@tsoding Static: there are types
Dynamic: types left as an exercise to the reader
Strong: relate things with common sense
Weak: relate things in an acid trip
@tyroverby Line 1, character 20 corresponds to the `+` of your first let (I didn't reproduce your code literally :)).
In short, it highlights two locations: the third let for an unfinished let-binding, the `+` for an unfinished expression.
More experiments needed, especially for the UI.
@tyroverby FWIW, here is the message produced by my system for your example:
`Error: Expecting 'in' after let bindings in an expression.
This might be due to the unterminated expression at line 1, character 20`
@tyroverby As @JulesJacobs5 pointed out indentation gives a lot of information here, e.g to rank the two problems: if the let is less indented, the "x +" is very likely to be the problem; if more indented, it's at least a fishy style.
Though I don't know how to present that to the user
@welltypedwitch@ChShersh Unless I misunderstand what you are looking for, I think they could give a nice map interface. Absence of coherence is not a problem, we can enforce that the right ordering is always used at the type level.
For some time I have been working on TeXpresso, a custom tool to smooth out my #LaTeX workflow.
For the first time this week, I was able to use it to present at a seminar. (Sorry for the typos!) #TeX#Tectonic#emacs
@gro_tsen This is a recurrent problem in TeX/LaTeX. The layout algorithm itself is limited yet very good at what it does. The frontend is atrocious. Yet with a lot of hacks, we can mimic features and make things relatively composable in the frontend.
@gro_tsen TeX itself would only pass it to the output un-interpreted, and the DVI processor could do the right job (actually it would be handled just like in word processors by locally changing the font).
@DoctorHu_@taktoa1@_wilfredh I am not sure why you would want that. There is only need for a single "never" (though I know it by the names empty, unhabitated, zero or void; but not "C" void which is 1 / unit though). Its logical interpretation is "โ a. a", and it can be equal to itself.
@johnwhitington I tried the third code and it worked! Thatโs a very nice surprise, thank you. (A coincidence, I just started reading https://t.co/Xw0XGSwMk1)
Random rusty thought: โatomic' is the unsafe of data. (Or, rather, atomic writes are to concurrent data structures what unsafe is to code: they can silently break invariants, with the addition that they look safer than the scary unsafe)