Ameen Radwan

Ok I think I get what you mean. Yeah I guess we'd have to run the new/changed source and attempt an incomplete parse. For now it could start with just...

Ahh fair enough. Probably getting ahead of myself. Lemme try that and get this going

https://github.com/gleam-lang/gleam/assets/5996838/309576dd-3b4c-41e9-a581-017f6336af57 Ok tried out what you suggested and tested it out a bit on local. Seems to work nicely and take into account the current src well. The only kinda...

So for this would it make sense to just change the existing error messages from `Expected type:` and `Found type:` to `Expected a value of type:` and `Found a value...

Or i guess said differently, is the idea to provide something like this: ``` error: Unknown variable ┌─ /src/one/two.gleam:1:1 │ 1 │ Int │ ^^^ A type with the same...

FWIW as far as I could tell this actually is not specific to `use` but rather to any block that returns a function ```gleam fn b() { { fn(cb) {...

It looks like this is a package-specific issue. lustre's first RC uses the format "4.0.0-rc1" whereas the second one is "4.0.0-rc.2" and so when comparing the preversions "rc1" is compared...

ahhh I misread the version 🤦🏽 I'm gonna try looking into this one a bit

-_- ok so at the very least I figured out why this happens. It turns out the way pubgrub checks "exact" is it checks that it checks a non-inclusive range...

I'm not entirely sure what the best way to solve this is. My original gut reaction was to make `bump` for pre versions not actually bump patch and instead just...