One thing I think might be problematic for you would be fallibility in the `Adapt` callback process. i.e. if it would not be sound to change the state of a child due to some emerging app state inconsistency or similar.
To put it differently, I understand your architecture outputs a new _statically typed_ tree every time through kind of recursive state mutation. However, being statically typed, it is clear from the start of the operation what the end complete static type will be (to the compiler at least). If the transformation of one of the children is not possible (although the rest might be fine), what do you do?
The obvious way would be to make each conversion fallible, but this might be a pain to use/propagate. Otherwise, you might have state that all operations involved in state mutation must be infallible.
Anyway just my 2c. I might have misunderstood the mechanism, though.
One thing I think might be problematic for you would be fallibility in the `Adapt` callback process. i.e. if it would not be sound to change the state of a child due to some emerging app state inconsistency or similar.
To put it differently, I understand your architecture outputs a new _statically typed_ tree every time through kind of recursive state mutation. However, being statically typed, it is clear from the start of the operation what the end complete static type will be (to the compiler at least). If the transformation of one of the children is not possible (although the rest might be fine), what do you do?
The obvious way would be to make each conversion fallible, but this might be a pain to use/propagate. Otherwise, you might have state that all operations involved in state mutation must be infallible.
Anyway just my 2c. I might have misunderstood the mechanism, though.
Thank you for all your impressive work!