Kamil Śliwak

Well, it's not mergeable but it's ready so we don't want people to skip reviewing it. So perhaps `has dependencies` label would be better here. These two PRs have a...

I mean, I don't consider it a draft because there's nothing more to do in it. It's done.

> If we expect the other PR to be merged very soon then it is safe to merge this, otherwise not. Should be pretty soon - the only blocker was...

I'm going to reopen this because it does not look like we'll have the full solution promised in #13365 before experimental type system is released (the issue is in fact...

After spending more time on this, I don't fully agree with analysis in https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/12932#issuecomment-1248032377. I mean, making it possible to avoid this error is indeed a bigger problem and better...

Actually, there was more discussion about this in the PR (https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/pull/12878#issuecomment-1298411608) and in the end the issue will be solved differently, by removing the restriction on initialization in constructor, which...

Also review fixes should be squashed.

Assuming we won't drop standalone linking functionality somewhere along the way, this issue would be solved by what I described in https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/14986#issuecomment-2037698693. I.e. linking could be a distinct stage at...

I'll give it a final look tomorrow.

Related issues: #12792, #11067. This is not a bug, just an unfortunate "feature". It was motivated by the fact that returning a whole array is usually not what you want...