Replace Names with Strings in Macro API #4425
Conversation
Semantic names are not used enough to be really useful for the macro API level. And they are an additionl concept to learn. So it's probablu better to just use strings. We had to duplicate one enum case for Types, to distinguish between TermNameRefs and TypeNameRefs.
|
Does that mean users need to use |
|
But |
|
To the object's class, yes. Or we expose a constructor for the name. |
Yes, but we expose very few mangled names anyway. Basically: module class name |
|
What about name encoding? If I want |
|
Operators are unencoded. It's Maybe we should hide module class names as well or use a different encoding. E.g. |
We either create and explain such a datatype, or we make mangling details part of the public API. So I don't think this patch actually reduces the cognitive overhead of the API — names seem the simplest part of this API. |
Semantic names are not used enough to be really useful for the macro API. And
they are an additional concept to learn. So it's probably better to just use strings.
We had to duplicate one enum case for Types, to distinguish between TermNameRefs and
TypeNameRefs.