recursive types: fix implementation of references_name #50963
Merged
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
To do the old version correctly, we would need to carefully track whether we end up using that parameter as a parameter of any apply_type call in the fieldtype computation of any of the fields, recursively. Since any of those might cause recursion in the constructor graph, resulting in trying to layout some concrete type before we have finished computing the rest of the fieldtypes. That seems unnecessarily difficult to do well, so instead we go back to just doing the trivial cases.
vtjnash
force-pushed
the
jn/layout-recur
branch
from
918b849 to
49661a1
Compare
KristofferC
added
the
backport 1.10
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2025
To do the old version correctly, we would need to carefully track whether we end up using that parameter as a parameter of any apply_type call in the fieldtype computation of any of the fields, recursively. Since any of those might cause recursion in the constructor graph, resulting in trying to layout some concrete type before we have finished computing the rest of the fieldtypes. That seems unnecessarily difficult to do well, so instead we go back to just doing the trivial cases. (cherry picked from commit 1182003)
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2025
To do the old version correctly, we would need to carefully track whether we end up using that parameter as a parameter of any apply_type call in the fieldtype computation of any of the fields, recursively. Since any of those might cause recursion in the constructor graph, resulting in trying to layout some concrete type before we have finished computing the rest of the fieldtypes. That seems unnecessarily difficult to do well, so instead we go back to just doing the trivial cases. (cherry picked from commit 1182003)
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 3, 2025
To do the old version correctly, we would need to carefully track whether we end up using that parameter as a parameter of any apply_type call in the fieldtype computation of any of the fields, recursively. Since any of those might cause recursion in the constructor graph, resulting in trying to layout some concrete type before we have finished computing the rest of the fieldtypes. That seems unnecessarily difficult to do well, so instead we go back to just doing the trivial cases. (cherry picked from commit 1182003)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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.
To do the old version correctly, we would need to carefully track whether we end up using that parameter as a parameter of any apply_type call in the fieldtype computation of any of the fields, recursively. Since any of those might cause recursion in the constructor graph, resulting in trying to layout some concrete type before we have finished computing the rest of the fieldtypes. That seems unnecessarily difficult to do well, so instead we go back to just doing the trivial cases.