It looks like all three functions actually have been deprecated in Lua
5.1, and removed in Lua 5.2.
We do not plan to remove them to retain backwards compatibility, but the
RFC should be more precise.
We've had this restriction in the original RFC, but decided to remove it afterwards. This change puts the restriction back - we need to work through some implications of future support for string-based DSLs together with interpolated strings which may or may not change the behavior here, for example to allow something like
```
local fragment = xml `
<img src="{self.url}" />
`
```
This was implicitly assumed to be supported, but we should really just say so explicitly. If we didn't, there'd be two ways to interpret it: string interpolations are raw strings and escape sequences don't exist for the most part (false), or string interpolations are like strings and escape sequences do exist (true).
Also talks about the ambiguity with `\u{` and that it is defined to take priority and does not terminate the interpolation chunk and starts a new expression, instead it must be a well-formed escape sequence `\u{...}`. It is very unlikely there'd be another escape sequence that also has this same ambiguity problem, so we don't need to worry about this.
We make four adjustments in this RFC:
1. `{{` is not allowed. This is likely a valid but poor attempt at escaping coming from C#, Rust, or Python.
2. We now allow `` `this` `` with zero interpolating expressions.
3. We now allow `` f `this` `` also.
4. Explicitly say that `` `this` `` and `` `this {that}` `` are not valid type annotation syntax.
When considering new standard library functions, we essentially need to strongly justify their existence over their implementation in Luau in user library code.
This PR attempts to provide a few axes of consideration; ideally new library functions tick many of the boxes, eg "used often + is more performant + clear unambiguous interface" is an ideal consideration for a library function, whereas if it's merely accelerating a single specific use case for a single application it's unlikely to be a good justification for inclusion.
This meta-RFC proposes removing the previously accepted RFC on safe navigation operator. This is probably going to be disappointing but is the best course of action that reflects our ideals in language evolution.
See PR thread for rationale and discussion.
This is a meta-RFC. I'd like to propose to remove the postfix `!` operator from the language.
I'd like to argue that this operator will eventually become useless and can only be used incorrectly at some point in the future, and that there are likely ways for them to be sound without having to reach for the `!` hammer.
With that, I present these counterarguments:
Shortcoming <span>#</span>1: Refinements does not apply to the block after `return`/`break`/`continue`.
```lua
if not x or not y then return end
-- both x and y are truthy
```
This will be solved by implementing control flow analysis where it'd apply the inverse of the condition leading up to the control transfer statement to the rest of the scope.
Shortcoming <span>#</span>2: Type checker is not aware of the actual state of various locations.
```lua
type Foo = { x: { y: number }? }?
local foo: Foo = { x = { y = 5 } }
print(foo.x.y) -- prints 5 at runtime, type checker warns on this
```
This will be solved by implementing type states where it would inspect the initialization sites as well as assignments to know their actual states. That is, rather than trusting the type annotation `Foo` as the state which gets us far enough, we'd start seeing these type annotations as a subtype constraint for the location `foo`.
---
If there are other use cases not covered in this message, we should talk about that and see if there exists an alternative direction that can solve these use cases soundly.
* Do not allow regular type assignment to a type pack as a default parameter
* With type pack support in type aliases, this second form with an empty list is now supported
* Update rfcs/syntax-default-type-alias-type-parameters.md
Co-authored-by: Alan Jeffrey <403333+asajeffrey@users.noreply.github.com>
* Update syntax-default-type-alias-type-parameters.md
Even more examples
Co-authored-by: Alan Jeffrey <403333+asajeffrey@users.noreply.github.com>
When running `luau-analyze` with a .luarc that has a "mode" key, it outputs the following:
> .luaurc: Unknown key mode
I'm assuming it was named "mode" at first and was re-named "languageMode" later on?
* RFC: Default type alias type parameters
* Update the motivating example to match actual motivating example
* Resolved review comments
* improved motivation for the feature and noted additional languages with this feature
* fixed terminology between 'argument' and 'parameter'
* brought back support for default type pack parameter values
* removed alternative syntax and described the decision between ':' and '=' in the design section
* fixed drawback text and provided an example
* Remove return type pack annotation from allowed type pack default values,type annotation syntax doesn't allow that to be stand-alone
* Generic type pack has to be referenced by generic type pack name (with ...)
We don't have mid-block return support yet and it's not clear if we will due to similar grammatical issues with this wrt function calls, but noting this for completeness (thanks @alexmccord for bringing this up)
It seems more consistent and unambiguous if we mark RFCs as being
implemented when the implementation lands instead of expecting to
cross-reference documentation. That also makes it easier for us to flag
stale RFCs.
(this analysis should have been done before the RFC but the thought never crossed my mind)
There's 63K assertions in all luarocks repositories combined. Out of this, around ~600 assertions would be broken as a result of this change. This is ~1% which is pretty uncomfortable (I was hoping for a couple of odd unit tests) - as such this RFC is going to get closed. We will maintain the current behavior of assert and try to adapt type checker to be reasonably useful instead.
The common thread between all of these cases (many of them target custom APIs although some target core APIs like string.match) is that assert is used together with a function that either returns nil (for errors), or multiple arguments. Under these conditions multi-arg assert is useful.
A couple examples:
```
out_r, out_w = assert(unix.pipe())
local header, body = assert(data:match "(.-\r\n)\r\n(.*)")
local z85_secret_key, z85_public_key = assert(zmq.curve_keypair())
local _, r = assert(coroutine.resume(co, msg))
```
This finishes the set of fully baked/accepted RFCs; 3 more proposals have been accepted but not implemented yet and will be submitted separately as actual RFCs.
Petri Häkkinen