or
or
By clicking below, you agree to our terms of service.
New to HackMD? Sign up
Syntax | Example | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|
# Header | Header | 基本排版 | |
- Unordered List |
|
||
1. Ordered List |
|
||
- [ ] Todo List |
|
||
> Blockquote | Blockquote |
||
**Bold font** | Bold font | ||
*Italics font* | Italics font | ||
~~Strikethrough~~ | |||
19^th^ | 19th | ||
H~2~O | H2O | ||
++Inserted text++ | Inserted text | ||
==Marked text== | Marked text | ||
[link text](https:// "title") | Link | ||
 | Image | ||
`Code` | Code |
在筆記中貼入程式碼 | |
```javascript var i = 0; ``` |
|
||
:smile: | ![]() |
Emoji list | |
{%youtube youtube_id %} | Externals | ||
$L^aT_eX$ | LaTeX | ||
:::info This is a alert area. ::: |
This is a alert area. |
On a scale of 0-10, how likely is it that you would recommend HackMD to your friends, family or business associates?
Please give us some advice and help us improve HackMD.
Do you want to remove this version name and description?
Syncing
xxxxxxxxxx
Welcome, last meetup review
Review from last year
In the last meetup we talked about these plans…
Next summer:
- The image file may be corrupted
- The server hosting the image is unavailable
- The image path is incorrect
- The image format is not supported
Learn More →- The image file may be corrupted
- The server hosting the image is unavailable
- The image path is incorrect
- The image format is not supported
Learn More →- The image file may be corrupted
- The server hosting the image is unavailable
- The image path is incorrect
- The image format is not supported
Learn More →- The image file may be corrupted
- The server hosting the image is unavailable
- The image path is incorrect
- The image format is not supported
Learn More →EOY 2023: New foundations designed and in initial use
EOY 2024: New foundations shipped and shared
Into
stop inferring?What have we done since the last meetup.
What worked really well and what worked less well?
A review of the trait solver planning
This may make more sense as part of the solver deep dive later today?
The lazy norm discussion looks like it was on point, though it may have underestimated just how frequently we rely on types being normalized. Use it in new solver, still seems like "the correct choice"?
we talked about the invariants of the solver, quite a few of these don't actually hold: rustc-dev-guide.
We planned the solver rewrite on Day 2. This is mostly up-to-date, with some differences:
Resources
Notes, minutes from the meeting itself
Next summer:
- The image file may be corrupted
- The server hosting the image is unavailable
- The image path is incorrect
- The image format is not supported
Learn More →- The image file may be corrupted
- The server hosting the image is unavailable
- The image path is incorrect
- The image format is not supported
Learn More →- The image file may be corrupted
- The server hosting the image is unavailable
- The image path is incorrect
- The image format is not supported
Learn More →- The image file may be corrupted
- The server hosting the image is unavailable
- The image path is incorrect
- The image format is not supported
Learn More →Overall goal for EOY 2023 were:
Overall, somewhat on track to meet. Formality has made slow progress and TAITs encountered some surprises, but we are understand the challenges better.
Polonius has been making progress. Niko's version, we "rewrote" in polonius style. lqd sees it as "we changed the minimal amount". Niko thinks that this just shows that the new style is not so different from the old one. Also, we now see a path to a scalable version of the new analysis. Goal is to land "naive and slow" version of the sensitive analysis by end of year.
PR that reimplements borrow checker in the polonius style is up and under review, expected to land soon. Took a while to integrate refactorings from cjgillot plus liveness changes. Now good to go. Perf test was done, but it's still protected by a feature flag. Only the liveness changes change existing code paths. Perf tests with flag disabled (no change), with flag enabled, it's a bit slower than we would like, but it also does a bit of extra work.
2024 EOY goals didn't age so well, but we'll revisit.
What worked really well and less well. Did we spend our time well, is there stuff we should do less of? Walking through the features was generally useful. Knowing what RFCs are accepted, whether or not we are working on them, was useful. That is probably something we should review as we discuss the roadmap.
We discussed possibility of getting foundation to hire program manager.
Pseudocode? Maybe, depends where we'll want it. For most of the algorithms (e.g., overflow, candidate assembly), initial version came out of the meeting, but then we encountered problems. Was useful because back then we didn't know where to start.