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

Another lebensohl situation #100

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Sep 21, 2024
Merged

Another lebensohl situation #100

merged 12 commits into from
Sep 21, 2024

Conversation

penguinland
Copy link
Owner

This time we've got natural game-forcing bids at the 3 level.

@penguinland penguinland merged commit f3e7c2b into main Sep 21, 2024
2 checks passed
@penguinland penguinland deleted the lebensohl branch September 21, 2024 01:28
penguinland added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 21, 2024
When I reused the pattern of nested `<~` in #100, I got surprised that the types seemed off. Indeed, I ended up with a `State StdGen (State StdGen Situation)` instead of just a `State StdGen Situation`, but hadn't noticed because `wrap` takes the quickcheck-like approach of recursing on the inner types. This PR at least clarifies things, so the types are what I'm used to. Should I go further and remove the recursion from `wrap`? I considered it (I even have the change stashed right now), but ultimately think that having the extra flexibility might be a good thing in case it's needed for something weird in the future. It's not even the end of the world if everything works with weird types and I don't notice the weirdness until much later, as previously demonstrated. but when I do notice the weirdness, I should get rid of it so the code is easier to understand, hence this PR.
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.

1 participant