Unsigned numbers in Okio #536
Conversation
|
|
||
| /** Marker interface for APIs related to unsigned numbers. */ | ||
| @Experimental | ||
| annotation class OkioUnsignedApi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to have our own experimental annotation or pass through the ExperimentalUnsignedTypes annotation?
On one hand it would be nice to have our own annotation so we don't have to become non-experimental when unsigned types do, but on the other I don't see this API changing much. I'm leaning towards removing OkioUnsignedApi, let me know if you want me to keep it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would pass it through the original because we're using their types in the public API. If we were using them as implementation detail only I would prefer our own annotation.
bnorm
force-pushed
the
bnorm.1109.unsigned
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5e0317e
to
62974a0
Compare
|
The annotation is the most interesting part of this. I think my preference is to publish this as a gist or sample until unsigned types are stable. |
|
I would be fine with either a sample or gist. I think I would lean to a sample as it will force us to update it if unsigned types ever change and might make it easier to find. |
|
Good call. Make is so! |
build.gradle
Outdated
| @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ buildscript { | |||
| 'assertj': '1.7.0', | |||
| 'shadowPlugin': '4.0.4', | |||
| 'nodePlugin': '1.2.0', | |||
| 'ktlintPlugin': '5.1.0', | |||
| 'ktlintPlugin': '7.1.0', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Old version didn't like unsigned literals in the samples project. Not sure why it was okay before.
Add sample for the experimental unsigned numbers introduced in Kotlin 1.3. New sample inline extension functions on BufferedSource and BufferedSink which allow reading and writing with unsigned numbers.
bnorm
force-pushed
the
bnorm.1109.unsigned
branch
from
bab9b76
to
c1adec0
Compare
|
Still waiting on unsigned types? |
|
😭 |
|
whats missing from this? it would really nice to have it! |
Fixes #513