-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 209
fix: prevent hints from poisoning generic function inference in OR expressions #1647
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
Open
Imran-S-heikh
wants to merge
1
commit into
facebook:main
Choose a base branch
from
Imran-S-heikh:fix/or-expression-inference
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+47
−10
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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'm not convinced this is specific to
or; for example if we hadand then
then we probably should be able to narrow
xtobool | str, but the existing logic would pass down the hint and we'd getNone | bool | str.More generally, I think what might really be going on is that return types shouldn't be used contextually in the way they are now, because (using your test case as an example)
really ought to result in
configbeing narrowed tostr, and it's not even in a bool op - I think the real issue is that we should only be using context when it's necessary to make the assignment legal; in cases where we can get a narrower type we want the narrower typecc @samwgoldman for thoughts, it's unclear to me how hard this would be to do. We might be able to just analyze the function twice when necessary, similar to how we handle overloads
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.
Is this just #881? Agree that the way we contextually type calls to generic functions (and ctors) is wrong. My plan was to treat these hints differently, but I only have a sketch of an idea.
If this PR is working around a specific instance of 881 I think we should probably work on the underlying issue instead.
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.
Ah, yeah I forgot about #881, I think this probably is just another case of it.
After giving it more thought, it seems like if the constraint solver understood that a return type hint is only an upper bound (and should not affect the result unless necessary) then we'd get the right answer.
I'm guessing that's at least roughly what your idea is?
I do think it's likely possible to use two attempts at solving the call to get this behavior, similar to overloads. But assuming the solver can do it natively in one pass that seems better