Type-pattern based feature spec for scoped static extension methods #284
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
…c extension methods
|
Abandoned: We chose to use an approach based on type inference rather than type patterns, and also to use the statically known receiver type rather than the dynamic type. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 PR adds the file 'feature-specification-using-type-patterns.md' to the directory which is concerned with static scoped extension methods.
It is an initial version of a feature specification of static scoped extension methods where only the core is covered (the extension methods themselves and their static and dynamic semantics, but no static methods or other "auxiliary" features that extensions could have).
It is based on using type patterns (#170) to specify how to extract the actual type arguments of the given receiver, and it should contain enough detail to justify the claim that we can implement this feature, with this semantics and static analysis, and trust that it will not introduce soundness issues.