You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I could use a (natural ≥ 1) and a (natural ≥ 2) guarantee to hoist preconditions in places like (#77). Positive<T> and Radix<T> seem like nice candidates. I thought of names like Natural1<T> and Natural2<T> but I want all trusted input types to be meaningful. You can express (natural ≥ 1) as Positive<some FiniteInteger>. All binary integers can be reinterpreted as a same-size finite integer, so it would be available in all contexts as an unsafe option (at a minimum).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Well, the Positive<some FiniteInteger> reinterpretation idea is not great. It doesn't always give you a value of Self, so you have to make things unnecessarily generic and manage that.
I could use a (natural ≥ 1) and a (natural ≥ 2) guarantee to hoist preconditions in places like (#77). Positive<T> and Radix<T> seem like nice candidates. I thought of names like Natural1<T> and Natural2<T> but I want all trusted input types to be meaningful. You can express (natural ≥ 1) as Positive<some FiniteInteger>. All binary integers can be reinterpreted as a same-size finite integer, so it would be available in all contexts as an unsafe option (at a minimum).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: