Skip to content
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

"more flexibility for comparable types" #1008

Open
evancz opened this issue Aug 5, 2015 · 0 comments
Open

"more flexibility for comparable types" #1008

evancz opened this issue Aug 5, 2015 · 0 comments
Labels
meta types

Comments

@evancz
Copy link
Member

evancz commented Aug 5, 2015 •
edited
Loading

If you want to add something to this, open a separate issue. If it is relevant, the resolution will be that it is added here.

There are a number of issues open about wanting comparable types to be more flexible in various ways. This issue aggregates them all in one place so we can see what things folks want in particular.
This was referenced Aug 5, 2015
Closed
Closed
Closed
@Apanatshka Apanatshka mentioned this issue Aug 7, 2015
Closed
@mroman42 mroman42 mentioned this issue Aug 25, 2015
Open
@evancz evancz added the meta label Sep 24, 2015
@evancz evancz changed the title Aggregated issues: "more flexibility for comparable types" "more flexibility for comparable types" Oct 5, 2015
@jvoigtlaender jvoigtlaender mentioned this issue Nov 16, 2015
Closed
@jvoigtlaender jvoigtlaender mentioned this issue Feb 11, 2016
Closed
@evancz evancz added the types label May 13, 2016
@hamiltop hamiltop mentioned this issue Jun 1, 2016
Closed
@evancz evancz mentioned this issue Sep 21, 2016
Closed
@elm elm locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 21, 2016
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
meta types
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@evancz