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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 25, 2021. It is now read-only.
You're right, technically there's no shadowing.
One could argue that it would be easier to understand if you don't use the same name for both type parameters.
I don't have a strong opinion on that. It would be some effort to implement it, but it's doable.
I'm being hit by this as well.
I think it's actually better for readability for both type parameters to have the same name if they are both referring to the "same thing"
[new-rule-option] `no-shadowed-variable` let's you optionally ignore certain kinds of declarations
[bugfix] `no-shadowed-variable` fixed false positive with parameter inside function decorator
Fixes: #3000
[bugfix] `no-shadowed-variable` don't warn for shadowed type parameter on static class members
Fixes: #3019
[new-rule-option] `no-shadowed-variable` let's you optionally ignore certain kinds of declarations
[bugfix] `no-shadowed-variable` fixed false positive with parameter inside function decorator
Fixes: palantir#3000
[bugfix] `no-shadowed-variable` don't warn for shadowed type parameter on static class members
Fixes: palantir#3019
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Bug Report
TypeScript code being linted
with
tslint.json
configuration:Actual behavior
Complains on shadowed name 'T'
Expected behavior
No error since there is no shadowing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: