Skip to content

Conversation

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor

@jamesmckinna jamesmckinna commented Sep 22, 2023

EXPERIMENTAL/DRAFT: See #2092.

Refinement types, and their syntax, are (at present) neither here nor there, but the rest of the PR is a moderately extended exploration of one mode of use: defining the Refinement associated with being non-null for a 'typeclass' supporting a null/non-null field... including Nat, List, ...

Possible target(s):

@MatthewDaggitt MatthewDaggitt added this to the v2.1 milestone Sep 26, 2023
@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixed merge conflict, but the (previously committed) line about <-irrefl now seems orphaned out-of-place. Something to pursue in tidying up CHANGELOG for v2.0...

@gallais
Copy link
Member

gallais commented Oct 3, 2023

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor Author

jamesmckinna commented Oct 4, 2023

Oh, for heaven's sake, RTFL...! 🤦
Thanks for the pointer. Sigh.

Still, what is there is fairly minimal, and few (none?) instantiations of the refinement concept elsewhere in the library, so should be room for ... refactoring, and reconciling the bool/Dec/Pred versions of the concept.

UPDATED: if #2260 is merged, then besides the wish for a conceptual reconciliation of all the Non* irrelevant instances as per issue #2092 , this could/should be closed as won't-merge or duplicate, while leaving the issue open...

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm going to close this, in favour of #2260

@jamesmckinna jamesmckinna added the status: won't-merge Decided against merging the PR in. label Jan 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants