Andreas Rossberg
Andreas Rossberg
> Essentially, you get the same safety guarantees as with a procedural interface. Well, yes, but the safe encapsulation of the hash/eq parameters is the only real reason to use...
Maybe it's clearer if we called this class `HashMapProxy` or something like that?
Hm, a complicated constructor like that would just make usability worse in the common case. It was intentional that the guide proposes unshare as a method instead (that you'd typically...
Since the keyword is `var`, that may be more consistent to use?
The issue isn't just "outstanding callbacks". It's closures (and objects) in general, isn't it? What happens to a closure in the heap when the respective function disappears with a code...
Well, we did think through some of this a few years back (there might still be traces of discussions on the issue tracker). Unfortunately, it is much more complicated, because...
FWIW, a warning for literal cases like the first two would be trivial to implement in `Typing.check_exp_field`.
It's not clear how this could be implemented on the IC as is. AFAICS, the IC would need to support on-chain linking, i.e., the ability to install a dapp consisting...
@infu, your request was about computing hashes on Wasm binaries. Where you produce those binaries makes no difference for the problem. If, however, you are fine with hashes of the...
That is expected behaviour – these are just syntactic operators, not full-blown union and intersection types (which would introduce exponential complexity into the type system).