Update disambiguation rules in spec #8046
Conversation
spec/Procedures.tex
Outdated
| more specific argument mapping than the corresponding legal argument | ||
| mapping to $F_2$, then $F_2$ is more specific. | ||
|
|
||
| \item Similarly, if at least one argument mapping to $F_2$ is {\em more |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should go back to matching the pattern of the rest of the list items - worded the same as the previous point but with F_1 and F_2 swapped.
| \item If all \chpl{param} arguments prefer $F_1$ over $F_2$, then $F_1$ is more specific. In order of preference, a \chpl{param} argument prefers to be passed to (a) a \chpl{param} formal of matching type; (b) a \chpl{param} formal large enough to store the \chpl{param} value; (c) a non-\chpl{param} formal of matching type. | ||
| \item If all \chpl{param} arguments prefer $F_2$ over $F_1$, then $F_2$ is more specific. | ||
|
|
||
| \item If at least one of the legal argument mappings to $F_1$ is {\em |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be possible to go back to a single level of specific/preferred by defining more ordered rules in the "determining more specific" section below? Having four different levels is a pretty big increase in how confusing this is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's true that it's more confusing. The additional levels are helping with cases where there are say 2 functions f1 and f2 under consideration, and each has two arguments, let's say f1a f1b and f2a f2b. The situation (that comes up a lot) is that f1a is a better match than f2a but f2b is a better match than f2a. The multiple levels help this case. Rearranging the order within the determining more specific functions / arguments can't help that case.
mppf
force-pushed
the
resolution-current
branch
from
7752327
to
a402794
Compare
mppf
changed the title
This PR updates the spec to match the currently implemented disambiguation rules. This update is a follow-on to PR #7659.
Reviewed by @daviditen - thanks!