> toggleMenu(true); That’s clear enough. the meaning is obvious

so... it does toggle the menu? and toggleMenu(false) doesn't toggle it and keeps it as it is?

or is it toggle extended menu vs toggle basic menu?

setMenuVisible()

If it is unclear what your one-argument function does, the name is the problem and you messed up, not the language. For multi-argument functions, you can have either enums or named arguments or, if you really have to, some kind of builder pattern thing: eatCheese(cheese().fromGoatMilk().withVanillaFlavor()).

problem with such approach is that sometimes "obvious easy thing" becomes so entrenched and affecting everything, that ripping it out becomes unproportionally monumental task

does there exist something that can do the opposite?

some pre-processor that "compiles into rust" from less awful syntax?

Huh, so its isa is just "Dst := Src+Imm", with Dst one of [A,B,Out,PC] and Src one of [A,B,In,Zero]

Plus just a tiny bit of logic that wires in "Carry Flag" when Src=Zero to control Dst=PC

I guess "MOV A,B" sets Imm to zero for simplicity, because I don't see anything stopping it

I've been following this series for a while: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyR4neQXqQo5nPdEiMbaE...

Time to port everything to RedoxOS? =)

what's SVA?

SystemVerilog Assertions. Hardware (silicon ASICs, and also FPGAs often) are written in a language called SystemVerilog. It has a feature called "concurrent assertions" which is usually just called SVA.

These are sort of temporal regexes, e.g. you can write

  assert property($fell(rst) |-> foo == 1 ##[1:20] foo == 0)

Which means if the rst signal fell (changed to 0) then foo must be 1 and 1-20 cycles later it must be 0.

The nice thing about them is that there are a few commercial tools that can formally verify them. They're super expensive (~$100k/year for one license), but fairly widely used because they work really well.

It's probably the most successful application of formal verification because it doesn't require much expertise to use. Unlike software formal verification which pretty much immediately requires you to become an expert on loop invariants, termination measures, hoare triples etc. At least that has been my experience.

> I haven't done any exhaustive checking on it yet, but it certainly looks passable.

isn't that exactly the kind of fails LLMs do the most? first-glance-passable nonsense?

what's the deal with completely broken scrolling on that facebook link?