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
We might want to allow dependent lambdas binding types in the future, changing to a data type identifiers seems like a hack we should get rid of.
Initially things blew up because some traversal paths for dependent lambdas on type identifiers were missing, once I added those the trouble seemed to be with the fission tests in the fissionFussion suite and the simple fusion test in the traversals suite: they use mapLastFission, which only works on data types, weakening this condition breaks inference on the rewritten term. Originally posted by @Bastacyclop in #176 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We might want to allow dependent lambdas binding types in the future, changing to a data type identifiers seems like a hack we should get rid of.
Initially things blew up because some traversal paths for dependent lambdas on type identifiers were missing, once I added those the trouble seemed to be with the fission tests in the fissionFussion suite and the simple fusion test in the traversals suite: they use
mapLastFission
, which only works on data types, weakening this condition breaks inference on the rewritten term.Originally posted by @Bastacyclop in #176 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: