Skip to content
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

meta-issue on type and path propagation #7409

Closed
vicuna opened this issue Nov 12, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

meta-issue on type and path propagation #7409

vicuna opened this issue Nov 12, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@vicuna
Copy link

vicuna commented Nov 12, 2016

Original bug ID: 7409
Reporter: @gasche
Status: confirmed (set by @gasche on 2016-11-12T15:19:49Z)
Resolution: open
Severity: feature
Version: undecided
Category: typing
Parent of: #6784 #7386 #7388 #7389

Bug description

This meta-issue is meant to gather and reference issues that are related to the propagation of type information or type annotation during type-checking (typically for GADT typing and for disambiguation of type-ambiguous variant constructors and fields), as well as more syntactic techniques that also correspond to a propagation of path information (eg. turning { M.x = e1; y = e2 } into { M.x = e1; M.y = e2 }).

@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Nov 12, 2016

Comment author: @gasche

In #285 ( #285 ), Frédéric Bour proposed to propagate when typing the argument of an application the result of unifying the expected return type of the application with the function-result type obtained by inferred the applied function expression.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 9, 2020

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.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label May 9, 2020
@garrigue garrigue removed the Stale label May 9, 2020
@garrigue
Copy link
Contributor

garrigue commented May 9, 2020

Meta issues should not be stale. Or does it apply to all feature wishes?

@github-actions
Copy link

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.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label May 12, 2021
@Octachron Octachron removed the Stale label May 12, 2021
@Octachron
Copy link
Member

I am removing the stale label due to the last active issue linked to this meta-issue.

@github-actions
Copy link

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants