Skip to content

Conversation

@kikofernandez
Copy link

as per OTP pull request #7717, duplicate annotation variables that have different types will not be allowed in OTP-27.

this PR simply re-writes the type specification so that it is compliant with the OTP change.

as per OTP pull request
[#7717](erlang/otp#7717), duplicate annotation
types will not be allowed in OTP-27.

this PR simply re-writes the type specification so that it is compliant
with the OTP change.
@kikofernandez
Copy link
Author

kikofernandez commented Oct 9, 2023

never mind. As long as the annotated variables have the same type, there is no issue.
closing.

@kikofernandez
Copy link
Author

Re-opening the PR, I realised that the UserState annotation is sometimes written with type term() and sometimes with type user_state(). This will not be valid code in OTP-27, thus the PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant