Skip to content

[POC] Use Unroll plugin for binary compatibility#113

Draft
lihaoyi wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
unroll
Draft

[POC] Use Unroll plugin for binary compatibility#113
lihaoyi wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
unroll

Conversation

@lihaoyi
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@lihaoyi lihaoyi commented Feb 10, 2024

No description provided.

Comment thread build.sc
val scala212 = "2.12.17"
val scala213 = "2.13.10"
val scala3 = "3.1.3"
val scala3 = "3.3.1"
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this intentional? We drop support for older Scala 3 version, which might be Ok, but should be done in a new 0.x bump.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a compiler plugin, so will need separate implementations for each Scala version I think.

It's possible to support 3.1.3, but the initial proof of concept is only against 3.3.1. Will have to decide whether or not to drop 3.1.3 before merging this, but I'd be in favor just to support the 3.3.x LTS versions

Comment thread build.sc Outdated
)

def ivyDeps = Agg(
ivy"com.lihaoyi::unroll-annotation:0.1.9",
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is unroll-annotation needed transitively, or only at compile time?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Only at compile time. I can have the plugin remove the annotation if necessary, haven't thought deeply about whether that's the right thing to do

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should move it into compileIvyDeps then.

Since we are more or less generating stuff that is not part of the actual API but rather some inconvenient necessity, not forcing a transitive dependency on this implementation detail for all downstream users seem to be the right thing.

@lihaoyi lihaoyi marked this pull request as draft February 10, 2024 17:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants