Merged
Conversation
blegat
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2021
Member
blegat
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. I'm wondering whether I tried Tuple{Type,Type} at the time but if it works and the compiler does not like DataType then let's use that.
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Closes #783
We should use
Typeinstead ofDataType.The issue is that
DataTypeis a concrete type of Type (confusing right) that causes the compiler problems (to quote Jeff "this sort of stuff drives the compiler crazy" and "if you're doing that, please stop").I tried a few other things, such as
Tuple{Type{<:MOI.AbstractFunction},Type{<:MOI.AbstractSet}}but couldn't get them to work. It seems for a lot of these things, we want simpler type signatures with some run-time asserts to reduce our latency. These paths aren't hot and time-critical.