Make it explicit when inference rules are null-safety specific #1102
Conversation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds phrases like 'Without null safety, ...' and 'with null safety, ...' in inference.md at locations where the rules differ for legacy code and opted-in code. The PR re-introduces the wording from before the change that added support for null safety where needed, such that we now specify both legacy code and code with null safety, and make the distinction explicit.
It also changes the definition of
futureValueTypeSchemato use?to denote the type schema that imposes no constraints, because the rest of inference.md uses that notation.(We could also change all these occurrences of
?to_. But given that_is allowed as an identifier that denotes a type, we may need to choose some other notation which is syntactically not a type.)Note that this PR has no associated implementation effort: It re-introduces legacy wording for the legacy case where needed, and it marks null-safety specific rules as such; it is not intended to change the meaning of the specification.