I know the concepts. I just think it’s terrible jargon that fails to communicate unless everyone first syncs up on nbe.
Conversation
Agreed. I'm definitely interested in figuring out something better, even just for NbE. Let me know if you have any ideas!
1
I'm trying to figure out a better way to organise my modules in my core crate: github.com/brendanzab/rus
1
atm core (the syntax) is inside the syntax module. and domain is in the syntax module too (kind of at odds with nbe). Not sure what to call these modules and where to put them.
1
At least I'm pretty happy with the names I've used for the variants in my core syntax and elsewhere: github.com/brendanzab/rus
2
1
Apparently you use "literal" for sum or inductive types? I've always thought of that word as meaning "introduction form".
1
Oh, I don’t have inductive types yet. Maybe ‘builtin’ might be better?
1
(Yeah I wasn't quite sure what they were from those few lines :) just guessed based on the elimination form.)
Builtin would better convey the idea to *me* indeed, if that's what they are. Can't speak for anyone else of course :)
1
Yeah I kind of want literals to be more extensible to in the future too. So they’d be less.... builtin? ‘Constant’ perhaps?
1
I think an issue is I still don't know what feature we're discussing the name for :D
1
I think I'd call these 'primitives' but you already have something else called Prim? :)
Anyway Builtin is fine too. In what way were you contemplating making them less-builtin in the future?
1
Show replies