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
Collect proposals for extensions to the IDE protocol concerning semantic highlighting. This is currently a stub issue, hopefully we will expand it with time.
Unsafe features
Currently, the emacs mode highlights unsafe functions (believe_me, assert_total etc.), but this is not part of the protocol.
We could extend the protocol with additional messages highlighting unsafe functions, so that IDEs don't have to track them themselves.
Totality highlighting
Currently we only highlight functions, but perhaps we could differentiate whether the function is total, covering, partial.
Also for datatypes (strict positivity).
Extension
also use this information as part of error messages, e.g., if a totality check fails, we can highlight the non-decreasing cycle/call and its arguments in the partial decoration.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Collect proposals for extensions to the IDE protocol concerning semantic highlighting. This is currently a stub issue, hopefully we will expand it with time.
Unsafe features
Currently, the emacs mode highlights unsafe functions (
believe_me
,assert_total
etc.), but this is not part of the protocol.We could extend the protocol with additional messages highlighting unsafe functions, so that IDEs don't have to track them themselves.
Totality highlighting
Currently we only highlight functions, but perhaps we could differentiate whether the function is total, covering, partial.
Also for datatypes (strict positivity).
Extension
also use this information as part of error messages, e.g., if a totality check fails, we can highlight the non-decreasing cycle/call and its arguments in the
partial
decoration.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: