Skip to content

Go back to old narrowing algorithm but don't narrow in cases like #26130 #26425

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
ahejlsberg merged 1 commit into from
Aug 20, 2018
Merged

Go back to old narrowing algorithm but don't narrow in cases like #26130 #26425

ahejlsberg merged 1 commit into from
Aug 20, 2018

Conversation

@mattmccutchen
Copy link
Contributor

@mattmccutchen mattmccutchen commented Aug 13, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Fixes #26405.

@mattmccutchen mattmccutchen mentioned this pull request Aug 13, 2018
Closed
@mattmccutchen
Go back to the old narrowing algorithm (pre microsoft#26143) and avoid …
cc1c2ab 
…microsoft#26130 by

skipping narrowing if the old algorithm produces a type to which the
assigned type is not assignable.

This also means we'll no longer narrow for erroneous assignments where
the assigned type is not assignable to the declared type.  This is the
reason for the numericLiteralTypes3 baseline change.

Fixes microsoft#26405.
@mattmccutchen mattmccutchen changed the title Have getAssignmentReducedType use a new relation that checks for weak types. Go back to old narrowing algorithm but don't narrow in cases like #26130 Aug 18, 2018
weswigham
weswigham approved these changes Aug 20, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@weswigham weswigham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@RyanCavanaugh I think we should go with this - seems like a pretty sane update of the original code.

@ahejlsberg ahejlsberg merged commit 103f894 into microsoft:master Aug 20, 2018
@microsoft microsoft locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 21, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

@weswigham weswigham weswigham approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@ctrlaltvikas ctrlaltvikas ctrlaltvikas approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@mattmccutchen @weswigham @ctrlaltvikas @ahejlsberg