Jacques Carette
Jacques Carette
> so the overall picture seems highly... unclear (to me, at least). Ditto.
> Can we separate this PR out into a two parts, a set of backwards compatible changes, and a set of non-backwards compatible changes and then we can evaluate from...
The question remains: what should this PR actually look like? I'm having a hard time seeing the 'two parts' clearly, for some reason. And yeah, there's a very high cost...
Could this get another review @MatthewDaggitt ?
Ok, this now should be backwards compatible! If you could re-review @MatthewDaggitt and @jamesmckinna ?
I think this now deals with all the comments from @jamesmckinna and @MatthewDaggitt and is no longer breaking either.
It's actually not - it is failing because of warnings. A deprecated module isn't allowed to use deprecated things lest warnings get issued. I had removed the warning suppression, sigh....
I think the names are fine as they are (for the purposes of porting this). Made minor tweaks, but I think once the build comes back green, it can be...
I definitely think we're going to need either `Algebra.Action` or a different hierarchy altogether for multisorted Algebra. I rather think we should strongly embrace multi-sorted, rather than trying to fit...
Right. I don't know that we necessarily need a big refactor to do this. I personally would be fine if `Algebra` became to mean single-sorted algebra and the multi-sorted version...