Support non-base type fields in structs #634
Merged
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
cburgdorf
force-pushed
the
christoph/feat/complex_structs
branch
from
2086da9
to
906b0d3
Compare
cburgdorf
force-pushed
the
christoph/feat/complex_structs
branch
from
906b0d3
to
7c710f7
Compare
cburgdorf
changed the title
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #634 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 86.66% 86.77% +0.10%
==========================================
Files 96 96
Lines 8536 8581 +45
==========================================
+ Hits 7398 7446 +48
+ Misses 1138 1135 -3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What was wrong?
As described in #343 structs can currently only use fields with base types. That limitation should be lifted.
How was it fixed?
Structs can now use any fixed size type (except contract types for now) as field types. However, support is currently limited in two major ways:
That functionality is expected to arrive with follow up PRs.
I should also say that the implementation based on
get_x_ptr/get_x_ptr_rawfeels a bit dirty (especially the part where we derive the_rawAPI from the nonrawone). But this seems like something that would naturally evolve in another direction if we add explicit reference semantics so it may be ok for now.