Recreate old less safe for loop behavior #18262
Closed
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
Collaborator
|
Thanks for your contribution. This PR has not been updated in a while and cannot be automatically merged at the time being. For housekeeping purposes we are closing stale PRs. If you'd still like to continue working on this PR, please leave a message and one of the maintainers can reopen it. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Our behavior changed with #17404 to disallow doing
for..inon unions containing type variables (which we have allowed in the past, despite its lack of extra safety). With this change we allow it once more, by introducing a propagating flag which tracks the presence of a type variable. Technically, only unions and intersections needed to be special-cased (as anywhere else the flag is propagated will be caught by theNonPrimitiveassignability check), but I feel the flag is much cleaner than specializingisTypeAssignableToKind.Fixes #18203.