Overhaul typechecking of patterns #18171
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
|
|
|
In general I'm in favor and have been wanting to do this for a while. There will be patterns, such as |
|
This now passes the tests. |
ghost
mentioned this pull request
added 3 commits
October 24, 2014 19:43
Instead of checking patterns in a top-down fashion with a known expected type on entry, this changes makes typeck establish appropriate constraints between a pattern and the expression it destructures, and lets inference compute the final types or produce good error messages if it's impossible.
ghost
deleted the
ghost
mentioned this pull request
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Rather than doing it top-down, with a known expected type, we will now simply establish the appropriate constraints between the pattern and the expression it destructures.
Closes #8783.
Closes #10200.