Skip to content

fix More precise inferred type for literal ints #1347

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fix More precise inferred type for literal ints #1347

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+50 −4

Conversation

@asukaminato0721
Copy link
Contributor

@asukaminato0721 asukaminato0721 commented Oct 21, 2025

fix #252

@asukaminato0721
fix
c535d22 
Scrut is not installed, skipping scrut tests.
Finished in 491.39 seconds.
Running conformance tests...
Finished in 4.71 seconds.
@meta-cla meta-cla bot added the cla signed label Oct 21, 2025
@asukaminato0721 asukaminato0721 marked this pull request as ready for review October 21, 2025 03:43
rchen152
rchen152 requested changes Oct 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@rchen152 rchen152 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR! I'd like to discuss this a bit further before moving forward - Danny's comment on the issue raises some good questions.

  • What operations do we want to support? + is a good start, but what about -, *, **, etc.? I'd be okay with doing only + in this PR and building on it in later PRs, but I just wanted to flag that as-is this isn't a complete fix.
  • How should unions of literals be handled? I believe the current behavior of this PR is to distribute over unions (e.g., adding Literal[1, 2] and Literal[3, 5] will produce Literal[4, 5, 6, 7]), which could be problematic for large unions.
  • Should we do anything special for loops and lambdas? Pyright disables literal math in those cases.

cc @yangdanny97

@rchen152 rchen152 added the needs-discussion An issue where it's not clear whether there is a bug or we are behaving as expected. label Nov 17, 2025
@rchen152 rchen152 removed their assignment Nov 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@rchen152 rchen152 rchen152 requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

cla signed needs-discussion An issue where it's not clear whether there is a bug or we are behaving as expected.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

More precise inferred type for literal ints

2 participants

@asukaminato0721 @rchen152