Remove Arbitrary?

未關閉
#65 17 則留言 0 個 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 檢視

還沒有人認領這個 Issue。

評估

難度
5/5
預估耗時
一週以上
新手友好度
12/100
Issue 類型
功能
描述清晰度
需要釐清
活躍度
停滯
領域
testing

研究方向

Read the discussion in issue #63 and this issue's comments to understand the arguments around removing Arbitrary, deriving generators with generic-rep, and CoArbitrary. No implementation files or tests are named; first establish whether the discussion has reached a decision. Done means a settled design for how generator derivation and CoArbitrary should work.

由索引模型根據 Issue 內容生成。

描述

purs-0.15 type: breaking change

I'm adding this to track the discussion going on in #63.

The argument for removing Arbitrary is that instances are almost never canonical, so we almost always end up needing newtypes.

A possible downside is that we'd still need a class like Arbitrary if we want to derive generators using generic-rep. That means that we'd need some way to reflect a Gen as an instance, or we're back to Arbitrary instances anyway. CoArbitrary is also much nicer with type classes.

主要語言
PureScript
星號
108
分支
42
平均合併
2 天 23 小時
30 天內合併 PR
1

環境準備

  • 沒有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 檔案
  • 有 Pull Request 範本
  • 沒有貢獻指南

從這裡開始

  1. 先讀完整個 Issue,再讀專案的貢獻指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言說明你要接手 —— 這能避免兩個人做同樣的事。
  3. Fork 儲存庫,在一個分支上完成修改。
  4. 送出 Pull Request,並在描述裡引用這個 Issue 編號。

purescript/purescript-quickcheck 的其他 Issue

查看 purescript/purescript-quickcheck 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Testing & QA Issue

把新 issue 寄到你的電子郵件信箱

精選適合新手參與的 GitHub issue 摘要。