Promote 'ChangeChain' from the term-level to type-level on 'AddressPool' #177
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Anviking
approved these changes
Apr 24, 2019
|
@johannes Yeah, this is a bit counter-intuitive because, we have actually different types here and quickcheck is about generating random values; hence the need for writing properties for both types. Perhaps with can work around this with an opaque type holding an existential 🤔 |
|
I doubt you wanted to highlight me ;-) |
|
@johannes Whoops, indeed 😂 ... |
5 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue Number
#95
Overview
ChangeChainto the type-level inAddressPoolsuch that we end up with two distinguished types forAddressPool 'ExternalChainandAddressPool 'InternalChain.Comments
The main interest here is to makes sure we don't end up using the internal chain where the external chain should be used, and vice-versa (for instance, the
nextChangeIndexfunction now requires, unambiguously:AddressPool 'InternalChain.Open to discussion, maybe this brings in too much complexity / type-level magic.