1. 27 Oct, 2019 1 commit
  2. 29 Sep, 2019 1 commit
  3. 25 Sep, 2019 1 commit
  4. 23 Sep, 2019 1 commit
  5. 20 Jun, 2019 2 commits
  6. 19 Jun, 2019 2 commits
  7. 18 Jun, 2019 2 commits
  8. 16 Jun, 2019 1 commit
  9. 13 Jun, 2019 1 commit
  10. 12 Jun, 2019 2 commits
  11. 11 Jun, 2019 2 commits
  12. 08 Jun, 2019 2 commits
  13. 07 Jun, 2019 3 commits
  14. 05 Jun, 2019 1 commit
  15. 20 May, 2019 1 commit
  16. 17 May, 2019 1 commit
  17. 05 Mar, 2019 1 commit
  18. 28 Feb, 2019 1 commit
  19. 20 Feb, 2019 1 commit
  20. 18 Feb, 2019 1 commit
  21. 15 Feb, 2019 1 commit
  22. 23 Jan, 2019 2 commits
  23. 27 Sep, 2018 2 commits
  24. 29 Jun, 2018 1 commit
  25. 28 Jun, 2018 1 commit
  26. 29 May, 2018 2 commits
  27. 28 May, 2018 1 commit
  28. 01 May, 2018 1 commit
    • Jente Hidskes's avatar
      GrammarSemantics: use Completion arrow transformer · 28dddf8c
      Jente Hidskes authored
      This alleviates the need to define a `Complete [Term]` instance, which
      does not make sense. The requirement for this instance comes from
      `eval'`, which requires `Arrowtry (t,[t]) (t,[t]) (t,[t]) c` due to
      `some` and `all`.
      
      We circumvent this now by using a new `Completion` arrow transformer,
      whose `Complete` instance requires a `Complete (FreeComplete y)`
      instance such that there is no requirement for a `Complete y` instance.
      
      With this, we can derive a `Complete` instance for the `Interp a b`
      arrow that does not require `Complete b`, but rather `PreOrd b`.
      28dddf8c
  29. 12 Apr, 2018 1 commit