Abdullah Talayhan
Abdullah Talayhan
Currently working on this.
@PlanetMacro Some part of the discussions were done in private and some in the CryptoHack discord. First of all, note that (5.44) and Example 92 remains wrong independent of this...
@KelleClark I don't understand how 5.44 can be true even with the subseteq notation. F_p^(k+i) is not an extension of F_p^k for any i in which k does not divide...
I faced this problem when I was planning to test the example given in #224 . Below, even if the room variable is mut, we are not able to write...
> Cool. Let's go with the `mutref` for now. cc @bufferhe4d Alright, I am on it.
To make it distinguishable from TyKind::Bool (mentioned here as well: https://github.com/zksecurity/noname/pull/201#discussion_r1813111834 ). Would it make sense to have `bits::Bit::new(1);` instead of `bits::Bool::new(1);`?
I guess the example should have `Uint8` replaced with `Room` and `uint` with `room` right? I can try to attempt this if no one else is already working on it.
Can we maybe also include the constraint generating functions in the convention? Like not only assert_equal may raise an exception, it also generates a constraint. I was super confused when...