On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 9:26:54 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
> That's a fair point. It seems like it could/should be handled by the same
> (not-yet-implemented) mechanism that ensures that `convert(T,x)::T` is
> true. Of course, we could choose to enforce this fact via lowering in this
> case, independent of enforcing it for convert.
I think we should add a typeassert in the lowering for this syntax. I'm
confused because Jeff's PR actually claimed it was using convert(T, val)::T ---