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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Fix Glint types by converting helpers to plain functions #188
Fix Glint types by converting helpers to plain functions #188
Changes from 14 commits
7f24e42
ba8ac40
5e30144
557ff7b
1c8ba28
0b89b30
19d10cb
f0b46e7
290f72f
e6314cf
4b22c67
245e82a
52e9a16
9f7347f
ce51051
b21676d
b8e90e2
7b251ea
9766373
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.
@NullVoxPopuli using spread causes an issue - today, arguments gets lazily evaluated and spread makes it process eager.
e.g. imagine use case
today, if
(foo "A")
returnsfalse
, then(bar "B")
does not get evaluated.but this line change makes it evaluated which is definitely not what we want
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.
that's just how plain functions work though: https://github.com/glimmerjs/glimmer-vm/blob/68d371bdccb41bc239b8f70d832e956ce6c349d8/packages/%40glimmer/manager/lib/internal/defaults.ts#L38
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.
to make
or
lazy or short-circuit, it needs to be built in to the VM.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 wonder if
or
andand
need to remain "classic" I wonder if that means converting to class helpers so that we can correctly use generics?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.
keeping the
as boolean
's here might not quite meet the type needs of #185 for theand
helperThere 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.
(not that this PR needs to solve that too)
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.
yeah, I'd prefer to add tests for the scenarios in #185 -- but in a separate PR -- since this PR is mostly a mechanical change branched off of #185, I'd prefer to iterate, so that PRs can remain reviewable
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.
same issue here as in
and
helper