You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Having simple macros like string?, number?, table?, nil?, etc. would increase the readability of code that may use them.
The only thing I'm worried about is the existing table? in macro context. iirc, it checks if an AST node is a table literal, as opposed to runtime type of table. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to rename AST checking macros to be: table-literal?, sequence-literal?, etc.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The big problem here is that it will almost certainly conflict with existing identifiers in a large number of existing codebases. Until we have a mechanism to opt in to new built-in macros, I don't think we can introduce these as it will be a breaking change.
Having simple macros like
string?
,number?
,table?
,nil?
, etc. would increase the readability of code that may use them.The only thing I'm worried about is the existing
table?
in macro context. iirc, it checks if an AST node is a table literal, as opposed to runtime type of table. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to rename AST checking macros to be:table-literal?
,sequence-literal?
, etc.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: