Skip to content
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

Doc: "Multiplicities" section roadmap #3264

Open
foxyseta opened this issue Apr 21, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Doc: "Multiplicities" section roadmap #3264

foxyseta opened this issue Apr 21, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@foxyseta
Copy link
Contributor

* :ref:`sect-erasure` - how to know what is relevant at run time and what is erased

The topics that are about to be covered are not listed in the right order. Is this intentional, as "Erasure" is mentioned to still be the most important topic?

@buzden
Copy link
Contributor

buzden commented Apr 22, 2024

Is this intentional, as "Erasure" is mentioned to still be the most important topic?

I don't quite understand the question, but erasure (i.e. quantity 0) is definitely the most important and most used non-default multiplicity value.

@foxyseta
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, was too concise to begin with. The doc goes like this:

"In this section, we'll talk about:

  • A
  • B
  • C"

* proceeds to talk about B first, A later, C last. *

So I thought maybe this was not intentional and you would like to be consistent in the order the topics are mentioned/covered? If not, my bad.

@buzden
Copy link
Contributor

buzden commented Apr 23, 2024

I agree that it would be more logical to have sections in the order "A, B, C", as in the prefix. I don't know exactly about intentions of the original documentation writer, but I'm sure it's okay to propose reordering of the sections.

@foxyseta
Copy link
Contributor Author

At some point there is an explicit declaration of intent along the lines of: "The most interesting, however, and the thing which gives Idris 2 much more expressivity, is linearity, so we'll start there." So it makes sense to me to take that as the author's intent.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants