fix #22592, specificity of union compared to a subtype of it #29139
Conversation
This file contains 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
JeffBezanson
added
types and dispatch
|
Correction: actually fixes #29136 |
We considered Union{A,B} more specific than B if A was more specific
than B (but not a subtype of it). Clearly, it should not be.
JeffBezanson
force-pushed
the
jb/fix22592
branch
from
49d7da4 to
0908bc4
Compare
Merged
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 17, 2018
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 11, 2019
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We considered Union{A,B} more specific than B if A was more specific than B (but not a subtype of it). Clearly, it should not be.