Discussion: Typechecking Interactions and Assets

[kwannoel]

In GitLab by @AlexKnauth on Jul 2, 2020, 03:40

We discussed that the type for Assets could be be a record type with fields for different assets. At some point, should we change @interaction to include assets declarations, and change deposit! and withdraw! for record types with the set of fields from the assets declarations?

Should @make-interaction produce a special type for interactions, instead of the normal -> arrow types for lambdas? Should @call-interaction only accept this new type and not -> arrow?

[kwannoel]

In GitLab by @AlexKnauth on Jul 2, 2020, 03:40

mentioned in merge request !16

[kwannoel]

In GitLab by @AlexKnauth on Jul 3, 2020, 22:34

changed the description

[kwannoel]

In GitLab by @fahree on Nov 7, 2020, 03:41

assigned to @fahree

[kwannoel]

In GitLab by @ApolloUnicorn on Feb 13, 2021, 01:01

@AlexKnauth I believe this is done, correct? cc @fahree

[kwannoel]

In GitLab by @AlexKnauth on Feb 13, 2021, 01:04

There are still things to do. For one thing, designing how multiple assets work. If assets are abstracted within the interaction-body, then they need to be supplied as input when the interaction is called, and there should be something in the type to describe the interface between those.