Add oneof<...> type declarations - #71
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Currently, the parser cannot support explicit type declarations for variables of the form oneof<x, y, z>. This commit adds support for that to the typechecker and the resolver. Signed-off-by: innocentzero <1nn0c3n7z3r0@proton.me>
Signed-off-by: innocentzero <1nn0c3n7z3r0@proton.me>
Contributor
|
Seems good, |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Currently, the parser cannot support explicit type declarations for variables of the form oneof<x, y, z>. This commit adds support for that to the typechecker and the resolver.
More importantly, we need to discuss semantics of oneof properly. Atm, the explicit declarations resolve
oneof<a>toato save unnecessary overhead. We can make this an error as well (why would anyone realistically writelet x: oneof<int>style declarations?). Apart from this,oneofalways expects type arguments and errors otherwise (a cursed implementation would be to havelet x: oneof<>typecheck tolet x: anyinstead, but again, do we want it?).