Mike Solomon

Digging a bit further, it seems that the `:not(.collapsed)` style reverts to the default styling. Is there any way to theme this? Thanks !

Unfortunately no, I moved onto another project.

I think the VM idea is really good. One thing that may be worth exploring is using the C++ backend for this, which already has a mature community and FFI...

Great! I just saw it [on your github](https://github.com/purescript-python/purescript-quickcheck.py). So if I understand correctly, the blocker is their use of the `String` type? While I still need to dig deeper into...

Sounds good. Just FYI, quickcheck works just fine with a basic example using the port you made! ```purescript module Main where import Prelude import Effect (Effect) import Effect.Console (log) import...

Thanks! I tried this, but it looks like the problem still persists: ```purescript -- snippet from Main.purs addM :: Maybe Int -> Maybe Int -> Maybe Int addM a b...

> A test would be nice, along the lines of previous iteration #3979. Is there a way to assert that the codegen is correct? Testing the functionality is important too...

> Yeah, have a look in tests/purs/optimize. Awesome, thanks for the tip! Would it make sense, then, to wait on this PR until https://github.com/purescript/purescript-st/pull/52 lands?

I added a test & it passes. I think it's good to go from a functionality standpoint, but lemme know if there's anything I'm missing in terms of style/form.

It looks like there are a couple regressions when removing this check, ie: ```purescript module Main where import Prelude import Effect.Console (log) data X a = X x :: forall...