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
I'm confused / not entirely happy with the way destructor names are namespaced. Currently, if I understand the source code (and prelude.uro) correctly, destructor names are disambiguated by the type of their receiver (aka. the "inner type") and sometimes (or always?) also by their arity.
While that works great for destructors, it wouldn't work so well for constructors and functions. But I would much prefer if name lookup rules would treat all of destructor names, constructor names and function names as similar as possible.
(This issue is mostly for discussion, I'm currently refactoring Checker.hs anyway and could add these changes after we decide how name lookup should work).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm confused / not entirely happy with the way destructor names are namespaced. Currently, if I understand the source code (and prelude.uro) correctly, destructor names are disambiguated by the type of their receiver (aka. the "inner type") and sometimes (or always?) also by their arity.
While that works great for destructors, it wouldn't work so well for constructors and functions. But I would much prefer if name lookup rules would treat all of destructor names, constructor names and function names as similar as possible.
(This issue is mostly for discussion, I'm currently refactoring Checker.hs anyway and could add these changes after we decide how name lookup should work).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: