Allow type declarations at package scope - #699
Open
yordis wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Sharing a type vocabulary between interfaces requires inventing an interface to hold it, and that container reaches the artifact as an import nothing calls. Refs WebAssembly#694 Signed-off-by: Yordis Prieto <yordis.prieto@gmail.com>
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 PR allows
type,record,variant,enumandflagsdeclarations at package scope in WIT, as proposed in #694. Today, sharing a type vocabulary across interfaces requires inventing an interface to hold it, and that container reaches the artifact as an instance import that nothing calls.resourceis deliberately excluded. Resources carry identity rather than structure, so an interface is what gives a resource its identity, and package scope has nothing to offer there. That is why the grammar names apackage-typedef-itemrather than reusingtypedef-item, which already includesresource-item.