02:07 <wmoxam> @Blacksmoke16 yeah, that way works. Thanks!

02:08 <FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> 👍

08:35 <kevinsjoberg> What editor are people using for Crystal development?

08:37 <kevinsjoberg> I'm doing some research into editor popularity. Especially for Crystal. That's why I'm asking. :)

08:59 <FromGitter> <remiliascarlet:nanako.mooo.com> I always use Emacs

09:05 <FromGitter> <moe:busyloop.net> Vim and sometimes VSCode

11:34 <hightower4> vim here

12:20 <FromGitter> <riffraff169> vi

12:21 <FromGitter> <riffraff169> but i use vi for all my code, so...

17:02 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> I used VSCode or rarely Vim if it's more convenient.

17:02 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> *use

22:19 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> Am I doing something wrong, or does it not work to use `ASTNode` type restrictions in macros?

22:19 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> E.g. https://carc.in/#/r/daev

22:19 <FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> cant do that

22:19 <FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> would have to check in the macr body

22:20 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> Okay, gotcha.

22:27 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> I guess this is what I was looking for: https://carc.in/#/r/daf1

22:27 <FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> ye

22:28 <FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> can have it raise a compile time error if thats what you want

22:28 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> It's a bit clumsy for compile-time literal checking, which is what I want to be able to do, but I guess it works.

22:29 <FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> `{% arr.raise "Only static arrays are allowed" unless arr.is_a? ArrayLiteral %}`

22:31 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> Yeah, I know how to do that (e.g. for raising at compile-time when the generic type doesn't make sense). What I want is a "when you can" approach to compile-time checking. I need a minute to get another example of what I'm thinking about.

22:32 <FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> 👍

22:36 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> https://carc.in/#/r/daf3

22:37 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> Except, ideally, the user wouldn't even know that there's a macro at work. Those cases would just be caught by the compiler with a small cost in compile time and no extra work for a user of a library or whatever.

22:40 <FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> can you define a macro called `new`

22:40 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> I hadn't tried yet. I was scared. :P

22:41 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> It seems to have killed carc.in. Lemme try it on my machine. I think what happened was I created a compile-time infinite recursion.

22:42 <FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> :P

22:43 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> ```code paste, see link``` [https://gitter.im/crystal-lang/crystal?at=62a2777fdeea5616bbed18eb]

22:43 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> Yep!

22:47 <FromGitter> <RespiteSage> The gist (lowercase) of my RFC I started was to expose more concrete information about method arguments based on their instantiations in order to provide things like whether they're a literal, but I abandoned that line of thinking when considering just how much extra overhead it would probably have to add to the compiler.