Fix #2390: Use normal thisType as base for override checking #2580
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Using upwardsThisType can cause MissingType errors. It's a hairy problem which is still not quite understood (see comment on upwardsThisType). We currently address this by trying either normal thisType or upwardsThisType.
smarter
reviewed
May 29, 2017
| (memberTp frozen_<:< otherTp) || { | ||
| val jointBounds = (memberTp.bounds & otherTp.bounds).bounds | ||
| jointBounds.lo frozen_<:< jointBounds.hi | ||
| def compatibleTypes(memberTp: Type, otherTp: Type): Boolean = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest using other names than memberTp and otherTp here, because memberTp and otherTp are already in scope at this point and they could easily be confused when reading the code.
smarter
approved these changes
May 29, 2017
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Using upwardsThisType can cause MissingType errors. It's a hairy
problem which is still not quite understood (see comment on
upwardsThisType). We currently address this by trying either
normal thisType or upwardsThisType.