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
There is currently an ambiguity in the creation of type IDs between references to optionals and optional references. I.e., a ReferenceType(OptionalType(T)) will be rendered as &T?, and OptionalType(ReferenceType(T)) is also rendered as &T?.
Expected Behavior
We should produce non-ambiguous TypeIDs for these two cases.
TODOs:
What should the representation for these be?
How and when should we migrate existing TypeIDs to the new format?
Check whether or not the typeIDs of these values are stored here
Steps To Reproduce
N/A
Environment
See https://github.com/onflow/cadence/pull/3232
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Current Behavior
There is currently an ambiguity in the creation of type IDs between references to optionals and optional references. I.e., a
ReferenceType(OptionalType(T))
will be rendered as&T?
, andOptionalType(ReferenceType(T))
is also rendered as&T?
.Expected Behavior
We should produce non-ambiguous TypeIDs for these two cases.
TODOs:
Steps To Reproduce
N/A
Environment
See https://github.com/onflow/cadence/pull/3232
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: