-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 218
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
unify Combine and CombineTypes #2651
Open
winitzki
wants to merge
9
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
feature/unify-Combine-and-CombineTypes
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b66de13
wip add the functionality of CombineTypes to Combine
winitzki e07a39e
wip
winitzki 068d623
pretty-print //\\ as /\ now globlly
winitzki bb59a38
typechecking of record type /\ record type
winitzki f7c03e3
undo the formatting change because tests fail
winitzki d21abae
implement /\ reduction for record types
winitzki be4ea39
fix isNormalized
winitzki 11a7b3c
add comment
winitzki 8050d24
remove wrong import
winitzki File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
I think it would be better to first construct
leftTypeOrRecord
, thenrightTypeOfRecord
, and do the check that they are bothLeft
or bothRight
afterwards in a separate step.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.
I'm not sure I understand your comment. It appears to me that my code already does what you say: it first constructs
leftTypeOrRecord
, thenrightTypeOfRecord
, and then checks that they are both Left or both Right in a separate expression.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.
What I mean is that you match on
leftTypeOrRecord
when you constructrightTypeOrRecord
.I think something like the following results in better error messages: