Skip to content

Should use in for optional fields check #7313

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
DZakh opened this issue Feb 22, 2025 · 4 comments
Open

Should use in for optional fields check #7313

DZakh opened this issue Feb 22, 2025 · 4 comments

Comments

@DZakh
Copy link
Member

DZakh commented Feb 22, 2025

https://rescript-lang.org/try?version=v12.0.0-alpha.9&module=esmodule&code=C4TwDgpgBAhlC8UDeAzA9mg-ALigVwDsBLYAXwChyAbCYKdNBWBAPnKigGcB3EgYwAWzJOygAfZA1wB9UqygBGUROnyATKIpA
@DZakh
Copy link
Member Author

DZakh commented Mar 14, 2025

Here's the first part #7342

@cometkim cometkim mentioned this issue Mar 14, 2025
Merged
@cometkim
Copy link
Member

#7342 (comment)

@DZakh Can we close this issue? or do you want to open this for further record enhancement too?

@DZakh
Copy link
Member Author

DZakh commented Apr 10, 2025

No, the issue is not solved yet. It requires the record changes we talked about.

@cometkim
Copy link
Member

But that doesn't relate to in operator, right? Can you change the issue description or separate it?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@cometkim @DZakh