Newest at the top
2025-05-08 00:01:23 +0200 | <hellwolf> | semantics |
2025-05-08 00:01:20 +0200 | <hellwolf> | that's incorrect |
2025-05-08 00:01:18 +0200 | <hellwolf> | otherwise storage or external messages sent twice |
2025-05-08 00:01:10 +0200 | <hellwolf> | there you can't duplicate |
2025-05-08 00:01:07 +0200 | <hellwolf> | so, I try to use linear-types only for effectful stuff |
2025-05-08 00:00:38 +0200 | <hellwolf> | could be a next step in next version. |
2025-05-08 00:00:27 +0200 | <hellwolf> | that's an interesting idea |
2025-05-08 00:00:13 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I'd rather say that every constructor in your GADT gets an additional field: the label |
2025-05-08 00:00:02 +0200 | <hellwolf> | heh, yea, my domain happens to have small programs; safety is more important there, which I am trying to sell |
2025-05-08 00:00:02 +0200 | <hellwolf> | 05-08 00:59 <tomsmeding> your users whose program now takes ages, will care |
2025-05-07 23:59:30 +0200 | <hellwolf> | so anything that doesn't belong to a category, I call it "special constructor" in my GADT |
2025-05-07 23:59:30 +0200 | <hellwolf> | 05-08 00:59 <tomsmeding> special constructor? |
2025-05-07 23:59:22 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | your users whose program now takes ages, will care |
2025-05-07 23:59:09 +0200 | <hellwolf> | who cares |
2025-05-07 23:59:07 +0200 | <hellwolf> | I am a recovering conalist, so sometimes I still say, it's denotationally the same |
2025-05-07 23:59:03 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | special constructor? |
2025-05-07 23:58:49 +0200 | <hellwolf> | but that's introducing special constructor |
2025-05-07 23:58:39 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | accelerate uses stablenames |
2025-05-07 23:58:29 +0200 | <hellwolf> | labeling, I thought of it |
2025-05-07 23:58:26 +0200 | <hellwolf> | yep |
2025-05-07 23:58:21 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | either using `StableName`s, or by generating unique IDs for every created AST node using unsafePerformIO |
2025-05-07 23:58:05 +0200 | <hellwolf> | without sharing, either you do a non-linear-type dup (\(x1, x2) -> _ produce a single diagram) |
2025-05-07 23:57:58 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | there's another option you haven't mentioned yet: make the implicit haskell-heap-sharing of expressions visible |
2025-05-07 23:56:58 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | your expression will be exponentially large |
2025-05-07 23:56:53 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | fixing _complete_ lack of sharing using an optimiser is hopeless |
2025-05-07 23:56:49 +0200 | <hellwolf> | the fact that I separate purity gives me choice |
2025-05-07 23:56:36 +0200 | <hellwolf> | I try to avoid it |
2025-05-07 23:56:34 +0200 | <hellwolf> | yes, |
2025-05-07 23:56:31 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | but at a big ergonomics cost |
2025-05-07 23:56:27 +0200 | <hellwolf> | 2. having explicit diagrams duplication in a helper function, similar to linear type versioned dup'l function, but not using linear types |
2025-05-07 23:56:26 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | oh I see, linear types let you avoid the sharing issue indeed |
2025-05-07 23:55:58 +0200 | <hellwolf> | it has two solutions: 1. don't care, denotational/conalism, give me an optimizer |
2025-05-07 23:55:39 +0200 | <hellwolf> | of diagrams |
2025-05-07 23:55:34 +0200 | <hellwolf> | that has duplication |
2025-05-07 23:55:24 +0200 | <hellwolf> | varSharing is the version without lineartypes |
2025-05-07 23:55:17 +0200 | <hellwolf> | right? |
2025-05-07 23:55:15 +0200 | <hellwolf> | because of linear types, you don't share, you explicitly dup |
2025-05-07 23:55:01 +0200 | <hellwolf> | varSharingL has a linear-type helped version: it avoids duplication, but sacrifice ergonomics |
2025-05-07 23:54:36 +0200 | <hellwolf> | https://github.com/yolc-dev/yul-dsl-monorepo/blob/2b39ca47cb55324cab4eda36c0546ea1fb3d7aca/hs-pkgs… this has "lets" |
2025-05-07 23:54:19 +0200 | <hellwolf> | https://github.com/yolc-dev/yul-dsl-monorepo/blob/2b39ca47cb55324cab4eda36c0546ea1fb3d7aca/hs-pkgs… this is an example of native-haskell pattern matching. there is a sharing problem, but I resolved it with exponential object. Not sure I can explain that today. |
2025-05-07 23:54:15 +0200 | <EvanR> | let's let the let example loose |
2025-05-07 23:53:10 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | sure |
2025-05-07 23:53:02 +0200 | <hellwolf> | ah, okay, perhaps let's just leave it here and talk about it another day. I will just show you the "let" example |
2025-05-07 23:52:46 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | it's 23:52 over here |
2025-05-07 23:52:40 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | I'm interested, but not now :') |
2025-05-07 23:52:31 +0200 | <hellwolf> | but bear with me... I haven't had write up, so I am now typing from scratch |
2025-05-07 23:52:21 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
2025-05-07 23:52:17 +0200 | <hellwolf> | I will get there, there is technique to avoid that; and the lineartype provided scenario is even more interesting to talk about. |
2025-05-07 23:51:50 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | assuming you care about that :) |
2025-05-07 23:51:41 +0200 | <tomsmeding> | an duplication is usually bad for performance |