fix im union #271
fix im union #271
Conversation
| let name_context = new_name_context.union(name_context.clone()); | ||
| let new_arm = resolve_expression(sess, arm, &name_context, top_level_ctx)?; | ||
| let mut updated_name_context = name_context.clone(); | ||
| for (k, v) in new_name_context.into_iter() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there an issue with union in im 15.1.0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yep, see the link in the PR description bodil/im-rs#202
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cmester0 any thoughts on this?
This PR should at least unblock the update, which we should do due to the security issue.
But I think we should revisit the way the hashmaps work later. I feel like we should probably move away from im given this issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like a strange implementation of union, but I think the pull request is fine. I agree that we should probably find something that has the "correct" union implemented.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it's a little weird. But I'd like to update the dependency at least.
I'll merge this and file a follow-up to replace im.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cmester0 can you r+ so I can merge? 🙂
This allows us updating
im.I didn't update all
unioncalls. But we probably should. Or maybe we should dropimand use thestd::collectionsinstead.Also see bodil/im-rs#202