Repository navigation
Keyword descriptions of let-bang and friends should be consistent and not specifically refer to asyncs #5343
Description
As discussed in #4427 (review)
Some computation-expression keyword descriptions are inconsistent with each other in how they are described, and this should be fixed. For example:
let!says it's "Used in asynchronous workflows ..."use!says it's "Used ... in asynchronous workflows and computation expressions ..."return!says it's "Used to indicate a computation expression ..."yield!says it's "Used in a computation expression ..."- and finally,
match!says it's "Used in computation expressions ..."
All of these descriptions should be unified to either all say "Used in computation expressions", or "Used in a computation expression" (doesn't really matter which; just as long as they're consistent).
Reacted by Abel Braaksma
Activity
cartermp commentedon Jul 16, 2018
100% agree, it should be unified on CEs.
jwosty commentedon Jul 16, 2018
I can certainly take this one within the next couple of days
chillitom commentedon Jul 18, 2018
It would be really cool if there was a way to document computation expression builder methods so that intellisense and compiler warnings would adapt for the context of the builder.
For example
let!in anasyncbuilder might say "binds the result of an async computation" whilstlet!in amaybebuilder might say "binds the value of the option when Some otherwise causes the maybe computation expression to result in None". (Preferably with better wording).Perhaps it could just pick up any doc comments from the associated builder methods if they exist.
jwosty commentedon Jul 18, 2018
@chillitom now that's a thought that's worth exploring. I wonder if that's possible -- it would depend on what phase of the compiler in which the keyword descriptions are read. The helper function that does that is keywordsWithDescription, and it's used by a few other things, so maybe it should be able to get this information dynamically from user code.
Assuming this is possible, should it just take the comment from the associated builder method if it exists and use that as the description?
cartermp commentedon Sep 20, 2018
This is now completed.