Fix variance validation #418
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
`#initialize` is a constructor, and it shouldn’t make the variance check failed.
pocke
added a commit
to pocke/rbs_rails
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2020
elishadiah
pushed a commit
to elishadiah/ROR-mine
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR is to make
Range[T]covariant.Adding
outannotation toRangeclass definition didn't work because#initializecontains the parameter in in (contravariant) position. However,#initializeis a constructor, and checking the variance for the method doesn't make sense.So, skipping
#initializeduring variance validation would be a good option. 🎉