| 11 Nov 2025 |
 raitobezarius |
I think this is fine as long as it's a one-way ratchet. My concern is that we will make something compare equal (that is equal), people start depending on that behaviour, and then later change the structure again in a way that makes those compare non-equal. This is why I was proposing we mark this feature as unstable (maybe unstable isn't the right word, because there's no intention to make it stable in the future)
yeah this sounds like a permanent xp feature | 15:03:24 |
| raitobezarius |
Clarification: by "the whole thing" you're referring to pointer equality?
i'm referring to the maximal sharing work that was done in Lix | 15:04:01 |
| raitobezarius | *
Clarification: by "the whole thing" you're referring to pointer equality?
i'm referring to the maximal (well it's not exactly maximal) sharing work that was done in Lix | 15:04:09 |
| raitobezarius |
Wouldn't what we can expose be super dependent on implementation details?
idk, we can formalize what is pointer equality | 15:04:28 |
| raitobezarius | we can offer recursive pointer equality, one-off pointer equality, sharing pointer equality, etc. | 15:04:45 |
| raitobezarius | We could also consider making functions comparable | 15:04:53 |
| raitobezarius | like $$\alpha$$-equivalence of lambda terms via bisimilarity or idk | 15:05:10 |
| raitobezarius | * like $$\alpha$$-equivalence of lambda terms via bisimulation or idk | 15:05:16 |
