Use type builder to generate DSL RBI files

[paracycle]

Motivation

Implementation

Tests

[Morriar]

What do you think of first doing a refactor to allow compilers to use 2 type builders, one for RBI, one for RBS.

class MyCompiler < Compiler
  def decorate
    # we go from this:
    root.create_path(constant) do |model|
    end

    # to this:
    rbi_builder.create_path(constant) do |model|
    end

   # or this:
    rbs_builder.create_path(constant) do |model|
    end
end

And keep root as a proxy to the rbi_builder so the API is unchanged?

That way we can migrate compilers one by one and not worry about external ones.

[paracycle]

What do you think of first doing a refactor to allow compilers to use 2 type builders, one for RBI, one for RBS.

I don't understand why we need 2 type builders, though. I thought the whole point of the type builder abstraction was to be able to generate RBI syntax or RBS syntax from the same types, and I also got some of that working as well.

[Morriar]

I don't understand why we need 2 type builders, though. I thought the whole point of the type builder abstraction was to be able to generate RBI syntax or RBS syntax from the same types, and I also got some of that working as well.

Sorry I got confused in the naming, the idea would be to have the current builder that use String for types and the new builder that type RBI::Type. So we can make the migration gradually.