/modules. Tooling like tremor-language-server can then take advantage of it.

@Licenser
Copy link
Member

We should be careful with this, adding types to functions means making tremor-script somewhat type aware. That is going to need a good plan to make sure we do not block off future possibilities for type checking, asymmetric types, custom types and so on.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request language
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants