Erik Erlandson

@soronpo that is how it's working. `Add` is just an implementation detail for how `implicitly[OpIntercept[+, Fraction...` is actually resolved

Think I may have localized the problem to needing a new case in `usingFuncName`

No, that's fine. It would probably be easier to debug this with a simpler test case to start with.

factored the basic machinery in `OpMacro` out to #147

@soronpro I rebased this off of #149 and refactored it. It is still WIP but the basic operations `+ - * /` are working.

> Why do you use an upper-bound `

@soronpo another policy question is whether this is consistent with the rest of the library: ```scala rat: Require[IsRational[LHS] || IsRational[RHS]], lhs: OpGen.Aux[ToRational[LHS], Rational[LN, LD]], rhs: OpGen.Aux[ToRational[RHS], Rational[RN, RD]], ``` That...

> I can add support for extended support for primitive through OpIntercept and the conversion. What is your opinion on the issue of conversion interactions? For example, if I write...

requiring something like `rat: Require[IsRational[LHS] || IsRational[RHS]]` may sufficiently disambiguate things but implicit matching is tricky to reason about when possible conversions are also in the mix, and I don't...

> You need to have a separation: If that is sufficient, then a single rule including `rat: Require[IsRational[LHS] || IsRational[RHS]]` ought to work. It only applies if at least one...