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
For example, I can't have an empty auxiliary { } statement. These kind of checks seem unnecessary and are a bit annoying when setting things up for a new type system. See also #150 (e.g., the order of auxiliary definitions, rules and checkrules shouldn't really matter)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, I'm not sure I understand what's the problem with this specific error: when you start writing auxiliary { } you'll get an error, but as soon you add one the error goes away... or am I missing something?
This is only a small annoyance. I'm getting used to the whole XSemantics setup, i.e., first specifying auxiliary functions, then the judgements. In the first iteration of implementation, I might not need any auxiliary functions though, but I prefer to already specify an empty auxiliary { } statement. I don't see a reason why it should be disallowed, hence this issue. Again, this is only a small annoyance though.
Thank you for following up on all my issues btw, your help is much appreciated.
For example, I can't have an empty
auxiliary { }
statement. These kind of checks seem unnecessary and are a bit annoying when setting things up for a new type system. See also #150 (e.g., the order of auxiliary definitions, rules and checkrules shouldn't really matter)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: