Skip to content

Sort out union subtyping #593

Open
Open
@milessabin

Description

Currently the definition of the case(s) for unions in <:< don't implement a particularly sane subtype relation. Nonetheless the current semantics are relied on, eg. in fragmentApplies. Probably unions should only relate as subtypes to other unions and we should introduce a separate relation for fragment applicability.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    bugSomething isn't working

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions