Skip to content

Conversation

@munificent
Copy link
Member

Fix #3690.

@munificent munificent requested a review from lrhn October 24, 2025 00:25
Copy link
Member

@lrhn lrhn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Feel free to ignore my usual "denotational semantics are better" spiel.
What you have is consistent with the rest. (It's not more under-specified than the rest, and probably not than the entire existing specification, it'll fit right in.)

@munificent
Copy link
Member Author

munificent commented Oct 30, 2025

Let me know if this looks better.

Copy link
Member

@lrhn lrhn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(And then I'll just have to argue in issu 4542 that two implements shouldn't be an error.)

@munificent munificent merged commit f06f874 into main Nov 12, 2025
4 checks passed
@munificent munificent deleted the clarify-augmentation-errors branch November 12, 2025 23:30
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Specify which errors are reported before and which after augmentations are applied

3 participants