Polymorphic records for widget construction #7
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
postsolar
force-pushed
the
polymorphic-widget-inputs
branch
from
97ab81f to
1011edf
Compare
postsolar
force-pushed
the
polymorphic-widget-inputs
branch
from
ff82068 to
dc664f4
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 would remove the need for wrapping a value with
Untagged.Union.asOneOffor each prop each time it's used, at least on widget construction. It also reduces the amount of boilerplate needed to foreign-import a new widget type.Con: now every single widget field should be marked as
ValueOrBinding a, even where it wasn't meant to be this way originally. But I suspect it's actually true for any field anyways, so no type-safety is being compromised, I think.asOneOfon widget creation