Skip to content

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

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
bradcray wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

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

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 11 additions & 1 deletion doc/rst/technotes/editions.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -169,4 +169,14 @@ remain in the preview until they are deemed sufficiently complete.
``<=``, ``>``, ``>=``) are defined as module code accepting two
generic arguments of type ``record`` rather than being inserted by
the compiler in cases where it believes the user did not define such
operators for a given record type.
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.

Comment on lines +172 to +175

@jabraham17 jabraham17 May 6, 2026

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?

The most significant anticipated behavioral change is for 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. We consider this to be an
improvement.
Loading