mjaskelioff
mjaskelioff
> Yes, `list`s and `pair`s are done.
We have reached a decision regarding syntax for constant terms. That is, terms of the form: ```math M \Coloneqq \dots ~ \mathtt{(con} ~ T ~ c_T\mathtt{)}~ \dots ``` Type tags...
Hi @Quantumplation, whitespace can be ignored, so any of the following should work: * `(con (list integer) [1,2,3])` * `(con (list integer) [ 1 , 2 , 3])` * `(con...
Yes, it should be updated. I'll do it, but I do not know when yet. Hopefully beginning of next year.
I'm sorry but I don't understand the ambiguity. This syntax is for plutus core. What do you mean by a "plutus data list"?
The examples omit parentheses around data constructors. Parenthesis around pairs cannot be omitted so you cannot interpret `[I 0, B #]` as a singleton list of pairs.
> The whole constant is not ambiguous, its just the part of the right. Its not clear if the right part (`[I 0, B #]`) describes a Plutus List (`data`)...
I'm a bit confused about what this would entail for the PLC language. Would there be a new builtin-function? would case be a new language construct?
I saw the PR, but it's about code and I don't fully understand the consequences of the code for PLC. What would be the type of `caseList`?
I understand the motivation behind this, but I'm not happy with it. SOPs have the advantage of dealing with a whole range of problems uniformly with a clear semantics and...