make default values typed in proc AST same as param sym AST #24184
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
|
Thanks for your hard work on this PR! Hint: mm: orc; opt: speed; options: -d:release |
Araq
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 27, 2024
…24191) Reverts #24184, reopens #12942, reopens #19118 #24184 seems to have caused a regression in https://github.com/c-blake/thes and https://github.com/c-blake/bu/blob/main/rp.nim#L84 reproducible with `git clone https://github.com/c-blake/cligen; git clone https://github.com/c-blake/thes; cd thes; nim c -p=../cligen thes`. Changing the `const` to `let` makes it compile. A minimization that is probably the same issue is: ```nim const a: seq[string] = @[] proc foo(x = a) = echo typeof(x) echo x import macros macro resemFoo() = result = getImpl(bindSym"foo") block: resemFoo() # Error: cannot infer the type of parameter 'x' ``` This should be a regression test in a future reimplementation of #24184.
metagn
added a commit
to metagn/Nim
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 28, 2024
refs nim-lang#24184, refs (fixes) nim-lang#23010, nim-lang#22793
This was referenced Sep 28, 2024
Araq
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2024
fixes #23010, split from #24195 When resemming bracket nodes, the compiler currently unconditionally makes a new node with an array type based on the node. However the VM can generate bracket nodes with `seq` types, which this erases. To fix this, if a bracket node already has a type, we still resem the bracket node, but don't construct a new type for it, instead using the type of the original node. A version of this was rejected that didn't resem the node at all if it was typed, but I can't find it. The difference with this one is that the individual elements are still resemmed. This should fix the break caused by #24184 so we could redo it after this PR but it might still have issues, not to mention the related pre-existing issues like #22793, #12559 etc.
narimiran
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2025
fixes #23010, split from #24195 When resemming bracket nodes, the compiler currently unconditionally makes a new node with an array type based on the node. However the VM can generate bracket nodes with `seq` types, which this erases. To fix this, if a bracket node already has a type, we still resem the bracket node, but don't construct a new type for it, instead using the type of the original node. A version of this was rejected that didn't resem the node at all if it was typed, but I can't find it. The difference with this one is that the individual elements are still resemmed. This should fix the break caused by #24184 so we could redo it after this PR but it might still have issues, not to mention the related pre-existing issues like #22793, #12559 etc. (cherry picked from commit d98ef31)
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.
fixes #12942, fixes #19118
This is the exact same as #20735 but maybe the situation has improved after #24065.