Skip to content

Conversation

@SeungheonOh
Copy link
Collaborator

@SeungheonOh SeungheonOh commented Sep 19, 2025

These are essentially multi-lambda and multi-app.

Don't merge

closes https://github.com/IntersectMBO/plutus-private/issues/1841

@SeungheonOh SeungheonOh added the EXPERIMENT Experiments that we probably don't want to merge label Sep 19, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

PR Preview Action v1.6.2

🚀 View preview at
https://IntersectMBO.github.io/plutus/pr-preview/pr-7351/

Built to branch gh-pages at 2025-09-19 18:39 UTC.
Preview will be ready when the GitHub Pages deployment is complete.

@SeungheonOh SeungheonOh self-assigned this Sep 23, 2025
Right $
headSpine
(branches Vector.! (fromIntegral ix))
(someValueOf DefaultUniData <$> ds)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You lost all your money and now live under the bridge, because you performed a linear operation before doing any costing for it.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please, anything but bridge. haven't gone that far yet

instance LetBuiltin DefaultUni where
letBuiltin _someVal@(Some (ValueOf uni x)) =
case uni of
DefaultUniList ty -> Right $ someValueOf ty <$> x
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Likewise.

| Constr !ann !Word64 ![Term name uni fun ann]
-- See Note [Supported case-expressions].
| Case !ann !(Term name uni fun ann) !(Vector (Term name uni fun ann))
| Let !ann ![name] !(Term name uni fun ann)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We discussed this here and it should be

    | Let !ann ![name] !(Term name uni fun ann) !(Term name uni fun ann)

at which point you don't need Bind (right?).

Sorry for the confusion I caused!

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Since we talked, I was pulled to do other things, so I haven't got chance to update yet.

But looking back now, and also seeing more PIR/PLC internals, I think your version of Let is better than what I have here in being more general and less ambiguous.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

EXPERIMENT Experiments that we probably don't want to merge

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants