You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, when an example contains an error or when the user asks for it, we roll back the elaborator state after an example.
This is generally the right thing, but it has one downside: the unique variable counter gets reset, and later elaborator runs might re-use internal IDs. This can lead to mistaken extra highlights:
There should be some way of preventing this, e.g. by postprocessing the elaborated example to extract the highest ID, then bumping the counter.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, when an example contains an error or when the user asks for it, we roll back the elaborator state after an example.
This is generally the right thing, but it has one downside: the unique variable counter gets reset, and later elaborator runs might re-use internal IDs. This can lead to mistaken extra highlights:
There should be some way of preventing this, e.g. by postprocessing the elaborated example to extract the highest ID, then bumping the counter.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: