Andreas Rumpf
Andreas Rumpf
> There is no visible explicit conversion. Bummer. That's bad. :-)
> What's an OS? ;) Yes you can reboot with a watchdog, but how to you record and log error/defects/etc if the world just dies? I don't know, but I...
> It reminds me of Erlang/Elixir's style of treating each thread (actor) ... Yes, Erlang gets this right.
> I guess they would become like this? Yes. > self is AdditiveMonoid # will concept refinement be allowed? I thought about it and we could support it via ``type...
What does that even mean though? "Somewhere in the object type there must be a field of type Variable[T]"? How do you know which one? What if you have more...
> How come I must repeat in every discussion about concepts that any proposal must cover the requirements of associated types and constants? Because it's covered by the proposal as...
Well the eternal question is "is ``static[int]`` a type or a value?". ;-) My RFC assumes it's actually a type.
> My underspecified code shouldn't be ruled out as "non using concepts". I could have easily required a concept such as SszSeriazable in place of the auto type there (or...
> Here is some more fun... I'm not sure you're asking the right question. You are thinking about whether these alternative concepts can support what the current concepts can. But...
> I don't care which field, but as long as there is a "Variable[T]" field, the user-defined type constitutes a TrainableLayer indeed. All deep-learning libraries work like that, except that...