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
For some reason it just seems to me that this is some kind of separate, full-fledged functionality that should be introduced along with embeddable (Doctrine-like) types. The only difference is in the unpacking: One (embeddables) puts data it inside other type, and the other (unwraps) outside.
P.S. If there are any suggestions on how to elegantly solve the problem - welcome))) I can only theorize for now.
Activity
SerafimArts commentedon Dec 23, 2024
It seems like something similar could be done with custom types.
On the other hand, this is not very correct from a semantic point of view...
I'm not sure that this is a critically needed functionality. Often, such things are solved manually.
The only downside is that the mapper does not yet support array shapes, otherwise we could do:
For some reason it just seems to me that this is some kind of separate, full-fledged functionality that should be introduced along with embeddable (Doctrine-like) types. The only difference is in the unpacking: One (embeddables) puts data it inside other type, and the other (unwraps) outside.
P.S. If there are any suggestions on how to elegantly solve the problem - welcome))) I can only theorize for now.