Skip to content

Fix docs - Records type description to Mapster v10#856

Open
DocSvartz wants to merge 1 commit intoMapsterMapper:developmentfrom
DocSvartz:R10---FixDocs-records
Open

Fix docs - Records type description to Mapster v10#856
DocSvartz wants to merge 1 commit intoMapsterMapper:developmentfrom
DocSvartz:R10---FixDocs-records

Conversation

@DocSvartz
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@DocSvartz DocSvartz changed the title fix(docs): fix Records type description to Mapster v10 Fix Records type description to Mapster v10 Mar 6, 2026
@DocSvartz DocSvartz changed the title Fix Records type description to Mapster v10 Fix docs - Records type description to Mapster v10 Mar 6, 2026
@DocSvartz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@andrerav @stagep In my opinion, this is a description of the most critical changes (which do not need to be activate manual).

If the description needs to be corrected, please let me know or confirm that it can be merge.

@stagep
Copy link

stagep commented Mar 7, 2026

I would change these 2 lines for clarity

100 > Mapster treats the Record type as an immutable type.

Added the

101 > Only a non-destructive mutation is returned using the with-expression.

More direct language, and using the correct terminology for using with { ... } syntax. I am also using returned instead of available as the mutated record is returned.

Agree?

@DocSvartz
Copy link
Contributor Author

What I wanted to convey is that the result will be similar to how with expression works.
Because you can't call a real with statement through Expression

Comment on lines +100 to +101
> Mapster treats Record type as an immutable type.
> In this regard, only a with-like non-destructive mutation is available.
Copy link
Contributor Author

@DocSvartz DocSvartz Mar 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mapster treats the Record type as an immutable type.
Only a non-destructive mutation returned new modify record instance.

@stagep Maybe like this?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if the result is a Record then the

"A non-destructive mutation" is correct English but the remaining part makes no sense as it is English words but used incorrectly. "A non-destructive mutation is returned" is also correct but "new modify record instance" is not. Do you mean a "newly modified record instance"? That is English but ambiguous.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants