lab/sx
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix: reject implicit ?T -> bool coercion instead of silent false (issue 0169)

Browse Source 
The Optional->Concrete unwrap classify rule treated ?i64 -> bool as
unwrap+narrow (both builtin), silently yielding false for every optional
(present or null). specs.md defines no implicit optional->bool
conversion. Reject it: conversions.zig adds an optional_to_bool_reject
plan (dst == bool, child != bool); coerce.zig emits a located diagnostic
suggesting '!= null'. Covers arg/field-init/return via the shared
coerceMode. The if-opt presence test (issue 0164) is a separate path,
untouched.

Regression: examples/diagnostics/1199-diagnostics-optional-to-bool.sx +
conversions.test.zig unit test. Verified by 3 adversarial reviews, suite
789/0. Filed adjacent issue 0179 (whole implicit ?T->concrete unwrap
family silently miscompiles a null optional; design-touching).
This commit is contained in:
agra
2026-06-23 02:47:51 +03:00
parent 3c738695dc
commit e5b682e622
9 changed files with 143 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

1
examples/diagnostics/expected/1199-diagnostics-optional-to-bool.exit Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
1

5
examples/diagnostics/expected/1199-diagnostics-optional-to-bool.stderr Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
error: cannot use a value of type '?i64' where 'bool' is expected; test presence explicitly with '!= null'
--> examples/diagnostics/1199-diagnostics-optional-to-bool.sx:18:3
|
18 | takes_bool(a); // <- '?i64' cannot be used where 'bool' is expected
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1
examples/diagnostics/expected/1199-diagnostics-optional-to-bool.stdout Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1 @@