Open konsumlamm opened 3 years ago
This wasn't covered by my RFC. I think this requires a different RFC, "name resolution in generics that use new-styled concepts". That said, I agree that we should do it. But notice that symbol lookup is only the first step, we could also type-check generic bodies completely.
Defining a concept without any type that matches it, leads to errors when trying to use that concept.
Example
Current Output
Expected Output
No error.
Possible Solution
Make name resolution consider concept declarations (
compare
in this case).Additional Information