You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This would not typecheck if we would have written all this in agda :D
I think we need to change the signature of onReq to have ${\mathcal T}{req}^{#}$ as argument, then have an additional wait with $\forall h \in {\mathcal T}{req}^{#} : (h, \cdot) \in {\mathcal T}$ and a resolve statement defining ${\mathcal T}_{res}$, i.e. what I had done here (with $\hat {\mathcal T}$ this time though):
Coherence of TxInvalid messages, e.g. when receiving invalid txs it's unintuitive to get informed about them; on the other hand, we would like to be informed if transactions are not valid to our local view
There is no equivalence for storing the fact that we requested a snapshot in the spec. Do we really need it? If yes, we should have a mention of it in the spec or update the formalism accordingly.
I think we need to change the signature of${\mathcal T}_{res}$ , i.e. what I had done here (with $\hat {\mathcal T}$ this time though):
onReq
to have ${\mathcal T}{req}^{#}$ as argument, then have an additionalwait
with $\forall h \in {\mathcal T}{req}^{#} : (h, \cdot) \in {\mathcal T}$ and a resolve statement defining#728 (comment)
Originally posted by @ch1bo in #904 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: