Channels
#arrow-contributors
- p
pakoito
05/31/2018, 10:06 AM??? - s
simon.vergauwen
05/31/2018, 11:54 AM@Aedan Smith you can see examples of how we work around it for generic and optics. - s
simon.vergauwen
05/31/2018, 11:55 AMWe define our domain in the docs scr code and add a snippet with the same domain that Ank doesn't compile. - s
simon.vergauwen
05/31/2018, 11:55 AMSo you snippers run with the code from docs src were the processor ran against - a
Aedan Smith
05/31/2018, 4:40 PMThanks, I'll do that - r
raulraja
06/02/2018, 6:21 PM@Aedan Smith we just realized as I was about to try it that the recursion schemes lib was not published on 0.7.2 because https://github.com/arrow-kt/arrow/blob/master/modules/recursion-schemes/arrow-recursion/build.gradle#L13 - r
raulraja
06/02/2018, 6:22 PMSince it seems you are working in some docs we thought it would be good to wait for those and release 0.7.3 including some docs and examples for the recursion schemes libs - r
raulraja
06/02/2018, 6:22 PMLet me know if that works or we should republish without docs for the time being - a
Aedan Smith
06/02/2018, 6:26 PMMakes sense, I'll have the docs done soon (probably by this friday)👏 2 - r
raulraja
06/02/2018, 6:26 PMawesome thanks! - a
Aedan Smith
06/02/2018, 6:26 PMThough I'm not sure that it actually needs a release because it's all a separate module - r
raulraja
06/02/2018, 6:28 PMThe central repo is sealed for 0.7.2 - r
raulraja
06/02/2018, 6:29 PMAnd also if you change the docs we also release versions for those and there is already a 0.7.2 signed and published - a
Aedan Smith
06/02/2018, 6:29 PMMakes sense - p
pakoito
06/02/2018, 11:47 PMIf anyone’d like to take a look at the draft of my Budapest talk of next week, please ping me privatelyarrow 1 - s
simon.vergauwen
06/06/2018, 9:49 PMThis is ready for review 🙂 https://github.com/arrow-kt/arrow/pull/852 - s
simon.vergauwen
06/06/2018, 9:50 PMI added a comment to try and improve the generated code structure / naming. - p
pakoito
06/06/2018, 10:55 PMtalking out of my ass - p
pakoito
06/06/2018, 10:55 PMshould we test it in Java 9? - p
pakoito
06/06/2018, 10:55 PMwill it be compatible with the module clusterfuck? - s
simon.vergauwen
06/07/2018, 9:29 AM - p
pakoito
06/07/2018, 9:59 AMno yeah, I mean the module system apparently forbids two different artifacts from putting code under the same package - p
pakoito
06/07/2018, 10:00 AMso the codegen cannot put stuff under
for external code, else you end up in collision aparentlyarrow.* - s
simon.vergauwen
06/07/2018, 10:01 AMOh okay - s
simon.vergauwen
06/07/2018, 10:01 AMThis change should fix it if it's currently broken - s
simon.vergauwen
06/07/2018, 10:01 AMSince with the proposed structures codegen will put it under the same package as user's package. - s
simon.vergauwen
06/07/2018, 10:02 AMSo if the user's package is valid for Java 9 modules then the codegen is also valid, right? - p
pakoito
06/07/2018, 10:03 AMit…should? probably? - s
simon.vergauwen
06/07/2018, 10:03 AMHaha :D - s
simon.vergauwen
06/07/2018, 10:03 AMI have not played with Java 9 modules so maybe let's look for more knowledge on the subject