Fix #5768, Corrected wrong formatted print of a trait member constraint. #5948
Conversation
Corrected wrong formatted print of a trait member constraint Signed-off-by: realvictorprm <mueller.vpr@gmail.com>
|
@cartermp I won't the neat command "@dotnetbot please test this" back 😭 Closing isn't nice. |
|
CI passes. This is ready. |
|
Can we add the example in #5768 as a test case to make sure we don't regress? |
|
I'll have a look how I can add it. |
dsyme
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Needs test, otherwise approved
Signed-off-by: realvictorprm <mueller.vpr@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: realvictorprm <mueller.vpr@gmail.com>
|
Regression test added. |
dsyme
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The fix is fine. The testing could be simpler I believe
Signed-off-by: realvictorprm <mueller.vpr@gmail.com>
|
@dsyme I've changed it, please have a short look over it. |
|
CI passes, can this be merged? |
|
approved, please resolve conflict and we can merge |
|
done |
|
Ergh, looks like there were some build issues preventing this from getting merged and the codebase has diverged since. Sorry about that. @realvictorprm are you still interested in pursuing this? In theory it should be easy to adjust the tests and just copy the contents of this branch's |
|
Thanks! Will close in favor of #9728 |
The bug was not that the constraint is ignored. It was that the compiler printed the suggested trait constraint wrongly.
As example, the signature
a * b -> (c -> d)isn't the same asa * b -> c -> dbecause the return type differs (in case one it's(c -> d), in case two it'sd). The compiler however didn't respect that behaviour and prints constraints of case 1 always like case 2 which is wrong. The fix was to enforce that trait constraint return type is always wrapped in brackets if the return type is a function.@dsyme please have a look whether this assumption is fine? It's a short thing only about formatting.
Signed-off-by: realvictorprm mueller.vpr@gmail.com