Skip to content

Conversation

@OndrejSpanel
Copy link
Contributor

This an exploratory PR for #3433 and #3429

I would like to know where exactly is the type mismatch happening and if perhaps there is a way to avoid it completely, even at cost of reported method surfaces being not 100% accurate.

@OndrejSpanel OndrejSpanel changed the title Method type exploration Surface - Method type exploration Mar 2, 2024
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Mar 2, 2024

⚠️ The sha of the head commit of this PR conflicts with #3429. Mergify cannot evaluate rules on this PR. ⚠️

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant