Daniel

> > could we try and discuss issues and their ramifications before jumping at implementations :-) > > Please note that 10 months happened between the issue was submitted and...

For the record, I'd also tend to keep these things drafts to prevent accidental merging, until both PRs are ready :-). Draft meaning "cannot be merged" here, which is true...

Closing the issue, since it'll be fixed as part of https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/13365

Closing this as it will be superseded by https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/pull/13759. Will keep the branch around as reference for now.

Yeah, it's not. There's always the short-term workaround to just define a local variable for this - and with #13723 the rules and restrictions will change significantly, which will solve...

Same as https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/13224 - it's just a different example case. (But we already established that they don't have exactly the same cause, just the same effect, so it's a separate...

Unmarking this from being stale - this is roadmap relevent, since we'll need type aliases eventually if only for restoring backwards compatible aliases for generic "user"-defined versions of the currently...

Harmless enough to ignore, since we're moving to via-IR in the long-term.

Yes, it's important - but I'd still consider it as part of https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/11284, so I'd just have let the stale bot run its course - but now I'll explicitly close...

I vote for updating the assembly and promoting ``_copyToBytes`` back to ``view`` (both here and in the solidity repo; actually my fault - I should have done that with the...