Fix inference for same (but distinct) record types in seq CE #16040
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
abonie
force-pushed
the
fix-inf-seqce
branch
3 times, most recently
from
435507d to
1762044
Compare
abonie
force-pushed
the
fix-inf-seqce
branch
2 times, most recently
from
554cd5b to
2e257e1
Compare
abonie
changed the title
Seems like it could be done better, right now there are two type checking passes for same expression
abonie
commented
Oct 5, 2023
|
Weird that it failed CI after rebasing on main with errors related to deserialization Will try to rerun |
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s). |
edgarfgp
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2023
T-Gro
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2023
psfinaki
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 #14213
The issue was, that with implicit yield, we first don't know whether an expression will have type
unitor some particular expected type, so we type check it without any additional constraints, but that leads to ignoring type annotation and in case of #14213 we infer wrong type.My solution so far is check the same expression again if we concluded it is not
unit, this time with a subtype constraint.