Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add draft of the specification of validation #101

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

pl-semiotics
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR adds a spec/document folder with a draft of the beginnings of a spec document, currently providing a formalisation of validation rules for the component model.

@lukewagner
Copy link
Member

Woohoo, excited to see this; great work! Just to lay out my plan, I'll be incrementally reviewing the PR in detail over the coming weeks, submitting comments piecemeal.

@pl-semiotics
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@lukewagner Updated with the current structure of resource types.

I also removed the checkin of docs/, since it doesn't seem to have worked to provide an easy rendered version & it causes a lot of noise in git. See the rendered version for now; if this is merged, I'll set up CI hooks + GH Pages to get a CI rendered version.

@pl-semiotics
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@lukewagner As discussed, this version has been de-Sphinx'd. It's mostly in line with the reference implementation now. The changes from the previous version are mostly minor (but important) fixes; the largest presentational change is also the exception to that (i.e. is not yet done in the reference implementation), but should not actually change almost anything: existential quantifiers have been moved from instancetype_e to componenttype_e and deftype_e, since they are (and must be) always hoisted to one of them anyway.

@lukewagner
Copy link
Member

Sorry for the slow reply here, but excited to see this update! Could you perhaps also include a rendered .pdf in the document/ directory? Maybe we remove it before things are final, but at least in the interim, it would be convenient.

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.

None yet

2 participants