-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
[ty] Clarify behavior of constraint sets for gradual upper bounds and constraints #21287
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
Open
dcreager
wants to merge
7
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
dcreager/dynamic-bounds
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+421
−35
Open
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
3ee3f71
bounded by gradual
dcreager 337fe87
bounded by invariant
dcreager 7af42b8
constrained by gradual
dcreager 45279de
constrained by invariant
dcreager 1295459
clarify docs
dcreager d49fe89
contraints are more complex :-(
dcreager fc22207
fix those tests
dcreager File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that only holds true if the upper bound of a typevar is a gradual specialization of an invariant type? The bottom materialization of
list[Any]isNever, but the bottom materialization ofSequence[Any]isSequence[Never], sinceSequence[Never]is a subtype ofSequence[int]andSequence[str], and is still an inhabited type ([],()can both inhabitSequence[Never], for example). Similarly for contravariance, the bottom materialization ofCallable[[Any], int]isCallable[[object], int].There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Which part doesn't hold true? This might be poor wording on my part — I am not trying to claim that the bottom materialization is always
Never. I am (attempting to) say that forT: Any, we pickT: Never, but it's more precise to say that we pick the bottom specialization, because forT: list[Any], we pickT: Bottom[list[Any]].There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I understood it the way you explained in your comment now, but I also stumbled over it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, okay -- yes, I think the wording can be improved there a little!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reworded this, lmkwyt