Chandler Carruth

> Previously we've said that if there's more than one `.Self` in scope, they must all agree, in some loose sense (they can have different facet types so long as...

> > > Previously we've said that if there's more than one `.Self` in scope, they must all agree, in some loose sense (they can have different facet types so...

My stance on this is that we should try out the minimal set of restrictions and see what happens. I feel like we can easily tighten these rules later if...

I'd like to highlight this part of the original report, because that's true for the case I'm seeing as well: > In this case it doesn't seem like it's a...

> as a quick workaround we've just patched out this warning to silence it Got a handy link to the patch out? Given silence here, interested in doing that too.

> Duplicate of #1377? Yeah, but some information in each that is missing from the other. Will leave up to you how you want to merge.

I'd really like this to not just be a "feature request" if my issue is going to be de-duped to it, only being un-staled in 2023. Without this, it is...

So, I'm most of the way through adding really nice support for handling stateful keys like indices into vectors and such. It turned out to be necessary to even move...

> > So, I'm most of the way through adding really nice support for handling stateful keys like indices into vectors and such. It turned out to be necessary to...

Huge thanks to Josh for all the review on this ... really extensive PR. Also thanks to all the folks who gave feedback on the design or approach or discussed!