QPQ-AG/gmbytecode
10
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests 1 Actions Packages Projects Releases 9 Wiki Activity

Add instructions for arbitrary sized byte arrays #231

Merged
zxq9 merged 3 commits from arbitrary_sized_bytes into master 2023-05-27 23:13:20 +09:00
Conversation 15 Commits 3 Files Changed 2 +26 -15
zxq9 commented 2023-05-23 16:38:26 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: hanssv

This PR is supported by the Æternity Crypto Foundation

*Created by: hanssv* This PR is supported by the Æternity Crypto Foundation
ghallak (Migrated from gitlab.com) approved these changes 2023-05-23 16:38:26 +09:00
zxq9 commented 2023-05-26 22:36:27 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: radrow

Can you squeeze it below debugging instructions?

*Created by: radrow* Can you squeeze it below debugging instructions?
zxq9 commented 2023-05-26 22:37:00 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: radrow

Why arg2 has to be negative?

*Created by: radrow* Why arg2 has to be negative?
zxq9 commented 2023-05-26 22:38:25 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: radrow

How is it better than returning a bool? You still need to provide Arg1, so there is no point in getting it back. Also the name of the instruction is not descriptive.

*Created by: radrow* How is it better than returning a bool? You still need to provide Arg1, so there is no point in getting it back. Also the name of the instruction is not descriptive.
zxq9 commented 2023-05-26 22:39:50 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: radrow

Do any docs actually refer to this specifically chosen -1?

*Created by: radrow* Do any docs actually refer to this specifically chosen -1?
zxq9 commented 2023-05-26 23:05:43 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: hanssv

It doesn't have to be negative, it can be negative. The alternative would be a three argument function, I thought this was more compact.

*Created by: hanssv* It doesn't have to be negative, it _can_ be negative. The alternative would be a three argument function, I thought this was more compact.
zxq9 commented 2023-05-26 23:11:16 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: hanssv

You have something of type bytes() and want something of type bytes(n) then a boolean wont help you? The Arg1 has type bytes(Arg2) - perhaps the explanation can be improved...

*Created by: hanssv* You have something of type `bytes()` and want something of type `bytes(n)` then a boolean wont help you? The `Arg1` has type `bytes(Arg2)` - perhaps the explanation can be improved...
zxq9 commented 2023-05-26 23:11:24 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: hanssv

Yes, sure!

*Created by: hanssv* Yes, sure!
zxq9 commented 2023-05-26 23:12:35 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: hanssv

Not yet - but it should go into protocol at some point.

*Created by: hanssv* Not yet - but it should go into `protocol` at some point.
zxq9 commented 2023-05-26 23:18:22 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: hanssv

At the FATE level the types will not differ

*Created by: hanssv* At the FATE level the types will not differ
zxq9 commented 2023-05-27 03:12:32 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: radrow

Ah, so it's casting! Makes sense

*Created by: radrow* Ah, so it's casting! Makes sense
zxq9 commented 2023-05-27 03:13:31 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: radrow

I misread, makes sense now

*Created by: radrow* I misread, makes sense now
zxq9 commented 2023-05-27 03:13:44 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Created by: radrow

Review: Approved

*Created by: radrow* **Review:** Approved
ghallak commented 2023-05-27 23:12:50 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

approved this merge request

approved this merge request
zxq9 commented 2023-05-27 23:13:20 +09:00 (Migrated from gitlab.com)
Copy Link

Merged by: ghallak at 2023-05-27 14:13:20 UTC

*Merged by: ghallak at 2023-05-27 14:13:20 UTC*
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
ghallak
Labels
Clear labels
WIP
bug
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
bug
Something is not working
duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists
enhancement
New feature
help wanted
Need some help
invalid
Something is wrong
pig lipstick
Muggle-facing enhancements
question
More information is needed
wontfix
This won't be fixed
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: QPQ-AG/gmbytecode#231
No description provided.
Delete Branch "arbitrary_sized_bytes"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?