You said two things (A, B); I pointed out that they seem incompatible; you doubled down on one of them (A).
Did you intend to give up the other (B), or to refute the notion that they are incompatible?
For clarity, A is "what they are doing is not type inference" and B is "what they are doing is a special case of type inference". Either of these positions seems reasonable to me, but as I noted they seem to conflict.
You said two things (A, B); I pointed out that they seem incompatible; you doubled down on one of them (A).
Did you intend to give up the other (B), or to refute the notion that they are incompatible?
For clarity, A is "what they are doing is not type inference" and B is "what they are doing is a special case of type inference". Either of these positions seems reasonable to me, but as I noted they seem to conflict.