You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We might be able to replace TypeName with lazy const / static Types. This would be useful, since TypeName exists as a hack to generate Types on demand.
Similarly, we might be able to replace JetName and somehow include all the information from JetNode in the enum. This would be useful, because it would guarantee that each jet name refers to exactly one jet. At the moment, we could readily define two jets with the same JetName and this would cause all kinds of havoc.
JetNode and JetName have been replaced with Jet in #44 . TypeName still exists, but it is hard (impossible?) to represent a finalised type with heap allocations in compile-time code. We might not get around having functions that return a finalised type given some handle.
We might be able to replace
TypeName
with lazy const / staticType
s. This would be useful, sinceTypeName
exists as a hack to generateType
s on demand.Similarly, we might be able to replace
JetName
and somehow include all the information fromJetNode
in the enum. This would be useful, because it would guarantee that each jet name refers to exactly one jet. At the moment, we could readily define two jets with the sameJetName
and this would cause all kinds of havoc.Originally posted by @apoelstra in #26 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: