Skip to content

Change doc-string for Unreliable variance flag. #33036

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
weswigham merged 1 commit into from
Aug 23, 2019
Merged

Change doc-string for Unreliable variance flag. #33036

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/compiler/types.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4214,7 +4214,7 @@ namespace ts {
Independent = 1 << 2, // Unwitnessed type parameter
VarianceMask = Invariant | Covariant | Contravariant | Independent, // Mask containing all measured variances without the unmeasurable flag
Unmeasurable = 1 << 3, // Variance result is unusable - relationship relies on structural comparisons which are not reflected in generic relationships
Unreliable = 1 << 4, // Variance result is unreliable - relationship relies on structural comparisons which are not reflected in generic relationships
Unreliable = 1 << 4, // Variance result is unreliable - checking may produce false negatives, but not false positives

@fatcerberus fatcerberus Aug 22, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I thought it was the reverse: The variance check may cause a typecheck to pass (positive) where the structural check would fail (negative)

#32664 (comment)

@jack-williams jack-williams Aug 22, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See #33020 and the associated issue for variance checks raising errors where a structural comparison would not.

@fatcerberus fatcerberus Aug 22, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, I'm just confused because that seemingly contradicts the conversion I had with @weswigham (linked in my post above).

@fatcerberus fatcerberus Aug 22, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In particular:

Unreliable is supposed to be "fallback to structural if varianced-based check fails"

Which sounds like it shouldn't be able to cause an error only based on the variance result.

@fatcerberus fatcerberus Aug 22, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also (I'm done after this I promise):

Only Unreliable rather than Unmeasurable since it should be that in any case where the variance result is wrong, it's because the variance is overstrict because we have more relaxed arity-based rules on the signature than tuples have.

Implying that any false negatives will be discarded in favor of the structural result.

@jack-williams jack-williams Aug 22, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My reading:

The marker indicates that negative results are unreliable, therefore structural checks are used in the event of failure.

The positive results are assumed to be reliable such that false positives do not occur, even if in reality they can. There is no fallback in the event of success.

@fatcerberus fatcerberus Aug 22, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess when I hear "false positive" I think of, e.g. a virus scanner reporting a virus where none exists; likewise the unreliable variance can produce a successful typecheck where the canonical one (structural) would fail. We thus seem to be seeing the "positive" and "negative" from opposite sides of the fence, hence the confusion 😄

Reverse polarity! ➕ <--> ➖

AllowsStructuralFallback = Unmeasurable | Unreliable,
}

Expand Down