Show newer

Boost if NOT watching the Super Bowl rn, lol

@AJSWritesthings “to ‘hope’ is German, to ‘despair’ is French”

@arossp @fakegreekgrill this is precisely the argument that leads lots of utilitarian/consequentialist libertarians to minarchism, though ironically a lot of these are also on the cultural right…

@maurice @vsaraph @lindsey takes the “distributed systems + refinement types” concept in a completely orthogonal direction to what you’re doing here, but just throwing that out in the world because I’d love to see someone run with it one day.

@lindsey had a workshop paper “Proof-Carrying Smart Contracts” with @maurice and @vsaraph (+2 more coauthors not on Mastodon as far as I know) that we didn’t end up resubmitting for a full conference because the reviewers wanted a proof of concept implementation and none of us had time to do it, but my idea was to do the POC implementation as higher-order functions in LiquidHaskell.

@dev if you don’t write your infinite loops as the Collatz Conjecture that’s on you ;) but it doesn’t seem like the compiler should be allowed to treat the loop as infinite for the purposes of control flow analysis to suppress a warning about missing “return 0”, but then decide the behavior is undefined and can be finite.

@dev Oh - I guess that’s not firing because the *compiler* looks at the control flow and says “you don’t actually reach the closing brace” and then something is happening lower down in LLVM to delete the loop?

@dev oh I see you have a type error that for some reason the compiler is ignoring. Try -Werror=return-type ?

Well, that’s a new one. Comcast (who I don’t have for internet) managed to drill through my main power supply and knocked the house offline. Lovely.

@regehr “We thank reviewer 2 for their insightful comments. ~If they had actually read the fucking paper they would have seen~ Question 1 is directly answered in Section 2.1

Show older
Mastodon

General topic personal server.