You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Original bug ID: 7044 Reporter:@bobzhang Status: acknowledged (set by @damiendoligez on 2017-04-13T11:07:52Z) Resolution: open Priority: normal Severity: feature Category: typing
Bug description
Currently only int, float, string, nativeint, int32, int64 are specialized, it would be nice to also specialize boolean.
In some cases, using generic comparison function is un-intentional, it would be nice to have a warning for this (at least abstract type comparison)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This issue has been open one year with no activity. Consequently, it is being marked with the "stale" label. What this means is that the issue will be automatically closed in 30 days unless more comments are added or the "stale" label is removed. Comments that provide new information on the issue are especially welcome: is it still reproducible? did it appear in other contexts? how critical is it? etc.
The first feature-wish is already implemented: comparison functions are specialised for booleans. (The specialisation also works for user-defined types with only constant constructors).
The second feature-wish (warnings on generic compare) is being discussed at #7524
Original bug ID: 7044
Reporter: @bobzhang
Status: acknowledged (set by @damiendoligez on 2017-04-13T11:07:52Z)
Resolution: open
Priority: normal
Severity: feature
Category: typing
Bug description
Currently only int, float, string, nativeint, int32, int64 are specialized, it would be nice to also specialize boolean.
In some cases, using generic comparison function is un-intentional, it would be nice to have a warning for this (at least abstract type comparison)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: