--- Log opened Fri Oct 20 00:00:02 2023
04:58 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
05:01 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
09:01 <@sipa> darosior: ok, branch seems to work now
10:57 <@sipa> i needed a "given a function to apply to individual input stacks, apply to it all combinations of stacks in arguments", which can apparently be done fairly neatly in a general manner (for any number of arguments) in c++20, so the branch uses that
10:58 <@sipa> could be converted to slightly longer code for c++17 if need be
12:03 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:17 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
12:35 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:02 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
14:00 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
14:02 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
16:01 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:01 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined ##miniscript
16:48 <@sipa> errr, another fuzzing failure,... i'm beginning to think the maybe algorithm is just not compatible with thresh (without expontial blowup)
16:53 -!- Earnestly [~earnest@user/earnestly] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
19:03 <@sipa> i think it's only ever an overestimate - perhaps it results in too large size predictions at worst
19:04 <@sipa> darosior: still, it's a lot of complexity that i thought would be justified by making the computation exact, but if it doesn't actually achieve that anyway, perhaps it's better to choose a simpler more approximate fix like the one you were suggesting
23:55 <@darosior> Hmm MAYBE
23:55 <@darosior> :)
--- Log closed Sat Oct 21 00:00:02 2023