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

X::TypeCheck::Argument could use a minor wording tweak #1747

Closed
zoffixznet opened this issue Apr 18, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

X::TypeCheck::Argument could use a minor wording tweak #1747

zoffixznet opened this issue Apr 18, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels
good first issue This issue is likely easy for beginners to resolve LTA Less Than Awesome; typically an error message that could be better

Comments

@zoffixznet
Copy link
Contributor

19:38 	Zoffix 	m: proto z($, $?) {*}; z 1, 2, 3
19:38 	camelia 	rakudo-moar 9e6ae276a: OUTPUT: «5===SORRY!5=== Error while compiling <tmp>␤Calling z(Int, Int, Int) will never work with proto signature ($, $?)␤at <tmp>:1␤------> 3proto z($, $?) {*}; 7⏏5z 1, 2, 3␤»

The above message reads "proto signature" which suggests some special signature.

It might be clearer to reword that to "signature of the proto"

@zoffixznet zoffixznet added good first issue This issue is likely easy for beginners to resolve LTA Less Than Awesome; typically an error message that could be better labels Apr 18, 2018
@lizmat
Copy link
Contributor

lizmat commented Apr 29, 2018

Fixed with 0de8052 . Not sure tests for this would be needed.

@zoffixznet
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not sure tests for this would be needed.

Thanks. I think it's fine to close without any.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue This issue is likely easy for beginners to resolve LTA Less Than Awesome; typically an error message that could be better
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants