Fridtjof Siebert
Fridtjof Siebert
I have added a page on [destructuring to the design pages](https://flang.dev/design/destructuring). This is still incomplete, but a point to collect ideas.
Using `infix ||>` helps a bit here: ``` ex => [(1,"one"),(2, "two")] .for_each (a -> a ||> (num, str) -> say "$num $str") ``` but partial application does not work...
With anything as simple as setting an option `-safety=off`, I would prefer not to create a message stating that there is a compiler bug. This is just asking for trouble....
The problem here is that the type inference should take the result type, `option a.this.type` into account as well.
I do not see that #5035 fixed this issue since it only adds a test for the first case, which always worked... :-)
I think this is ok and should not need a specific error. I only find it strange that the missing symbol is `infix` and not `infix +` or something mangled...
`Type` is a normal feature, not a `cotype`. But `Type` does have a cotype `Type.type`. Inner features of `Type` are normal features, but once inherited by a cotype, I think...
> > But how to do the check for an `AbstractFeature` in the Java code? > > @fridis what was the solution to this? I remember we talked about it...
probably yes. But we should do this maybe one test at a time and verify carefully if the errors are really what was intended by the test. I would like...
Well, not really. Only if you call `x.as_string` where `x` is a valid type. Usually, you would call `x.as_string` on a value, either by reading a field `x` or by...