infer | An R package for tidyverse-friendly statistical inference | Analytics library

See microsoft/TypeScript#43667 for a canonical answer. This is a design limitation of TypeScript.

As you might be aware: in TypeScript's structural type system, Child is a subtype of Base even though it is not explicitly declared as such. So every value of type Child is also a value of type Base (although not vice-versa). That means Child | Base is equivalent to Base... although the compiler is not always aggressive about reducing the former to the latter. (Compare this to the behavior with something like "foo" | string, which is always immediately reduced to string by the compiler.)

Subtype reduction is often desirable, but there are some places where Child | Base's behavior is observably different from Base's, such as excess property checks, IntelliSense hinting, or the sort of unsound type guarding that happens with the in operator. You haven't shown why it matters to you that you are getting a Base as opposed to a Child | Base, but presumably it's one of these observable differences or something like it.

My advice here is first to think carefully about whether or not you really need this distinction. If so, then you might consider preventing Base from being a subtype of Child, possibly by adding an optional property to it:

We have not given any sort of compilation command here.

No, but most modern IDEs can do similar "static analysis" that compilers do to determine types, etc. Some even do a very lightweight "compile" to determine what overloads are appropriate, etc.

Also note that IDEs and the actual compiler may not always agree. IDE analysis is designed to be very fast, so the analysis done by the IDE may be less robust and less accurate than a static compiler.

So in a sense these are all "compile-time" in that the only information that is available is what is present in the code. This is opposed to "run-time" where other factors such as user input, environment, and state can change the flow and interpretation of the program in ways that the compiler could not account for.

You can use a type predicate to define a user-defined type guard like this:

The best I have so far is { person: message.person, tag: 1 }.

Is there shorthand initializer syntax to achieve this?

No, this is still they way to go.

hoping that a property name would magically be inferred from person

Your immediate issue is that T: GarbageBin<'a, 'b> where 'a and 'b are parameters of create_bin_with_rubbish and must therefore outlive calls to that function—but the actual lifetimes passed to T::new are only internal to the function and do not therefore satisfy those bounds.

Instead of parameterising create_bin_with_rubbish with lifetimes 'a and 'b, one way to resolve this would be to use instead an HRTB (higher-ranked trait bound):

I had the same problem, man. I want to transplant tflite to the development board of CEVA. There is no problem in compiling. In the process of running, there is also an error in AddBuiltin(full_connect). At present, the only possible situation I guess is that some devices can not support tflite.

Assuming what I mentioned in my comment on your question, the fix is just to simplify your FieldWithConfidence type significantly. Right now it is trying to add a number of additional levels of structure beyond what you seem to want. Here is a version of that type that works as I think you intend:

In the first case:

Seems to be a prime case for fancy indexing (advanced indexing).

Something like this should do the trick, though I didn't verify it on an actual image. I've added a section to reconstruct the image in the beginning, because it is easier to work with the array as a whole than broken into parts. Likely, you can refactor this and avoid splitting it to begin with.