|
|
|
@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ interested in the `present` constructor.
@@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ interested in the `present` constructor.
|
|
|
|
|
dataspaces deduplicate!), the problem is that they don't have |
|
|
|
|
enough information to reconstruct the triggering outer assertion |
|
|
|
|
perfectly! So a visibility-restriction causes an assertion to |
|
|
|
|
*only* trigger inner endpoints that capture *exactly* the |
|
|
|
|
*only* trigger inner endpoints that capture *at most* the |
|
|
|
|
captures of the outer endpoint. One of the outer endpoints will |
|
|
|
|
trigger its "matching" inner endpoint, but not the inner |
|
|
|
|
endpoint of the other endpoint, even though you might expect the |
|
|
|
@ -547,6 +547,15 @@ interested in the `present` constructor.
@@ -547,6 +547,15 @@ interested in the `present` constructor.
|
|
|
|
|
constant-matching against literal `(discard)` in cases of |
|
|
|
|
visibility restriction. See commit b4f1d36 and test case |
|
|
|
|
`test/core/nesting-confusion-2.rkt`. |
|
|
|
|
- HOWEVER see notes from 2019-06-18 in the googledoc Journal as |
|
|
|
|
well as in my notebook. See also commit 5c514b7 from |
|
|
|
|
imperative-syndicate and e806f4b from syndicate-js. The |
|
|
|
|
opaque-placeholders make the distributed (= non-zero-latency) |
|
|
|
|
case of visibility-restriction handling problematic in general, |
|
|
|
|
though relaxing the constraint from exact match of captured |
|
|
|
|
positions to at-most-match of captured positions allows at least |
|
|
|
|
the `during` special case to work in a programmer-unsurprising |
|
|
|
|
way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- there's more to say about the implementation of the *dataspace* |
|
|
|
|
itself, not just the index structures. For example, the care that |
|
|
|
|