Proxies 2 #89
Proxies 2 #89
Conversation
virgil-serbanuta
force-pushed
the
proxies-2
branch
3 times, most recently
from
042c96c to
7d3a018
Compare
virgil-serbanuta
force-pushed
the
proxies-2
branch
12 times, most recently
from
6474048 to
0a4ed32
Compare
virgil-serbanuta
force-pushed
the
proxies-2
branch
from
0a4ed32 to
3b945f1
Compare
| </k> | ||
| <trait-path> Trait </trait-path> | ||
| <method-name> #token("execute_on_dest_context", "Identifier") </method-name> | ||
| [priority(50)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
50 is the default priority of every rule. I don't think this line is needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this priority number is used in other parts of the mx-rust-semantics, such as in mx-rust-semantics/main/preprocessing/methods.md, but in previous commits.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know, but I am using this to make the relation with the rule below more obvious. Maybe this is too much, so I'll send a cleanup PR if you think it should be removed.
| syntax Expression ::= concatString(Expression, Expression) [seqstrict] | ||
| | toString(Expression) [strict] | ||
| | rawValue(Value) | ||
| | SemanticsError // TODO: Remove. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why can't this be removed now? Is this not supposed to be a part of the mx-semantics part?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wanted to do this when sending the cleanup PR, but it would require a few hours of work, so I wanted to postpone it until after the deadline.
To be precise, this is related to another TODO in this PR, the one in methods.md at line 280 - those functions use the SemanticsError as an expression. To fix both of them, I would need to make those functions similar to the ones in rust-semantics/conversions.md, returning an ...OrError result. The problem is that I would also need to change the rule above, in rules.md, at line 267. I would practically need to split the rule in two, the first rule would just rewrite to a new constructor which would also hold the result of paramsToMaybeTupleElements, and the second one would actually implement the rule.
If you think it's important to fix this now, I'll send a follow-up PR.
Closes #44