On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 01:04:14PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > The change is cosmetic and has an unintended impact on code gen, which > imo already puts a question mark on it. > > Neither the change itself nor the resulting impact are of note and in > that case I would err on just not including it for the time being, but > that's just my $0.03. Im not sure how you came up with that opinion but as you might have guessed I don't agree at all. Having the proper types is more than just cosmetic, on the other hand the code generation change you see can easily be argued as cosmetic. You've also completely ignored the request to show any indication that it actually matters the slightest.
