Skip to content

Conversation

@noti0na1
Copy link
Member

Fix #20453

@sjrd
Copy link
Member

sjrd commented Oct 27, 2025

Attention: Match type reduction is governed by a spec, and any "improvement" is a spec change that can alter erasure of some things, breaking binaries and tasty. Such a change is a no-go by default. Any change needs to be highly motivated and debated.

@noti0na1
Copy link
Member Author

Attention: Match type reduction is governed by a spec, and any "improvement" is a spec change that can alter erasure of some things, breaking binaries and tasty. Such a change is a no-go by default. Any change needs to be highly motivated and debated.

I see. The issue was assigned to me a while ago, so I thought it's just a simple improvement ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

@soronpo
Copy link
Contributor

soronpo commented Oct 28, 2025

I think there is enough demand for a separate inline match types feature that act like the macro type match without disjointness restriction. Most user cases and expectations require that behavior, IMO.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Operations on NamedTuples do not work with singleton types due to match type refusing to reduce

3 participants