Arsenii A.

Was writing a small toy implementation based on this one, and noticed this thing too! I agree this fix should be enough.

Stumbled into this right now, annotating a dataclass that can perfectly hold a `float` or a `Fraction`: a musical interval which can be both: a rational when we’re lucky—and then...

> PS. PEP 484 and mypy _do_ treat int as a virtual subclass of float, so you don't need `Union[int, float]`. (Oh. Right, thanks! I even read about this thing...

I have what appears the same issue (mypy 1.2, Python 3.11): A value of type `Token: = str | tuple[Literal['define'], str, str] | tuple[Literal['include'], str] | tuple[Literal['use'], str, int, int]`...

@Zambonifofex Could it be fixed the same way, then? A function with “constructors”, why not? It could even be a way to implement “overloaded” functions (whose types are perfectly expressible...

(Just some musings of an observer.) @jamesWalker55 that’s indeed what should happen if the buffer size is always constant. The actual frequency would be a subharmonic of the sample rate...

Yep that can be done deterministically and I can write out when exactly, right here for the future when it’ll be needed. It ends up somewhat like Bresenham's line drawing...

Revisiting this, I now see you’re processing sample by sample. That makes some things easier (than if it was block-in block-out). I’m probably going to try making a PR though...

Writing not much, I had encountered one or two cases where I’d be glad to have `?[]` operator with `?` like in `?.`—exactly what is proposed for `[]` to change...

Sorry to up this 2014-ish conversation, @pthariensflame Just some correction. It seems Haskell implementation of `Plus` doesn’t need `UndecidableInstances`. I tried in GHCi with this: ``` > :set -XTypeFamilies +m...