From edfaf896e4d68a2da03871774c5f722d8a2f36e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Peter <mail@david-peter.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:09:24 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Shorten comment regarding union types

---
 crates/red_knot_python_semantic/src/types.rs | 8 +++-----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/crates/red_knot_python_semantic/src/types.rs b/crates/red_knot_python_semantic/src/types.rs
index b6a99c9acd..8c6e2e7c47 100644
--- a/crates/red_knot_python_semantic/src/types.rs
+++ b/crates/red_knot_python_semantic/src/types.rs
@@ -496,11 +496,9 @@ impl<'db> Type<'db> {
                 tuple.elements(db).is_empty()
             }
             Type::Union(..) => {
-                // There are some rare edge cases where a union type might be a singleton type.
-                // For example, a union with just one element (which itself is a singleton). Or
-                // a union with an empty type (e.g. Never | None). Here, we assume that such
-                // types would have been simplified to a different representation earlier and
-                // simply return false.
+                // A single-element union, where the sole element was a singleton, would itself
+                // be a singleton type. However, unions with length < 2 should never appear in
+                // our model due to [`UnionBuilder::build`].
                 false
             }
             Type::Intersection(..) => {