Type operator lhs against expected type #11428
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
On balance, I'm fine with merging this because while I still think #2786 might have been a mistake, we're now at least consistent with regards to unification behavior. What I said about argument types vs. return types stands, but that's a fight for another day. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For #10981
I don't know if this is acceptable behavior, but I'm already not sure if #2786 was acceptable behavior (and we subsequently ran into problems in #4914).
It just seems quite random to type the operands against the expected return type. I'd kind of understand typing them against the argument types of the
@:opfunction, but that wouldn't work for theEnumFlagscase because there the lhs is the underlying type,Int.