In Type.Script, the with keyword replaced Options?

[sleewoo]

Suddenly Options refinements stopped working in Type.Script after updating to 1.3.x.
Is the with keyword the new official way to add JSON schema refinements inside Type.Script?

[sinclairzx81]

@sleewoo Hi!

Suddenly Options refinements stopped working in Type.Script after updating to 1.3.x. Is the with keyword the new official way to add JSON schema refinements inside Type.Script?

Yes, sorry about the change, I was a bit uneasy about making it. However the new with keyword syntax does replace Options and will be the final syntax moving forward.

// --------------------------------------------------------------------
// 1.0
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
const T = Type.Options(Type.String(), { format: 'email' })     // Type.*
const S = Type.Script(`Options<string, { format: 'email' }>`)  // Script

// --------------------------------------------------------------------
// 1.3
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
const T = Type.With(Type.String(), { format: 'email' })        // Type.*
const S = Type.Script(`string with { format: 'email' }`)       // Script

The change was made because Options was a common type name and it wasn't possible for users to write the following.

// The following wasn't possible in 1.0 because Options would 
// override the mechanism to ascribe options to schematics. This 
// was the main reason for the change (fixed in 1.3)
const { Options } = Type.Script(`
  type Options = {
    x: string
    y: string
  }  
`)

There was also some consideration given to a possible where keyword for assigning constraints and had been considering https://cuelang.org/docs/ field definitions.

// The 'with' syntax enable all constraints and annotations
const A = Type.Script(`number with { minimum: 10, maximum: 20 }`)

// The 'where` syntax would be for constraints only
const B = Type.Script(`number where x => x <= 10 && x >= 20`)

However it was decided that with served both annotation and constraint assignment so that was the eventual call.

---

Again, sorry about the change. If you need some help with updating, feel free to ping.
S

[sleewoo]

However it was decided that with served both annotation and constraint assignment

and that's great and consistent!
thanks