Abstract filter argument #1874
Draft
Abstract filter argument #1874
+342
−0
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
@magicmark: please fully replace this description with your own.
Read the
READMEas the first thing, the spec is just super rough key algorithms and rules.This PR is a quick (hah!) write up of my thoughts following a chat with @magicmark this morning. I've opened it as a draft with the intent of @magicmark editing it as he sees fit (or replacing it!) and the completing a first draft. It is far from complete, with major gaps, but I hope it helps to capture some of the points discussed and the reasoning behind some of the decisions we're leaning towards.
Please note that the draft spec is NOT fully in spec-like language; such work (especially around talking about connections, and the specifics of returning
[AbstractType]vs[AbstractType!]!) would take a lot longer so I've mostly skipped over it.@magicmark You may merge this as-is and the follow up with your own edits, or edit it directly in this PR, I don't mind. We're pretty flexible on what gets merged into the RFCs folder. Also the names of things are all placeholders, feel free to replace! Ideally keep the
githistory intact though :)