Damir Vandic

@lpil isn't it better to use a bound instead of term directly? Let's say this was the function (from the OTP PR mentioned above): ```erlang -spec foo(atom()) -> {ok, X}...

> @dvic The example you give there doesn't need to be changed, it's only when a parameter is used once that it is invalid. > > Thank you @dvic !...

> Huh. OK I don't understand what's happening here. It says "once" but it's clearly used twice. Is this a bug in erlc? Yeah the message is a bit confusing,...

@lpil I may have confused you with the following comment  OTP 26.2.5 **also** emits a warning without the type guard, it's because of the added type guard that no...

> Thank you. > > This is all very confusing to me. Yeah it is, I guess we're all spoiled by the errors in Gleam ;)

I saw the conversation :) So for now we only add `X :: term()` when a type parameter is not used in the input? That should cover it, right?

> I think so? It's still incorrect though unfortunately. Yeah, it's the best we can do for now. I was busy with playing around with https://github.com/gleam-lang/erlang/pull/45 but I can pick...

@lpil any idea how I can trigger the issue in a isolated test? I tried this but `any()` is generated: It makes me think: isn't that what should have been...

Never mind, I have it reproduced now with:

PR is submitted!