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
Empty string type (because in the cases when they're empty, they don't add anything)
.worthy-attributes used to be just an inner convenience sub, at which point it was OK and nobody's business. But as part of 690f60a, it got promoted to a method, and this makes it ugly. To me it suggests that both static-lexpad and type should die a gruesome death so the method can be removed.
Removing static-lexpad is the big mystery. It's all tangled up in exactly how much "context" a Qtree really has (or should have). Related tickets are #20 and #47.
Removing type should be dead easy. I think it was there to make some nicer stringification, basically. But after #45 I bet it isn't even used. I could be wrong, though — maybe it's used in custom operator lookup? If it is, then the correct way forward is to allow it on all of them, again making this exception go away.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is an internal thing, but kind of a technical debt issue.
We filter away two things:
static-lexpad
a thing inQ::Statementsblockswhich we're not even sure belongs there or anywhere, reallytype
(because in the cases when they're empty, they don't add anything).worthy-attributes
used to be just an inner convenience sub, at which point it was OK and nobody's business. But as part of 690f60a, it got promoted to a method, and this makes it ugly. To me it suggests that bothstatic-lexpad
andtype
should die a gruesome death so the method can be removed.Removing
static-lexpad
is the big mystery. It's all tangled up in exactly how much "context" a Qtree really has (or should have). Related tickets are #20 and #47.Removing
type
should be dead easy. I think it was there to make some nicer stringification, basically. But after #45 I bet it isn't even used. I could be wrong, though — maybe it's used in custom operator lookup? If it is, then the correct way forward is to allow it on all of them, again making this exception go away.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: