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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 signedness semantics for integer types #201
Add signedness semantics for integer types #201
Changes from all commits
93a54f0
ba80b4a
d3d1c5f
eff58fd
ccbbd9b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't quite get this change. AFAIU, you are using a function operation here to show that
!fun<[!tuple<[!i32]>], [!tuple<[!i32]>]>
can be parsed/printed. Why use a function operation? Aren't there easier operations to do that with? You can givesym_name
andvalue
to any operation to keep the name of the test around as well, right?I feel like I am confused by these tests each time I see them. Would it make sense to have an empty
test.testing
operation just to make these tests easier to understand?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I'll add a
test.testing
in a following PR, that should make things better!