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

Add "Hint:" to a suggestion message related to coercion failures #1501

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 1, 2017

Conversation

@Armael
Copy link
Member

@Armael Armael commented Nov 30, 2017

The goal is to consistently mark suggestions in error messages with "Hint:", as already done with the spellcheck suggestion and the missing rec suggestion.

This change was suggested by @garrigue ; since it's only a one line change i'm not sure a Changes entry is needed..?

@gasche
Copy link
Member

@gasche gasche commented Nov 30, 2017

While we are at it, would you maybe give an example of what a double coercion is (in case people don't know) in the error message, "using a double coercion (foo : bar :> baz)."?

@Armael
Copy link
Member Author

@Armael Armael commented Nov 30, 2017

Good idea. I added a commit that does that.

"This simple coercion was not fully general."
"Consider using a double coercion."
"Hint: Consider using a double coercion"
"(of the form: `(foo : ty1 :> ty2)')."

This comment has been minimized.

@gasche

gasche Nov 30, 2017
Member

I think removing the parentheses around of the form: '...' would make the whole thing more readable.

This comment has been minimized.

@Armael

Armael Nov 30, 2017
Author Member

like now?

@gasche
Copy link
Member

@gasche gasche commented Nov 30, 2017

Good to merge as soon as we stop rebasing for long enough that the CI passes -- the old message may be present in test reference files, so it's not completely obvious that it does.

@Armael Armael force-pushed the Armael:hint-marker branch from 1e92b05 to b590b75 Nov 30, 2017
@lpw25
Copy link
Contributor

@lpw25 lpw25 commented Nov 30, 2017

I know it wasn't added by this PR, but could we use a better term than "double coercion"? It implies that something is being coerced twice, which isn't the case. Looking through the manual there doesn't seem to be an particular name used for this operator. How about "fully explicit coercion"?

@Armael
Copy link
Member Author

@Armael Armael commented Nov 30, 2017

I added an other commit that implements @lpw25 suggestion.

@Armael
Copy link
Member Author

@Armael Armael commented Nov 30, 2017

Is the CI stuck or something?

@gasche
Copy link
Member

@gasche gasche commented Nov 30, 2017

AppVeyor seems stuck, but I'm not too worried about this PR breaking Windows while Travis tests pass. I think this is good to merge. Do you think that you should squash the commits?

@Armael Armael force-pushed the Armael:hint-marker branch from 7c5ff79 to 935cb11 Nov 30, 2017
@Armael
Copy link
Member Author

@Armael Armael commented Nov 30, 2017

I just squashed the commits.

@dra27
Copy link
Contributor

@dra27 dra27 commented Nov 30, 2017

AppVeyor seems stuck, but I'm not too worried about this PR breaking Windows while Travis tests pass.

Here be dragons, and non-updated config/Makefile.m* madness. Although there still seems to be an occasional race condition in the AppVeyor parallel script which I should look into, which I think is more the problem here.

@gasche gasche merged commit 45816d8 into ocaml:trunk Dec 1, 2017
2 checks passed
2 checks passed
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.