| 9 Nov 2025 |
 raitobezarius | Indeed, it was an opportunistic naive attempt we could not disprove (until you provided the example and thank you!) its soundness | 18:27:49 |
| raitobezarius | The bar for changing that is going to be much higher now | 18:27:56 |
 Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium) | Tvix folks have great insights into the pointer equality semantics. I did get a lot of grumbling about pointer equality semantics from glittershark and edef | 18:30:27 |
| * raitobezarius nods | 18:31:02 |
| raitobezarius | (i also listened more than once to edef about ptr equalities) | 18:31:14 |
 aloisw | Well the pointer equality only matters for types that use an auxiliary block, so I assume copying that in the places where the value was previously copied would work? | 18:40:11 |
| 10 Nov 2025 |
|  @adis:blad.is left the room. | 04:58:06 |
 piegames | The would probably not mesh well with future performance optimisations | 08:07:14 |
| piegames | mixing code with data was a mistake | 08:17:16 |
 K900 | Honestly IMO the only way to do function equality at this point is to hard ban it | 08:17:52 |
| K900 | Because any attempt to fix the semantics will lead to code that evaluates subtly differently wrong on new and old semantics | 08:18:25 |
| piegames | Yes but once you ban it you want to move off all functions off your data structures to retain the ability to compare your data | 08:18:42 |
| K900 | Yes | 08:18:57 |
| K900 | Unironically yes | 08:18:58 |
