From 14960fa754f42c820727bed9308e075b2cb923f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael New Date: Sun, 29 May 2022 19:40:15 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Fix typo and incorrect pragma name (#19847) --- doc/manual_experimental_strictnotnil.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/manual_experimental_strictnotnil.rst b/doc/manual_experimental_strictnotnil.rst index b14e5f9f38..ebfca7e512 100644 --- a/doc/manual_experimental_strictnotnil.rst +++ b/doc/manual_experimental_strictnotnil.rst @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ We might need to check for `strictFuncs` pure funcs and not do that then. For field expressions `a.field`, we calculate an integer value based on a hash of the tree and just accept equivalent trees as equivalent expressions. For item expression `a[index]`, we also calculate an integer value based on a hash of the tree and accept equivalent trees as equivalent expressions: for static values only. -For now we support only constant indices: we dont track expression with no-const indices. For those we just report a warning even if they are safe for now: one can use a local variable to workaround. For loops this might be annoying: so one should be able to turn off locally the warning using the `{.warning[StrictCheckNotNil]:off}.`. +For now we support only constant indices: we dont track expression with no-const indices. For those we just report a warning even if they are safe for now: one can use a local variable to workaround. For loops this might be annoying: so one should be able to turn off locally the warning using the `{.warning[StrictNotNil]:off.}`. For bracket expressions, in the future we might count `a[]` as the same general expression. This means we should should the index but otherwise handle it the same for assign (maybe "aliasing" all the non-static elements) and differentiate only for static: e.g. `a[0]` and `a[1]`.