Derived members succeed other givens in cycle test #23898
Merged
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
Sibling givens are always eligible for derived members, which are appended to the enclosing template.
som-snytt
force-pushed
the
issue/23897-derives-pos
branch
from
26b2745 to
59943eb
Compare
odersky
approved these changes
Oct 10, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Sibling givens are always eligible for derived members,
which are appended to the enclosing template.
Fixes #23897
Why was the ticket worth tackling?
The behavior change is a regression that makes
derivedless intuitive.User-written code is logically antecedent to synthetic derived code.
How I fixed it
I merely confirmed the diagnosis by @mrdziuban on the ticket.
Instead of fiddling with positions, the fix takes
derivedmembers as a special case,where derived members always follow other members.
Perhaps all definitions with a synthetic, zero-extent span deserve the same consideration.
Why is this PR worth reviewing?
It is one LOC that is easy to review if the premise is agreed upon in principle.
What's the worst that could happen?
Existing code that relies on the changed behavior may break.