You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I was doing a refactor starting at a call site where I removed an argument to a function, so the call went from e.g. arity 4 to arity 3. If you then try to go-to-definition for that call, it fails because name/3 doesn't exist.
In these cases, I think it would be an improvement to go to the definition that does exist, even if the arity doesn't match.
There's a question of which definition to go to. You could say "closest arity", but if you go-to-definition for name/4 and there's a name/3 and name/5, you still have to somewhat-arbitrarily pick. For simplicity, I'm inclined to go to the lowest-arity existing definition for name. This means that it would go to name/0 if that existed, even though it's probably not what you want, but I think it's the most understandable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I was doing a refactor starting at a call site where I removed an argument to a function, so the call went from e.g. arity 4 to arity 3. If you then try to go-to-definition for that call, it fails because
name/3
doesn't exist.In these cases, I think it would be an improvement to go to the definition that does exist, even if the arity doesn't match.
There's a question of which definition to go to. You could say "closest arity", but if you go-to-definition for
name/4
and there's aname/3
andname/5
, you still have to somewhat-arbitrarily pick. For simplicity, I'm inclined to go to the lowest-arity existing definition forname
. This means that it would go toname/0
if that existed, even though it's probably not what you want, but I think it's the most understandable.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: