Revisit usage of the term `unify` for types
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
A-inference
C-enhancement
S-waiting-on-author
- Dominant language
- reStructuredText
- Stars
- 497
- Forks
- 41
- Avg merge
- 3h 52m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
We use this in a lot of contexts where we expect a unification of a user given type with an expected type, but I believe unification can go both ways and unify the expected type to the user given one would be incorrect, as the expected type is usually unchangeable.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No file or test is identified. Search the repository for uses of unify and unification, then compare their meanings with the issue's concern about expected and user-given types. Done means the terminology is agreed on and all affected specification text uses it consistently.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100