fewer convert methods for Missing and Nothing (take 2)
#31602
Conversation
|
Do we need to add something to be able to infer |
|
It apparently seems to be working ok already |
|
Should we go with this, or at least bring up in triage it? |
|
Doesn't seem urgent. I would also like to understand how we're able to infer |
|
Now that we've branched, can we land this on master and see how well it works out? I didn't intend for inference to handle |
1fb2e92
to
09be236
Compare
addresses and issue where we might be ambigous with other badly designed methods such as the ambiguous Nothing/Missing rules (cf #31602)
addresses an issue where we might be find an ambiguity with badly designed methods, such as the ambiguous Nothing/Missing rules (cf #31602)
addresses an issue where we might be find an ambiguity with badly designed methods, such as the ambiguous Nothing/Missing rules (cf #31602)
addresses an issue where we might be find an ambiguity with badly designed methods, such as the ambiguous Nothing/Missing rules (cf #31602)
And use `typesubtract` instead of subtyping to improve usability by handling undef sparams. Co-Authored-By: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
09be236
to
3888a6c
Compare
|
I'd like to land this before the feature freeze (although I suppose it should be non-breaking anyways), and give it some time to see how it works out in practice since it seems to need many fewer methods and just handles them with more ease. |
| @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ true | |||
| """ | |||
| function convert end | |||
|
|
|||
| convert(::Type{Union{}}, x) = throw(MethodError(convert, (Union{}, x))) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this here to give a predictable ambiguity error instead of an ambiguity error involving two random methods? I suppose that's fine, just wondering if there is any other reason.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As you say, "predictability" :)
addresses an issue where we might be find an ambiguity with badly designed methods, such as the ambiguous Nothing/Missing rules (cf #31602)
This should make it impossible to accidentally define or call this method on foreign types. Refs: JuliaLang#31602 Fixes: JuliaLang#45837 Closes: JuliaLang#45051
This should make it impossible to accidentally define or call this method on foreign types. Refs: JuliaLang#31602 Fixes: JuliaLang#45837 Closes: JuliaLang#45051
And use
typesubtractinstead of subtyping to improve usability by handling undef sparams.closes #30205