-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
Redefine semantics of inline parameters #8060
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
Redefine semantics of inline parameters #8060
Conversation
e4aae77
to
c33f442
Compare
024a2ca
to
919bd73
Compare
See docs/docs/reference/metaprogramming/inline.md
919bd73
to
dd47092
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
@@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ class TypeErasure(isJava: Boolean, semiEraseVCs: Boolean, isConstructor: Boolean | |||
// but potentially re-introduced by ResolveSuper, when we add | |||
// forwarders to mixin methods. | |||
// See doc comment for ElimByName for speculation how we could improve this. | |||
else MethodType(Nil, Nil, eraseResult(sym.info.finalResultType)) | |||
else MethodType(Nil, Nil, eraseResult(sym.info.finalResultType.underlyingIfRepeated(isJava))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be good to check if we can move it earlier to simply the contract between phases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That would also include val
binding generated for repeated parameters.
See docs/docs/reference/metaprogramming/inline.md