Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@theCalcaholic if you're referring to shadowing, that was not the case. What solved it was removing the type completely because it was declared in the function Definition.
-
@Teknas Isn't that shadowing? ^^
-
@theCalcaholic I might be wrong but I guess declaring a variable with the same name in an inner scope is shadowing
-
@Teknas Yes it is. I think I misunderstood you. You didn't remove the type *definition*, but the typing of the variable to fix it, right?
-
@theCalcaholic I removed the type definition of the variable consuming the object. Because it was declared in the producer, the consumer didn't need to specify type.
Found this in our codebase, apparently one of my co-workers had written this
Type checking huh ?
joke/meme
wtf