Skip to content

Fix “considered incompatible” but ”are incompatible” et al #1660

@Nigel-Ecma

Description

@Nigel-Ecma

There is no “considered incompatible” but ”are incompatible”.

Further “Certain combinations” seems wrong to me, I think the order is: define pattern compatible, define applicable to (though why are two terms required?), state that if the type of the declaration pattern is not compatible with/applicable to the static type of the input value then a compile time error shall be thrown.

Apologies, no wordsmithing suggestion right now, maybe I’ll come up with one when I resume reviewing later…

Originally posted by @Nigel-Ecma in #873 (comment)

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type
No fields configured for issues without a type.

Projects

No projects

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions