Joseph Ferano 879a439951 A written zero stands where a numeric type variable stands
pos? over every numeric type from one definition was the motivating
example for milestone 5 and was the one thing the landed generics could
not write: (> x 0) refused with "expected t, found the integer literal
0", because int_literal had no arm for a want that is a type variable.

It has one now, and the bound is what makes it sound rather than
optimistic. Every type numeric? admits is an integer or a float, and an
untyped integer constant is usable at all of them, so there is no
instantiation of a numeric? variable at which the literal has no
meaning. Under a weaker bound there is -- ordered? admits an enum -- so
numeric? is what is asked for and the refusal names it.

The float literal is refused at a type variable even under numeric?,
and that asymmetry is the concrete arms' own: an integer constant is
usable where a float is wanted and a float literal is never usable
where an integer is wanted, so a body written with 0.5 has no meaning
at the integer half of its own bound. Refusing at the definition is
what the abstract pass is for; the alternative is a surprise at
whichever call site first asks for i32.

The node the abstract pass builds is never emitted. Each copy
re-checks the same form with the variable substituted, and that is
where the literal is built at the concrete width and range-checked --
so (+ x 300) is fine at i32 and a refusal at u8, and u8 is where it is
refused.
2026-09-20 20:21:41 +07:00
..
2026-09-11 20:11:01 +07:00
2026-09-11 20:11:01 +07:00
2026-09-11 20:11:01 +07:00