[SR-14280][CSSimplify] Increase the score when matching functions with different representations for contextual type #36208
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
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
xedin
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2021
|
@swift-ci Please test Windows platform |
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test macOS platform |
…t representations for contextual type
LucianoPAlmeida
force-pushed
the
SR-14280-ambiguity-repr
branch
from
8b2d254 to
f5f7204
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
|
@swift-ci please smoke test Windows platform |
|
@swift-ci please test source compatibility |
|
@swift-ci Please test Windows Platform |
|
@swift-ci Please test source compatibility Release |
|
Thanks @xedin :) |
|
Thank you! Don't forget to resolve the SR. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It does make sense to favor the same representation of contextual type, so increase the score when a function type is matching with different representations to avoid ambiguity. In this example, solver finds both bindings
(@convention(block) () -> Void)?and(() -> ())?. Let me know what you think :)Resolves: SR-14280
Resolves: rdar://74877828