Skip to content

[temp.constr.concept] Avoid talking about normalization of constraints #7790

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

lprv
Copy link
Contributor

@lprv lprv commented Mar 27, 2025

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is intentional. We do some weird normalization here.

@lprv
Copy link
Contributor Author

lprv commented Apr 1, 2025

In that case, how about:

Checking whether CI'' is satisfied can lead to substitution into, and normalization of, concept-ids of other concept-dependent constraints.

"Normalization of concept-dependent constraints" feels wrong to me because normalization is the process of turning expressions into constraints; a concept-dependent constraint is not itself an expression.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jun 17, 2025

@hubert-reinterpretcast, @opensdh could you speak to whether the status quo needs to be cleaned up here?

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jun 22, 2025

Or @cor3ntin?

@cor3ntin
Copy link
Contributor

I think normalization is what we mean here. Yes, we will also check satisfaction recursively but this is not notable. however, the fact that concept dependent constraints would be further normalized as they become non dependent is notable, as it is unusual.

status quo is therefore preferable.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jun 22, 2025

Thank you!

@tkoeppe tkoeppe closed this Jun 22, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants