Make _all_ return types alphabetical #624
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Currently we're treating `null` and `false` as special cases, adding and removing them at various points in the process; this results in the return type list being `sorted(types-except-null) + null`. I want to remove the special-case magic, which will have the side effect of changing the return type to `sorted(types)`. I'm pulling that out into a separate PR because it makes the future PR easier to understand, and I also think it's valid to do this by itself
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Currently we're treating
nullandfalseas special cases, adding and removing them at various points in the process; this results in the return type list beingsorted(types-except-null) + null. I want to remove the special-case magic, which will have the side effect of changing the return type tosorted(types). I'm pulling that out into a separate PR because it makes the future PR easier to understand, and I also think it's valid to do this by itself