Anton Trunov

Ok, I see the tests are failing. This optimization looks great, but it needs to be backwards compatible: we don't break our users' code, unless they rely on some buggy...

@cryshado We could just process `send(SendParameters { ... })` as a special case in the compiler

No, it's not fixed:

hey @andreas12062410, we should ask @krigga, he is the main developer of Blueprint, hopefully he does not mind if people contribute to the project :)

There is a workaround for now: use a struct as the only contract parameter (it's important it's not a contract field, but a parameter, otherwise, it needs to be adjusted...

That's right. I meant some additional functions that can be used by Tact users.

@Gusarich I haven't checked how `sqrt` is implemented in mathlib.fc, what are the alternatives you see?

> probably makes sense to benchmark these on different ranges of integers to see what is more gas efficient agreed!

@Gusarich Looks good, let's go with your proposal

> To solve this issue, we would need some form of code analysis outside of const-eval. To solve this issue you need to partially evaluate contracts (I almost always mean...