-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 182
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add CoerceUnsized builtin rules #607
Conversation
e92c340
to
ffdc317
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This LGTM! One small nit, take or leave. I'm not sure if there's any particular solve tests we need? I suppose not since this is just WF.
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #612) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels:
|
a261ad5
to
68abca9
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 68abca9 has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
cc #363 |
So uhh either Im missing an obvious implementation option or we are missing a necessary abstraction to do things in a reasonable manner. The problem I ran into is that there is no way to extend sequent signature and clauses and query the solver about them. Consider this:
I think an an abstraction similar to goal builder where you can call
forall
andimplies
(and these alone) to push new things to the environment, and then call solver with the goals about vars inside the environment, would be nice, (but Im not sure).