Artur Kozak
Artur Kozak
Is there a workaround? Or maybe a fork that already has Solidity 0.6 syntax support?
I can't ignore _all_ my contract files :D I'll try out if solhint works better, thanks
Rationale and code looks ok. Gratz for the additional research. @krzkaczor @macbem @lucifer1004 what do you think? Does this look useful, is the name intuitive enough?
> `exampleA.foo` and `exampleB.complex` will both be union types Yes, but from a general "union type". The goal is to e.g. enforce passing properties coming from _the same_ particular "discriminated...
I think @akwodkiewicz wanted to have a general name meaning _"this is not a union type"_, but maybe we can think of a more specific one for the most common...
Reworded example intro: if you have `type U = A | B | C`, you can call `fn(...)` or `fn(...)`, but you can't call `fn` nor `fn`, this way you...
would it be just an exported named constant then? imho it should have a name that clearly shows it shouldn't be there in the long run, like `NOT_IMPLEMENTED`, `VALUE_TBD`, `UNKNOWN_YET`...
> Let's discuss naming A nope from me on naming functions in `CAPS` -- this is reserved for "constants" (understood in the traditional C-like sense, not just js's `const`). Functions...
You'd need a separate type for that. If we decide there are enough usecases for it, we could write one, it would even be simpler than the specific `DeepOmit`. The...
Our `DeepReadonly` was once simpler too, kinda similar to your `Immutable` 😃 Unfortunately it grew to the current complexity to produce fully correct types for sets, weaksets, etc -- which...