| *** gtristan has quit IRC | 01:17 | |
| *** gtristan has joined #baserock | 01:53 | |
| *** locallycompact has joined #baserock | 02:11 | |
| *** gtristan has quit IRC | 02:43 | |
| *** gtristan has joined #baserock | 03:12 | |
| paulsherwood | i'm sliding towards box, bag, or sack of chunks | 08:14 |
|---|---|---|
| locallycompact | The thing is | 08:52 |
| locallycompact | We can get away with as many metaphors as you want | 08:52 |
| locallycompact | As long as when you say sack of chunks you say why a sack of chunks is not a list of chunks or a set of chunks | 08:53 |
| locallycompact | And keep to the types | 08:53 |
| paulsherwood | agreed. can we go with sack, then, for now? | 09:05 |
| paulsherwood | (since it's not too overloaded anywhere else... and the type enforcements can be done in the code) | 09:05 |
| paulsherwood | (would be easy to s/sack/new-name/ later if needed...) | 09:06 |
| locallycompact | my point is that we need to if we can demystify the ontology for the user the types falls out naturally | 09:11 |
| locallycompact | *fall | 09:12 |
| locallycompact | so you call it a sack | 09:12 |
| locallycompact | if that's just a set or a list of chunks, then that's just a type synonym | 09:12 |
| locallycompact | the user is still asking the same question just in a different interpretation | 09:14 |
| locallycompact | "is sack just a list?" | 09:14 |
| locallycompact | no it's kind of like a list but also this this and this | 09:15 |
| paulsherwood | i think we are looking at different parts of this problem, still. | 09:17 |
| paulsherwood | i want the code to be grokkable... so having simple names is easier for that. you want that the actual rules/logic for the names is locked down in code. i'm fine with that | 09:18 |
| paulsherwood | everything you want can be achieved irrespective of the choice of names/metaphors.... i'm just trying to avoid a repeat of our unweildy names/metaphors errors | 09:20 |
| paulsherwood | i think sack fits the bill... and woudl be happy to help establish the rules/code for what a sack actually is in this context :-) | 09:21 |
| locallycompact | right, right | 09:26 |
| locallycompact | The code should need only be derivative from the ontology is my point. | 09:30 |
| paulsherwood | once more in plain english, please? :-) | 09:34 |
| paulsherwood | do mean that you want to ensure that the way we define 'sack' (ontology) should make the code that operates on sacks shorter, more obvious and more reliable? | 09:37 |
| locallycompact | there should be a direct correlation between the intuition for a sack, the user description of a sack, and the type representation of a sack | 09:42 |
| locallycompact | that's a deeper correlation than you might realise | 09:44 |
| locallycompact | the intuition <-> type is guaranteed by the curry-howard isomorphism, nominally | 09:47 |
| locallycompact | This is so that somebody who uses the tool won't have any problems understanding the logic, providing they speak rust's grammar. | 09:51 |
| locallycompact | If they don't, they're just a user, but the intuition should still hold for the sack | 09:51 |
| locallycompact | In the other direction, you can't just keep adding things to a sack beyond the point where it starts to feel like a sack because it would violate your intuition of a sack, then it's time to pick a new word/metaphor | 09:56 |
| paulsherwood | ok. but we can start with sack? i don't think creating a totally new word helps us much | 10:14 |
| paulsherwood | (and iiuc, the only way to satisfy your argument 100% would be to create a new word) | 10:15 |
| locallycompact | no no I wasn't suggesting that at all | 10:15 |
| paulsherwood | ok :) | 10:15 |
| paulsherwood | i notice rust folks have settled on cargo and crates | 10:16 |
| * paulsherwood wonders how well 'crate' in rust's lexicon maps to 'crate' in the rest of the world | 10:17 | |
| rjek | A wooden box for storage and shipping? | 10:42 |
| locallycompact | A thing with a label on it that I dunno whats in it really but I could unpack it and stuff might fall out | 10:44 |
| locallycompact | ACME | 10:44 |
| rjek | That sounds like a box, in normal programming language terms | 10:45 |
| locallycompact | box to me is just the name for the not quite right way to intuit monads and I don't really use it for anything else | 10:51 |
| locallycompact | I don't think | 10:51 |
| locallycompact | except cardboard box | 10:51 |
| * locallycompact pushes some more wrongness to https://github.com/locallycompact/rust-ybd | 11:10 | |
| *** persia has quit IRC | 11:25 | |
| * paulsherwood notices that morph still uses linux-user-chroot, and hence fails to build devel on aws... 'too many mounts' | 11:32 | |
| *** persia has joined #baserock | 11:32 | |
| *** locallycompact has quit IRC | 13:03 | |
| *** locallycompact has joined #baserock | 13:04 | |
| *** gtristan has quit IRC | 15:28 | |
| *** gtristan has joined #baserock | 15:50 | |
| *** gtristan has quit IRC | 16:18 | |
| *** gtristan has joined #baserock | 16:18 | |
| *** rdale has joined #baserock | 18:17 | |
| *** locallycompact has quit IRC | 18:33 | |
| *** rdale has quit IRC | 18:49 | |
| *** gtristan has quit IRC | 20:20 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!