microsoft / microsoft/ifc-spec
Create representation for implicit/explicit object parameters
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 94
- Forks
- 11
- Avg merge
- 1d 29m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 2
Description
Consider:
struct S {
void f(this S);
};
Today, the IFC has no way of representing the explicit object parameter member function S::f. We could fix this by creating a new type to wrap the parameter type of f but this is not generic enough. Rather we should consider a solution which could see MethodType removed in favor of a more generalized function type containing the explicit/implicit object parameter. This was also discussed in an IPR issue.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the issue and the linked IPR discussion, especially the proposed replacement for MethodType and representation of explicit versus implicit object parameters. No files, tests, or entry points are named in the payload. Done requires an agreed design that can represent the example and be reflected in the IFC specification.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100