Skip to content

Fix #3333: adapt child instantiation #3475

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 20, 2017
Merged

Conversation

liufengyun
Copy link
Contributor

Fix #3333 #3455 #3469: adapt child instantiation

Structural types in #3333 is left open.

  • If a child type parameter is not constrained, instantiate it to Wildcard
  • In prefix inference, forget ThisType for modules.

@liufengyun
Copy link
Contributor Author

@AleksanderBG Do you want to review? This may be helpful to your WIP.

Copy link
Contributor

@abgruszecki abgruszecki left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the opportunity to review! Aside from some questions, everything looks OK to me.

@@ -584,10 +584,9 @@ class SpaceEngine(implicit ctx: Context) extends SpaceLogic {
// precondition: `tp1` should have the shape `path.Child`, thus `ThisType` is always covariant
val thisTypeMap = new TypeMap {
def apply(t: Type): Type = t match {
case tp @ ThisType(tref) if !tref.symbol.isStaticOwner && !tref.symbol.is(Module) =>
// TODO: stackoverflow here
// newTypeVar(TypeBounds.upper(mapOver(tp.underlying)))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Out of curiosity: what was the original issue here? Was tp present somewhere in tp.underlying? If yes, then wouldn't simply first creating the TVar, memoising it in a map keyed under tp and mapping over tp.underlying be enough? I'm asking, as basing on this code I wrote this and I'm not sure if it is correct.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I forgot exactly what's the problem, but it's related to ClassInfo#selfType. tp.underlying is supposed to be decreasing (I assume), so I think the case you mention will not occur. For the task you want to deal with, the memoization in your code is correct.

if (protoTp1 <:< tp2 && isFullyDefined(protoTp1, ForceDegree.noBottom)) protoTp1
if (protoTp1 <:< tp2) {
isFullyDefined(protoTp1, force)
instUndetMap(protoTp1)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I understand correctly how isFullyDefined behaves, then if it returns true, all TVars in protoTp1 should be already instantiated and instUndetMap will be a no-op. Would it make sense to only use instUndetMap if isFullyDefined returned false?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, good catch, I've updated the code, thanks a lot.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Patmat exhaustivity checks do not consider all possible type children
3 participants