diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/results/trec | 12 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl | 16 |
2 files changed, 15 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/results/trec b/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/results/trec index 01ccc63761..b95df1e6ef 100644 --- a/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/results/trec +++ b/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/results/trec @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ -trec.erl:26: Function test/0 has no local return -trec.erl:27: The call trec:mk_foo_loc(42,any()) will never return since it differs in the 1st argument from the success typing arguments: ('undefined',atom()) -trec.erl:29: Function mk_foo_loc/2 has no local return -trec.erl:30: Record construction violates the declared type for #foo{} since variable A cannot be of type atom() -trec.erl:36: Function mk_foo_exp/2 has no local return -trec.erl:37: Record construction violates the declared type for #foo{} since variable A cannot be of type atom() +trec.erl:28: Function test/0 has no local return +trec.erl:29: The call trec:mk_foo_loc(42,any()) will never return since it differs in the 1st argument from the success typing arguments: ('undefined',atom()) +trec.erl:31: Function mk_foo_loc/2 has no local return +trec.erl:32: Record construction violates the declared type for #foo{} since variable A cannot be of type atom() +trec.erl:38: Function mk_foo_exp/2 has no local return +trec.erl:39: Record construction violates the declared type for #foo{} since variable A cannot be of type atom() diff --git a/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl b/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl index ba50c3b401..06706162c1 100644 --- a/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl +++ b/lib/dialyzer/test/small_SUITE_data/src/trec.erl @@ -18,20 +18,22 @@ %% ('undefined',atom()) %% 3. Function mk_foo_loc/2 has no local return %% -%% Arguably, the second warning is not what most users have in mind -%% when they wrote the type declarations in the 'foo' record, so no -%% doubt they'll find it confusing. But note that it is also inconsistent! -%% How come there is a success typing for a function that has no local return? +%% Arguably, the second warning is not what most users have in mind when +%% they wrote the type declarations in the 'foo' record, so no doubt +%% they'll find it confusing. But note that it is also quite confusing! +%% Many users may be wondering: How come there is a success typing for a +%% function that has no local return? Running typer on this module +%% reveals a success typing for this function that is interesting indeed. %% test() -> - mk_foo_loc(42, bar:f()). + mk_foo_loc(42, some_mod:some_function()). mk_foo_loc(A, B) -> #foo{a = A, b = [A,B]}. %% -%% For this function we currently get "has no local return" but we get -%% no reason; I want us to get a reason. +%% For this function we used to get a "has no local return" warning +%% but we got no reason. This has now been fixed. %% mk_foo_exp(A, B) when is_integer(A) -> #foo{a = A, b = [A,B]}. |