Add empty optional fields-aware record operator variants #1876
Conversation
This file contains 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
The design guideline around empty optional fields has been to make most normal record operation ignore them, to avoid issues like trying to list the field of a record and access them just to fail on an empty optional introduced by a contract, which we shouldn't care about. However, in some cases (typically operating on record contracts), users might want to actually take empty optional fields into account. Most primops were already existing in two variants internally (ignore empty opts and consider all fields). This commit just makes them available as clearly documented stdlib functions.
yannham
changed the title
jneem
approved these changes
Mar 29, 2024
|
During the renaming |
The previous commit introducing variants of record operators that don't ignore empty optional fields missed `has_field`, whose variant is added by this commit. As decided by the team in the weekly meeting, the `_all` suffix introduced in the previous commit has been changed to `_with_opts`, which is a bit longer but less confusing and more explicit.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The design guideline around empty optional fields has been to make most normal record operation ignore them, to avoid issues like trying to list the field of a record and access them just to fail on an empty optional introduced by a contract, which we shouldn't care about.
However, in some cases (typically operating on record contracts), users might want to actually take empty optional fields into account. Most primops were already existing in two variants internally (ignore empty opts and consider all fields). This PR just makes them available as clearly documented stdlib functions, and update the documentation of the existing record functions to make their behavior with respect to empty optionals more explicit.
Naming
I use the
_allprefix for now, but I don't find it optimal.insert_allandremove_alllooks like they're taking several fields to insert and remove. I'm open to suggestions. An alternative could beextdfor extended. It's not very telling, but at least doesn't set up false expectations.