Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

sumtype: work around issue 21975 in isSumType #8394

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 27, 2022

Conversation

pbackus
Copy link
Contributor

@pbackus pbackus commented Feb 27, 2022

isSumType!T now evaluates to true instead of false when T is a templated
struct type that implicitly converts to a SumType via alias this.

@dlang-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @pbackus! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

  • My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
  • My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
  • I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
  • New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.


If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Auto-close Bugzilla Severity Description
21975 normal is expression ignores implicit conversion of struct via alias this when pattern matching

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + phobos#8394"

isSumType!T now evaluates to true instead of false when T is a templated
struct type that implicitly converts to a SumType via alias this.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants