Display type class members and let identifiers in errors - #3463
Closed
LiamGoodacre wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Display type class members and let identifiers in errors#3463LiamGoodacre wants to merge 1 commit into
LiamGoodacre wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Member
Author
|
Okay I broke something, this isn't quite ready yet. |
Member
Author
|
Feels a bit hacky too. Will re-think. |
Contributor
|
It's perhaps worth noting that the |
Contributor
|
I'm not sure how I feel about this approach actually. I think I'd prefer we leave this as is and instead improve error spans and implement printing actual code in errors (#1898) to address the issue of it being difficult to work out which bit of your code is causing the problem. |
Contributor
|
Shall we close this (and #3390)? |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Example code:
Error diff:
Could not match type Int with type Int -> Int while checking that type Int is at least as general as type Int -> Int while checking that expression 3 has type Int -> Int + in value declaration bac + in value declaration abc in value declaration abcIntI think this could be sufficient for the second half of #3390.