2025/05/08

Newest at the top

2025-05-08 10:36:29 +0200 <hellwolf> newtype P'x (eff :: PortEffect) r a = MkP'x (P (YulCat LinearEffectX) r a)
2025-05-08 10:36:29 +0200 <hellwolf> -- | Yul port with the port effect kind, aka. yul ports.
2025-05-08 10:36:25 +0200 <hellwolf> type P'V v = P'x (VersionedPort v)
2025-05-08 10:36:24 +0200 <hellwolf> -- | Yul port with linearly versioned data, aka. versioned yul ports.
2025-05-08 10:36:03 +0200 <hellwolf> "P k r a" was the original API
2025-05-08 10:35:41 +0200 <hellwolf> haha, well how else, you do it. P is not my api, P'v is a newtype wrapper where I shove the version into
2025-05-08 10:35:22 +0200 <tomsmeding> "P'v v r a"
2025-05-08 10:35:16 +0200 <hellwolf> :) what I just said, or the code related to P?
2025-05-08 10:34:37 +0200 <tomsmeding> reads like klingon
2025-05-08 10:34:24 +0200 <tomsmeding> sure
2025-05-08 10:34:14 +0200 <hellwolf> e.g. Ur or (), or this type of thing doesn't carry such a version information
2025-05-08 10:34:04 +0200 <hellwolf> not all @a@ has to be
2025-05-08 10:34:01 +0200 <hellwolf> right, to be precise, @a@ has a chance to be versioned at @va@
2025-05-08 10:33:39 +0200 <tomsmeding> hence me not yet understanding what va is used for
2025-05-08 10:33:20 +0200 <tomsmeding> what I'm naively expecting is that a variable reference has a specific version, and you can only _refer_ to such a variable if its version is equal to the current vb
2025-05-08 10:33:13 +0200 <hellwolf> so all data are versioned
2025-05-08 10:33:10 +0200 <hellwolf> data uses the "port api" from linear-smc library
2025-05-08 10:32:59 +0200 <hellwolf> sput'l :: forall. VersionThread r ⊸ P'V v r a ⊸ P'V v r b ⊸ (VersionThread r, P'V (v + 1) r ())
2025-05-08 10:32:53 +0200 <hellwolf> https://github.com/yolc-dev/yul-dsl-monorepo/blob/master/hs-pkgs/yul-dsl-linear-smc/src/YulDSL/Has…
2025-05-08 10:32:44 +0200 <tomsmeding> sure
2025-05-08 10:32:38 +0200 <hellwolf> since @a@ has no injectivty to @va@
2025-05-08 10:32:30 +0200 <hellwolf> let me show you, it's not obvious, if you only look at LVM definitinop
2025-05-08 10:32:05 +0200 <tomsmeding> so I thought I'd look at variables, but I haven't found what I'm looking for yet
2025-05-08 10:31:52 +0200 <tomsmeding> I'm looking for something that shows me how using a non-fresh reference will result in a type error
2025-05-08 10:31:24 +0200 <hellwolf> okay, thanks, I will fix
2025-05-08 10:31:10 +0200 <tomsmeding> LVMVar.hs
2025-05-08 10:31:05 +0200 <hellwolf> where did you see that?
2025-05-08 10:30:39 +0200 <tomsmeding> or perhaps "referrable"
2025-05-08 10:30:27 +0200 <tomsmeding> (it's spelled "referentiable", not "referenciable")
2025-05-08 10:29:29 +0200 <hellwolf> corect
2025-05-08 10:29:29 +0200 <hellwolf> 05-08 11:28 <tomsmeding> presumably the idea is that pure primitive LVM operations have va=vb, and side-effectful primitive LVM operations have va < vb?
2025-05-08 10:29:07 +0200 <hellwolf> I would not see version independently, it's all about the >>=
2025-05-08 10:28:46 +0200 <hellwolf> (_ :: m ctx va vb a) >>= (_ :: a -> m ctx vb vc b) ?
2025-05-08 10:28:41 +0200 <tomsmeding> presumably the idea is that pure primitive LVM operations have va=vb, and side-effectful primitive LVM operations have va < vb?
2025-05-08 10:28:00 +0200 <hellwolf> it's more about what you can be bound with
2025-05-08 10:27:56 +0200 <tomsmeding> is there anything at version 'va'?
2025-05-08 10:27:49 +0200 <hellwolf> not sure I would say ctx having a version, per se.
2025-05-08 10:27:30 +0200 <hellwolf> hmm in a way, I guess. a is the output type at version @vb@.
2025-05-08 10:27:01 +0200 <tomsmeding> the input ctx, that is
2025-05-08 10:26:49 +0200 <tomsmeding> is it the idea that ctx is at version va, and that a is at version vb?
2025-05-08 10:24:24 +0200 <tomsmeding> yes I found it :)
2025-05-08 10:24:19 +0200 <hellwolf> here
2025-05-08 10:24:19 +0200 <hellwolf> https://github.com/yolc-dev/yul-dsl-monorepo/blob/master/hs-pkgs/yul-dsl-linear-smc/internal/lvm/C…
2025-05-08 10:24:14 +0200 <hellwolf> excuse moi, that's my own sh*t
2025-05-08 10:23:58 +0200tomsmedingis looking at the LVM definition
2025-05-08 10:23:50 +0200 <tomsmeding> yes it does
2025-05-08 10:23:39 +0200 <hellwolf> but does that program example make sense?
2025-05-08 10:22:40 +0200Boarders_____(sid425905@id-425905.lymington.irccloud.com) (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
2025-05-08 10:22:22 +0200 <tomsmeding> :D
2025-05-08 10:22:19 +0200 <hellwolf> bad habit.