Ticket #1384
Why?
fansh> x := "hi" hi fansh> [x].typeof sys::Str?[]
BTW, with
--- a/src/fansh/fan/Evaluator.fan Thu Jan 06 15:29:23 2011 -0500 +++ b/src/fansh/fan/Evaluator.fan Thu Jan 13 15:59:27 2011 +0600 @@ -138,7 +140,7 @@ private Str typeSig(Type t) { // handle parameterized generics - if (!t.params.isEmpty) return t.toNullable.signature + if (!t.params.isEmpty) return t.signature // FFI types aren't qualified if (t.signature.startsWith("[")) @@ -152,7 +154,7 @@ } // use qualified nullable type - return t.toNullable.signature + return t.signature } private Void compile(Str source)
things work just fine to me.
That's strange
["hi"].typeof -> sys::Str[] x := "hi" x.typeof -> sys::Str [x].typeof -> sys::Str?[]
Probably a bug.
For some reason when we added nullables I found it inconvient to not have the fansh have everything be nullable.
Maybe that isn't such a great idea, especially if you are trying to learn about nullable types.
I don't have any problem change that behavior?
Anyone disagree with making fansh maintain nullability of original declaration?
Promoted to ticket #1384 and assigned to brian
Ticket resolved in 1.0.58
Not sure why I make those locals nullable in first place, but I tested this change and didn't see any negative effects.
Login or Signup to reply.
vkuzkokov Thu 13 Jan 2011
Why?
vkuzkokov Thu 13 Jan 2011
BTW, with
things work just fine to me.
helium Thu 13 Jan 2011
That's strange
Probably a bug.
brian Thu 13 Jan 2011
For some reason when we added nullables I found it inconvient to not have the fansh have everything be nullable.
Maybe that isn't such a great idea, especially if you are trying to learn about nullable types.
I don't have any problem change that behavior?
Anyone disagree with making fansh maintain nullability of original declaration?
brian Tue 1 Mar 2011
Promoted to ticket #1384 and assigned to brian
brian Wed 2 Mar 2011
Ticket resolved in 1.0.58
Not sure why I make those locals nullable in first place, but I tested this change and didn't see any negative effects.