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

Consider abandoning DPred #106

Closed
goldfirere opened this issue Jan 3, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

Consider abandoning DPred #106

goldfirere opened this issue Jan 3, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels

Comments

@goldfirere
Copy link
Owner

Once upon a type, predicates were much simpler than ordinary types. In those halcyon days, it made sense to separate DPred from DType so that code that consumes predicates needn't match on impossible cases.

Those days are long gone now. It's true that we'll never have, say, a literal at the head of a predicate, but that's really a kind error, not a syntax error. And I worry that keeping DPred separate isn't really worth it anymore.

What think you?

@goldfirere goldfirere added the task label Jan 3, 2019
@RyanGlScott
Copy link
Collaborator

I would support this. There's quite a bit of faffing about in the code to convert from DPreds to DTypes in various places, which feels silly given that DType only differs from DPred in two places.

goldfirere pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 3, 2019
This patch also changes the constructor names for DPat, which
no longer need Pa suffixes, but can suffice with P.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants