This seems ... surprising. Wouldn't a codemod work better?
-
-
-
I’m a fan of just fixing the expected semantics rather than just making it ‘any’...
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Does this mean you can do: const x: Object = {}; x();
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
WTF? This seems like an FB flow strict-ism that leaked into OSS JSON.stringify(‘We know better than you’, null, 2)
-
Not even all code is Flow strict at FB anyway. I’m disappointed that this change wasn’t widely visible to the community.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Available evidence is that it's impossible to write a JS typechecker without having types named Function and Object that you end up telling people to never use because they behave weirdly
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I wrote a codemod for this if it helps anyone:https://github.com/facebook/flow/issues/7291 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
he/him 