>Given a type T, if we can prove some property exists for all of T's minimal substructures, and all of T's immediate substructures, then this property must also hold for T itself.
I'm pretty sure people don't like this explanation because it implicitly assumes a directed acyclic graph and a reduction operation that takes a set of T and produces a single composite T.
bietroi 3 days ago [-]
Oh, that's pretty funny actually.
In retrospect, if I cared about getting peoples' attention I should have mentioned something about "static reflection", or positioned this as more of a direct "threat" to macro expansion (and made it opt-in instead of opt-out, I forgot how frightened people are by any new ability to infer things).
I'm just a coder, not an influencer, though I do have one additional change in mind which borders on sensationalism.
Rendered at 16:44:38 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I'm pretty sure people don't like this explanation because it implicitly assumes a directed acyclic graph and a reduction operation that takes a set of T and produces a single composite T.
In retrospect, if I cared about getting peoples' attention I should have mentioned something about "static reflection", or positioned this as more of a direct "threat" to macro expansion (and made it opt-in instead of opt-out, I forgot how frightened people are by any new ability to infer things).
I'm just a coder, not an influencer, though I do have one additional change in mind which borders on sensationalism.