-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 247
Consider where we can use opaque
mechanism to provide abstraction
#2136
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
Comments
I'd love this to be done! Maybe for 2.1 rather than 2.0 though? |
We can't do it for |
piano, piano FWIW, I think there are a few (!?) too many moving targets at the moment for the v2.0 release to incorporate such a new feature, especially as we have delayed and delayed and delayed the release for all kinds of reasons already. Regarding v3.0, maybe we should be planning for this now, and not anticipating too many v2.x bumps? |
Eg, I've been working on a revised version of #2055 which
plus misc. other overhauls. I don't want to hold anything up trying to argue for this now just because v2.0 will be the titanic breaking release... I think there will be more of those to come in future, and we should plan for that. Mind you, if @MatthewDaggitt has self-assigned the current issue, we might have a PR for it before the meeting today ;-) |
Hmm I was trying, but it turns out there's some subtlety to Maybe I'll leave this one lie for v3.0 as @jamesmckinna suggests. |
opaque
mechanism to provide abstraction
Maybe now that
opaque
is implemented in Agda 2.6.4 we should revisit our solution to #1753.This is exactly the situation that the new
opaque
mechanism was designed for. What are people's thoughts? Too risky to adopt a cutting edge feature? In v3.0 I would imagine we will be making a lot of definitionsopaque
in the library?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: