[DNM] See If Diagnosing Non-Prima Fascie Nominal Extensions Breaks Stuff #26967
Conversation
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The AST has two separate things you can reach for when asking the question "which type am I extending here?". The first question is "give me the nominal type decl that I'm extending", which will succeed if type resolution is able to pick out a nominal type and only a nominal type. The second question is "which capital-T
Typeam I extending" which will go through semantic resolution and may succeed in cases where the previous query failed - see also rdar://54799560I'm going to measure if restricting this has impact on the source compat suite.