Gregsdennis/improve scopes #1588
Conversation
|
I still have some work to do here for |
github-project-automation
bot
moved this from In Progress
to Done
in Stable Release Development
|
Just did a close/open to rekick the build. It had been a while and couldn't do it manually. |
|
Reviewed the changes in #1589, and they seem to align with the rest of what I've updated here, so I'm going to leave |
gregsdennis
force-pushed
the
gregsdennis/improve-scopes
branch
from
8f29265 to
767debd
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an improvement, but I still really dislike the way dynamic scope is defined. I think it should be the stack of schema resources and not include subschemas. The extra complexity makes learning how dynamic references work more complicated.
Also, I desperately hope we wouldn't ever add another keyword that uses dynamic scope. My preference would be to remove this whole concept from the spec and address it only in the context of dynamic references and recommend that extension keywords not use dynamic scope.
All of that can be debated elsewhere and done as a follow up if there's consensus.
| root schema. | ||
| root object. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think "root schema" is better here. Yes, it's an object, but more specifically, it's a schema. Maybe "root schema object" or "root object schema" if you want to be clear that boolean schemas aren't relevant.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
clarification
Issue & Discussion References
Summary
Improve readability, definitions, and explanations of lexical and dynamic scopes.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No.
There is a
MUSTrequirement that was previously listed as undefined behavior before, but thisMUSTwas stated in the scopes section anyway. It's just nowMUSTin both places.