* Do not allow regular type assignment to a type pack as a default parameter
* With type pack support in type aliases, this second form with an empty list is now supported
* Update rfcs/syntax-default-type-alias-type-parameters.md
Co-authored-by: Alan Jeffrey <403333+asajeffrey@users.noreply.github.com>
* Update syntax-default-type-alias-type-parameters.md
Even more examples
Co-authored-by: Alan Jeffrey <403333+asajeffrey@users.noreply.github.com>
When running `luau-analyze` with a .luarc that has a "mode" key, it outputs the following:
> .luaurc: Unknown key mode
I'm assuming it was named "mode" at first and was re-named "languageMode" later on?
* RFC: Default type alias type parameters
* Update the motivating example to match actual motivating example
* Resolved review comments
* improved motivation for the feature and noted additional languages with this feature
* fixed terminology between 'argument' and 'parameter'
* brought back support for default type pack parameter values
* removed alternative syntax and described the decision between ':' and '=' in the design section
* fixed drawback text and provided an example
* Remove return type pack annotation from allowed type pack default values,type annotation syntax doesn't allow that to be stand-alone
* Generic type pack has to be referenced by generic type pack name (with ...)
We don't have mid-block return support yet and it's not clear if we will due to similar grammatical issues with this wrt function calls, but noting this for completeness (thanks @alexmccord for bringing this up)
It seems more consistent and unambiguous if we mark RFCs as being
implemented when the implementation lands instead of expecting to
cross-reference documentation. That also makes it easier for us to flag
stale RFCs.
(this analysis should have been done before the RFC but the thought never crossed my mind)
There's 63K assertions in all luarocks repositories combined. Out of this, around ~600 assertions would be broken as a result of this change. This is ~1% which is pretty uncomfortable (I was hoping for a couple of odd unit tests) - as such this RFC is going to get closed. We will maintain the current behavior of assert and try to adapt type checker to be reasonably useful instead.
The common thread between all of these cases (many of them target custom APIs although some target core APIs like string.match) is that assert is used together with a function that either returns nil (for errors), or multiple arguments. Under these conditions multi-arg assert is useful.
A couple examples:
```
out_r, out_w = assert(unix.pipe())
local header, body = assert(data:match "(.-\r\n)\r\n(.*)")
local z85_secret_key, z85_public_key = assert(zmq.curve_keypair())
local _, r = assert(coroutine.resume(co, msg))
```
This finishes the set of fully baked/accepted RFCs; 3 more proposals have been accepted but not implemented yet and will be submitted separately as actual RFCs.
