42000+ entries in 0.242s

a111: Logged on 2017-08-21 14:43 phf: i spent (mostly another whisperer and myself did) on getting vlm stable, and i'm unconvinced that some of the issues we encountered were purely "buggy vlm". there is, for example,
a crash in floating point instruction that happens when you load document examiner on stock piratebay opengenera. i have no explanation for it still, because vlm code ~seems to do the right thing~. there are other similar instances
fromloper: I wonder if it's going to ask for
a license key like Macsyma on the same disk does
fromloper: this document refers to Dave Moon's files several times; I've tried to find any public presence of Moon on the net, maybe
a mail address - found nothing
fromloper: yeah, somehow
a lot of potentially interesting people on social media end up mostly posting this kind of crap
☟︎ trinque: pretty common to end up LARPing in retirement, even if one lived as
a man, unfortunately
fromloper: there is
a whole section on the virtual memory
apeloyee:
a hash of the entire tree doesn't take much
apeloyee: I proposed being able to name arbitrary required antecedents << also probably needs
a mechanism to declare "there are no other files in the tree"
☟︎ apeloyee: "may be
a 50kg sword" << doesn't seem to be. can be retrofitted into an existing design. as i said above "there needs to be
a tree hash in the _leaf_ patch. and it MUST match the resulting tree"
apeloyee: when you sign
a tarball, the signature is not transferrable to anything else
trinque: then we are closer than it appeared in the long thread. I proposed being able to name arbitrary required antecedents in
a vpatch's header, and this appears equivalent in effect to copying the file in whole.
trinque: asciilifeform: to see if I can restate your opinion back to you, if I edit (as single author) both readme.txt and doesallthework.adb in separate vpatches, your view is I combine those into
a single vpatch, if I want to build atop both in
a new vpatch?
apeloyee: well,
a hash is not the same as the signature, but otherwise yes.
a111: Logged on 2018-01-17 19:31 apeloyee:
a vpatch's purpose is twofold. 1) to provide
a way to construct some files based on some antedecent files, whose hashes are given. 2) to take some responsibility about the entire tree. but the signature on
a vpatch doesn't fix the state of the tree; it is defined implicitly by antedecent patches, which are liable to change at any time ("regrinding") and thereby change some files not...
apeloyee: that's
a spurious objection. one need not to sign an antedecent state, one needs to sign
a RESULTING state. to expand on
http://btcbase.org/log/2018-01-17#1771900 , you're free to pick individual files from wherever, possibly several different trees, but there needs to be
a tree hash in the _leaf_ patch. and it MUST match the resulting tree (under the principle that patch author takes the...
☝︎ BingoBoingo: The closest thing so far was they time an Israeli embassy worker was busted with
a bomb or fake bomb near the WTC
apeloyee: well, your point seems to be specifically that work which can be done by machine is shifted onto
a human. this is insane.
apeloyee: files are NOT INDEPENDENT. despite CVS and v pretending they are. this is
a problem. you could have required some form of cryptographic commitment to either the tree state or even the antedecent patches themselves, but didn't
☟︎ apeloyee: ...referenced in
a particular vpatch
apeloyee:
a vpatch's purpose is twofold. 1) to provide
a way to construct some files based on some antedecent files, whose hashes are given. 2) to take some responsibility about the entire tree. but the signature on
a vpatch doesn't fix the state of the tree; it is defined implicitly by antedecent patches, which are liable to change at any time ("regrinding") and thereby change some files not...
☟︎ apeloyee: from above: "Check that the actual parameters of
a subprogram call are not aliases of one another. To qualify as aliasing, the actuals must denote objects of
a composite type, their memory locations must be identical or overlapping, and at least one of the corresponding formal parameters must be of mode OUT or IN OUT. "
freetlas: asciilifeform: Just
a person who likes to read trilema from time to time :)
apeloyee: it's
a wonder -gnatp doesn't disable nullity checks
apeloyee: put
a dummy array of 4 (or whatever) elements just before the Stack
apeloyee: doesn't gnat have
a facility to control the layout of memory?
a111: Logged on 2018-01-17 17:03 apeloyee: the proper range for
a cursor into an array (1..N) is (0.5 .. N+0.5); this is usually shifted to become (1 .. N+1) as in text editors, but no reason not to shift in the other direction, as you did, to (0..N)
apeloyee: well it'd turn
a pop from empty stack into
a range-dipping eggog instantly << the reason I even suggested that 3 weeks ago
apeloyee: "1) ugly" << can't see that.; "2) ... it relies on type ranges for good chunk of the proofolade"<< if you really want, can explicitly declare
a subtype of Stack_Positions, omitting 0 from it
apeloyee: SP _is_
a cursor, I'm merely suggesting to treat it as such
apeloyee: the proper range for
a cursor into an array (1..N) is (0.5 .. N+0.5); this is usually shifted to become (1 .. N+1) as in text editors, but no reason not to shift in the other direction, as you did, to (0..N)
☟︎ apeloyee: an extra element won't save the father of russian democracy (c), if FFACalc stack manipulation code is wrong; e.g. if
a 'Want(X)' statement is omiitted
apeloyee: Logically, SP isn't
a reference. It's
a cursor, showing the boundary between the valid and invalid elements. If
a line in
a text editor has N sybols, then
a cursor has N+1 valid positions. (Consider that an empty line sill has 1 valid cursor position).
BingoBoingo: In other shithole factories: meltdown/specte patches are making
a bunch of industrial systems wobble! Chinesium's about to get
a low more Pinoy
apeloyee: can you think of
a way to have the range of SP and of Stack be the same << this is plainly absurd.
a N-sized stack has (modulo contents) N+1 possible states: "0 elements", "1 element", ..., "N elements". i.e.the ranges MUST differ, by exactly one.
apeloyee: well, ideally it would have
a "No_Out_Arguments_Aliasing" restriction which would insert runtime checks
☟︎ apeloyee: does gnat provide
a facility to check aliasing at runtime?
☟︎ apeloyee: and add
a new exercise: re-read all previous chapters and write what aliasing of arguments is safe
esthlos: I will proceed one step at
a time