Skip to content

Say more about the expected impact of defining record comparisons in modules#28780

Open
bradcray wants to merge 1 commit into
chapel-lang:mainfrom
bradcray:record-edition-details
Open

Say more about the expected impact of defining record comparisons in modules#28780
bradcray wants to merge 1 commit into
chapel-lang:mainfrom
bradcray:record-edition-details

Conversation

@bradcray

@bradcray bradcray commented May 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No description provided.

…modules

---
Signed-off-by: Brad Chamberlain <bradcray@users.noreply.github.com>
@bradcray

bradcray commented May 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@jabraham17 : Is this the sort of description you were hoping for?

@jabraham17 jabraham17 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel like now its too much and like we are hedging because we are not sure about the change

Instead of hedging, I propose just clearly stating any expected changes

This changes records that only have tertiary definitions of such operators (which is to
  say, ones that are defined in a different module than the record
  itself).  In such cases, these default, module-defined comparison
  operators will be available for the record type in scopes where the
  tertiary operators are not available. 

Comment on lines +172 to +175
operators for a given record type. For most programs, this should
not result in any behavior change, and we encourage you to reach out
and let us know if you find otherwise.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

putting my user hat on, if we expect no behavior changes why is this in the preview edition?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants