fix optional type unification #19813
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
pytorchbot
added
oncall: jit
Contributor
facebook-github-bot
left a comment
facebook-github-bot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@eellison has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator.
Contributor
facebook-github-bot
left a comment
facebook-github-bot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@eellison has imported this pull request. If you are a Facebook employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator.
zdevito
pushed a commit
to zdevito/ATen
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2019
Summary: Previously in type unification when we encountered an Optional[T] and a None, we would unify it to Optional[Optional[T]]. If you think about Optionals as a union of [T, None], then a union of [Optional[T], None] -> [T, None]. We should just be never create an Optional of an Optional. The other fix is to change unify_types directly, but I think this is the more general fix, and would play more nicely with our optional type refinement, which also assumes we never encounter an Optional[Optional[T]]. Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#19813 Reviewed By: suo Differential Revision: D15103083 Pulled By: eellison fbshipit-source-id: db803db10d6934eaa5458e7c1746546b0d0c0a6c
Contributor
zhangguanheng66
pushed a commit
to zhangguanheng66/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2019
Summary: Previously in type unification when we encountered an Optional[T] and a None, we would unify it to Optional[Optional[T]]. If you think about Optionals as a union of [T, None], then a union of [Optional[T], None] -> [T, None]. We should just be never create an Optional of an Optional. The other fix is to change unify_types directly, but I think this is the more general fix, and would play more nicely with our optional type refinement, which also assumes we never encounter an Optional[Optional[T]]. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#19813 Reviewed By: suo Differential Revision: D15103083 Pulled By: eellison fbshipit-source-id: db803db10d6934eaa5458e7c1746546b0d0c0a6c
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Previously in type unification when we encountered an Optional[T] and a None, we would unify it to Optional[Optional[T]]. If you think about Optionals as a union of [T, None], then a union of [Optional[T], None] -> [T, None]. We should just be never create an Optional of an Optional.
The other fix is to change unify_types directly, but I think this is the more general fix, and would play more nicely with our optional type refinement, which also assumes we never encounter an Optional[Optional[T]].