`let` bindings
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 126
- Forks
- 6
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Since we're now on fully Hindley-Milner based typing, we can actually create let-bindings.
This should be a rather easy fix.
The fun thing is, that it doesn't conflict with name-resolution-dependent type/submodule resolution. With a let binding, of course, we have to assume it'll always be a type, and not a submodule.
Actually, it's not possible to not name a submodule in the code. Because we're accessing fields and interfaces, but those names can't tell us which submodule it is.
Contributor guide
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
No files or tests are named. Start by tracing the existing Hindley–Milner typing and name-resolution paths, then determine where let bindings must be represented and checked without confusing them with submodules. Done means valid let bindings are accepted while field and interface resolution continues to distinguish types from submodules.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100