Now that's a DIP that could use some love

[Paul Backus]

On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 19:58:45 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Instead of this half-baked hack of essentially writing comments 
> that repeat what the code already says, what we should be doing 
> is to take the current error messages one step further: when 
> some clause in a sig constraint fails, how about the compiler 
> ungags the errors that cropped up while evaluating that clause?
>  Instead of blindly ungagging *everything* 
> (*cough*-verrors=spec*cough*), which results in a deluge of 
> irrelevant errors that the one relevant message gets lost in, 
> ungag only the most likely relevant errors: the ones produced 
> when evaluating a failed sig constraint clause.

+1

The compiler is literally *already doing* all of the necessary 
work to determine why a given constraint failed. We just need it 
to *show* us that information in a way that's actually usable.