Skip to content

Conversation

@cpovirk
Copy link
Collaborator

@cpovirk cpovirk commented Sep 14, 2022

This is still far from a full explanation, but it's less incorrect and
slightly more informative. I hope.

This is still far from a full explanation, but it's less incorrect and
slightly more informative. I hope.
@cpovirk cpovirk requested a review from netdpb September 14, 2022 19:36
* Notice that `makeList(a, b)` is fine "in a vacuum" even under JSpecify (as shown above). Only
* here, where the type of the expression is forced to conform to the target type, is there a
* problem.
* here, where the type of the expression is forced to conform to the javac's type for the
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like the expression type is being forced to conform to JSpecify's preferred type. No?

* Notice that `makeList(a, b)` is fine "in a vacuum" even under JSpecify (as shown above). Only
* here, where the type of the expression is forced to conform to the target type, is there a
* problem.
* here, where the type of the expression is forced to conform to the javac's type for the
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
* here, where the type of the expression is forced to conform to the javac's type for the
* here, where the type of the expression is forced to conform to javac's type for the

@kevinb9n
Copy link
Collaborator

kevinb9n commented Dec 1, 2022

Just keep noticing this hanging around in our PRs tab. No biggie but here's a bump if you wanted one.

@netdpb
Copy link
Collaborator

netdpb commented Jun 27, 2024

@cpovirk, do you want to look at this again and close it out?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants