You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 16, 2024. It is now read-only.
Rather than requiring users type abstract methods for useful value utilities like .toBuilder() or .streamX(), generate an interface they can implement, with defaults so any other subclass is not negatively affected when we add new methods.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This one seems weightier than I'd anticipated, on reflection: the user type won't appear fully valid until after we've dropped out the code, and we can't reliably tell whether the missing type is the one we're meant to create, or one we're meant to parse for getters, meaning we need to start doing two-stage generation. See also #11.
Rather than requiring users type abstract methods for useful value utilities like
.toBuilder()
or.streamX()
, generate an interface they can implement, with defaults so any other subclass is not negatively affected when we add new methods.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: