-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
~. sigdot Positive Assertion Rune #40
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
UIPS/UIP-0120.md
Outdated
but the `?:` variant seems to satisfy our need. | ||
|
||
This involves two modest changes, one to the parser and another to the AST in | ||
`/sys/hoon`. It does not collide with any known Hoon or atom literal syntax. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about ~:(jam 'foo' 12)
? That could either mean "run (jam 'foo' 12)
, then with that as the subject, return constant ~
" -- or it could mean "if jam is no, then print 'foo' and crash; else return 12".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is resolvable, but it is a collision we'd need to make a decision about.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now ~.
instead, which resolves to the empty @ta
.
Maybe then
|
Proposes a
~:
sigcol crash-with-message assertion rune.