-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
0.5: error in type inference due to #265 #17932
Comments
The line number is also off: hierarchicalsolveTest.jl only has 109 lines. |
What do you mean? |
I mean I don’t know what #265 means in the error message. I thought it might mean “due to issue #265” but I didn’t find such an issue.
|
github.com//issues/265 Also see #17212 (comment) "this is effectively jargon," the error message could be made considerably clearer |
I apparently don't know how to search for issues in github...I tried typing #265 in the search box but nothing came up. I assume this means that a function is being redefined? And I can close this issue? |
The
Yes. |
Is there a reason it can't print the name of the redefined function? It's difficult to debug. |
Yes, the redefinition can happen at any level. |
Yes, the error message should improve. The code at that point I think could even say "code invalidated due to new definition of function f for types T". Or we could potentially fall back to dynamic dispatch plus a type assertion that the type returned by the new code is compatible with what we inferred. Then there's a chance we could keep running without an error. |
This should help #17932. If a function returns an unanticipated type that wasn't part of the `Union` seen by inference, do dynamic dispatch instead of erroring.
The example above is now passing in 0.5.0-rc3. Should we close this? |
This should help JuliaLang#17932. If a function returns an unanticipated type that wasn't part of the `Union` seen by inference, do dynamic dispatch instead of erroring.
#265 is now closed. |
I get the following error. I couldn't find an open issue #265, so I'm not sure what it's referring too.
If the issue isn't already known, I can try to make a branch to reproduce it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: