mirror of
https://github.com/luau-lang/luau.git
synced 2025-05-04 10:33:46 +01:00
Fixing typos
This commit is contained in:
parent
436ebff11c
commit
7c4508e6e5
1 changed files with 3 additions and 4 deletions
|
@ -23,7 +23,6 @@ In order to avoid breaking changes, we need to know what they are!
|
||||||
In this RFC, we follow the [Rust API Evolution](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1105-api-evolution.html)
|
In this RFC, we follow the [Rust API Evolution](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1105-api-evolution.html)
|
||||||
guidelines, which build on the [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/) specification.
|
guidelines, which build on the [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/) specification.
|
||||||
This RFC is just about *API changes* not *behavioral changes* (which are important but out of scope).
|
This RFC is just about *API changes* not *behavioral changes* (which are important but out of scope).
|
||||||
Changes are tracked in versions, and are either:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
From the Rust API evolution guidelines, changes are classified as:
|
From the Rust API evolution guidelines, changes are classified as:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@ -188,7 +187,7 @@ module, we know there are no additional properties, but not externally:
|
||||||
function exports.new() : Point return { x=0, y=0 } end
|
function exports.new() : Point return { x=0, y=0 } end
|
||||||
```
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
User code cannot construct `Points` directly, and rely on exported
|
User code cannot construct `Point`s directly, and relies on exported
|
||||||
factory methods. They do have access to the properties though:
|
factory methods. They do have access to the properties though:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
```lua
|
```lua
|
||||||
|
@ -203,7 +202,7 @@ The subtyping rules for an opaque type:
|
||||||
export type t<as> = { ps : Ts, ... }
|
export type t<as> = { ps : Ts, ... }
|
||||||
```
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
are(using `{| ps : Ts |}` for unsealed tables and `{ ps : Ts }` for sealed tables):
|
are (using `{| ps : Ts |}` for unsealed tables and `{ ps : Ts }` for sealed tables):
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
* within the defining module, `{| ps : Ts[Us/as] |}` is a subtype of `t<Us>`, and
|
* within the defining module, `{| ps : Ts[Us/as] |}` is a subtype of `t<Us>`, and
|
||||||
* anywhere, `t<Us>` is a subtype of `{ ps : Ts[Us/as] }`.
|
* anywhere, `t<Us>` is a subtype of `{ ps : Ts[Us/as] }`.
|
||||||
|
@ -336,7 +335,7 @@ There are the usual bike-shedding options for syntax, in particular
|
||||||
we could use attributes rather than new syntax for `...` and `...?`.
|
we could use attributes rather than new syntax for `...` and `...?`.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We could allow other privacy modifiers, for example declaring some
|
We could allow other privacy modifiers, for example declaring some
|
||||||
properties private, or allowing pasckage-level privacy scope as well
|
properties private, or allowing package-level privacy scope as well
|
||||||
as module-level.
|
as module-level.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We could add extra subtyping rules for opaque types, for example
|
We could add extra subtyping rules for opaque types, for example
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue