Remove autoImpl and return more from autoSpec#1504
Merged
Conversation
mbostock
reviewed
Apr 28, 2023
mbostock
approved these changes
May 13, 2023
mbostock
left a comment
mbostock
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought of a way to avoid the verbosity of the switch statements, and to retain the symbolic references internally (and minimize the diff). This removes a little bit of error checking, but I don’t think we really needed that anyway since the names are only generated internally and we already have unit tests for it.
chaichontat
pushed a commit
to chaichontat/plot
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2024
* Remove autoImpl and return more from autoSpec * object to dry identifier/name conversion --------- Co-authored-by: Mike Bostock <mbostock@gmail.com>
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
To support compiling an autoSpec to the equivalent source using explicit marks. This expands the returned surface area of autoSpec a lot; so far we’ve been treating it as an undocumented and unstable function for mostly internal use, so maybe that’s OK.
The giant switch statements could be rewritten to something more like:
but I seem to remember you saying you’d prefer the explicitness of a switch.