[Version 11.0] Feature support for required members#1597
Draft
RexJaeschke wants to merge 13 commits intodraft-v11from
Draft
[Version 11.0] Feature support for required members#1597RexJaeschke wants to merge 13 commits intodraft-v11from
RexJaeschke wants to merge 13 commits intodraft-v11from
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is Rex's adaptation of the corresponding MS proposal.
Open Issue: Combining
requiredwithreforref readonlyThe MS spec states that,
I have confirmed that while this is true for properties, it is not true for fields. The following compiles:
Is the MS spec wrong/out-of-date, or am I missing something?
Bill Wagner stated: I don’t see any notes in LDM meetings. But, I think the spec was a bit vague, and was originally meant to focus on properties. I’m hoping Fred can shed more light on it.
Fred Silberberg stated: Required members supports both fields and properties, but I'm not sure whether we specifically considered the intersection given the late-breaking nature of the way ref fields were developed. Likely we should block this.