remove internal from member UsesTransparentCompiler

[dawedawe]

Description

This makes the UsesTransparentCompiler member from FSharpChecker available to all interested parties (Rider, FSAC, etc.).

(No release notes needed)

Checklist

• Test cases added

• Performance benchmarks added in case of performance changes

• Release notes entry updated:

  Please make sure to add an entry with short succinct description of the change as well as link to this pull request to the respective release notes file, if applicable.

  Release notes files:

  • If anything under src/Compiler has been changed, please make sure to make an entry in docs/release-notes/.FSharp.Compiler.Service/<version>.md, where <version> is usually "highest" one, e.g. 42.8.200
  • If language feature was added (i.e. LanguageFeatures.fsi was changed), please add it to docs/releae-notes/.Language/preview.md
  • If a change to FSharp.Core was made, please make sure to edit docs/release-notes/.FSharp.Core/<version>.md where version is "highest" one, e.g. 8.0.200.

  Information about the release notes entries format can be found in the documentation.
  Example:

  • More inlines for Result module. (PR #16106)
  • Correctly handle assembly imports with public key token of 0 length. (Issue #16359, PR #16363)
    *while! (Language suggestion #1038, PR #14238)

  If you believe that release notes are not necessary for this PR, please add NO_RELEASE_NOTES label to the pull request.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Release notes required, but author opted out

Warning

Author opted out of release notes, check is disabled for this pull request.
cc @dotnet/fsharp-team-msft

[vzarytovskii]

Why does this need to be in the public surface? It seems like it's an implementation detail. If we need to log it, we should just do it inside, otherwise caller always knows whether transparent compiler is used, because it needs to set it.

[dawedawe]

Mmh, isn't simple ergonomic stuff like this only possible because of the privilige granted here?

[vzarytovskii]

Mmh, isn't simple ergonomic stuff like this only possible because of the privilige granted here?

This as well feels like exposing too much implementation details. We should hide it. But again, caller of the checker should know whatever transparent compiler is used or not.

[vzarytovskii]

On the second though, I think it's fine as long as we keep it experimental

[dawedawe]

On the second though, I think it's fine as long as we keep it experimental

Thanks for giving this a second thought.