On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:43:33AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> This looks alright to me. At the risk of getting into bikeshedding
I very much do not think that that is bikeshedding FWIW.
> territory, the only awkward bit of it is it composes the extensions in
> sort of the opposite way you'd expect. I tend to think of Zks as being
> comprised of {zbkb, zbkc, zksed, zksh}, rather than zbkb being a part
> of {zks, zkn, zk}, though both are of course correct. Here's an
> untested version of the other way. You can decide if you like it
> better or worse than what you've got, and I'm fine either way.
I'm happy to do it this way too, just wanna see how it interacts with
the new property stuff. I actually found it confusing to implement the
arrays, it just seemed easier to integrate with the new property stuff
this way.
> Sorry
> gmail mangles it, if you want the patch for real I can get it to you:
Please, reading the line-wrapped mangling hurts my head unfortunately.
Tree or attachment WFM :)
Thanks,
Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
