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
I'm a new user and am somewhat vexed by the need to use explicit strings everywhere. seems like a likely case for bugs to hide in typos and the like. I would much rather have constants or str enums to use for all the reserved words of schemas.
I looked at the main repo and the docs for examples and I'm still seeing string literals. is that really the case that the code uses literals all the way down?
if so, is there a reason not to adopt static definitions for reserved words? if not, can anyone point me in the right direction?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I'm a new user and am somewhat vexed by the need to use explicit strings everywhere. seems like a likely case for bugs to hide in typos and the like. I would much rather have constants or str enums to use for all the reserved words of schemas.
I looked at the main repo and the docs for examples and I'm still seeing string literals. is that really the case that the code uses literals all the way down?
if so, is there a reason not to adopt static definitions for reserved words? if not, can anyone point me in the right direction?
many thanks!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions