The Binding Of Isaac Order

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Cdztattoo Barreto

unread,

Jun 30, 2024, 11:01:27 AM6/30/24

to dishupowfi

When this line is evaluated, in what order does the binding actually happen? Since, to actually bind, Haskell needs to get a State monad out of the function on the right of the >>= operator (i.e. the function right operands need to be fully evaluated first), I would've thought that the following would happen:

Is this the right way to think about it? I feel that I understand monads well, but my biggest problem is in actually visualising what's happening "behind the scenes" and how the data is flowing, so to speak. The do notation gives the illusion that I'm dealing with a bunch of sequential operations, when in fact, there's a whole bunch of nesting and closures.

the binding of isaac order

Descargar Zip - https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://tinourl.com/2yPFFN&source=gmail&ust=1719846084927000&usg=AOvVaw3sssF60b0MvrJ4BhL-FJ5g

First of all: while it is obviously correct to think of "first this happens, than that, then we evaluate this keyboard input..." in the IO monad, this isn't true for all monads. For instance, in the list monad this doesn't really make any sense. In general, it's not possible to assign a particular order to calculations in Haskell at all, it's not defined behaviour.

Yet, it is always possible, and very often helpful, to think of an order of computations in a monad, and this order is in fact the one suggested by the do notation. So, most of the time it isn't actually insightful to think about the desugared expression. But if you wish to make that step, here's how I'd do it:

There's nothing special about "binding" here. The desugared expression is evaluated in exactly the same (lazy) way any other expression would be, and the specifics depend on the implementation of (>>=) for the particular monad you're working with.

That said, there is one important rule here: To whatever extent evaluating x >>= f forces the evaluation of x, in a large expression like a desugared do block the forcing will occur in the apparent "sequential" order, for the same reason that the "sequential illusion" is possible.

The problem is, I find that loading Site B from an SNI-enabled browser serves the certificate for Site A. I assume this is because the Site A binding is technically satisfied, so IIS stops looking at other bindings to serve the request. (I noticed that the netsh http show sslcert command seems to show the Site A binding first in the display order, although I have no idea if that order is meaningful.)

Is there a way to change the binding order in IIS so that it attempts to bind requests to the Site B SNI-host binding first, and only after that falls back to the Site A non-SNI (IP:port only) binding? (For legacy compatibility, I don't want to enable SNI on the Site A binding.)

Note that under the covers, the web admin MMC (and Microsoft.Web.Administration API) are managing settings both in the IIS server config file, and in the OS network layer settings, which I think are in the registry.

I used netsh to look at the bindings the tools create, and found that the order in the iis config file and the order things are displayed in netsh (netsh hhtp show sslcert) are differently and arbitrarily ordered in display and that even when the ordering is 'right' I still sometimeS don't get the certificate I tried to configure for the domain.

What I was trying to to do was to assign domains for a virtual server by IP address in DNS, then set up all the SNI certs, plus one wildcard cert per virtual server with no SNI, just the IP address to be the default for that virtual server/ip address.

This seems to work if you monkey with the settings for a while, because the TLS binding rules are applied in some order, which tends to be the same or similar to the order the bindings were added, if you assume some edits will do a remove and an add.

However, when you look at the bindings in netsh, it becomes clear that what you put into iis admin bindings will either use SNI and ignore IP address, or use IP address and ignore the domain. The IP address in the SNI binding settings, while it appears in the dialog box and the iis config file, is not passed on to the configuration of the network layer that manages TLS, and the SNI domain will get that certificate for any IP address on the server.

So, a server can use either SNI or a wildcard cert, but using both and trying get the services to use the SNI matches first and a wildcard for everything else is not really supported. It appears to work sometimes, but any configuration edit or even a reboot can change the processing order inside the network layer.

If you are wanting to order bindings to apply an ambiguous mix of ipaddress and SNI rules, the answer is no, you can't consistently and predictably do that. If all the domains/subdomains for an IP address use the same wildcard cert, you can set up several virtual servers to use the IP address and no SNI, but if you need multiple certs on the same IP address, you need an SNI binding for each subdomain on the server.

The single exception to the SNI / IPaddress either/or rule is that even if you are using SNI, you can assign one certificate to be the default certificate for the server (all virtual servers) by choosing 'all unnasigned' for IP address and no SNI. That certificate will be used for any IP and any domain, but only for requests that don't match any other specified binding rule. This seems to be treated as a special case, the admin MMC may even warn when you don't set one up about not having a default https binding for browsers that don't support SNI...

Of course, if you (the reader, not the original poster) are not trying to mix SNI with non-sni IPaddress bindings, but just trying to manage a long list of bindings in the UI, you can click on the 'hostname' header and that will sort the list by that column (click again to change ascending/descending) for the original question, you can use the 'all unassigned' exception for the first domain. The SNI binding is already functionally 'all unassigned', since IP address is ignored for SNI bindings.

I understand that an Agenda can be amended both prior to approval by majority vote or 2/3 vote after its initial approval, but just how binding is an Agenda if items normal to RORN "order of business" are not listed on the Agenda, like New Business"

In my opinion, yes. RONR is clear that new business may be introduced in the portion of the standard order of business for new business or after all other business on the agenda has been completed unless the society has adopted a bylaw or special rule of order specifically prohibiting the introduction of items which are no on the agenda. Some organizations do have such a rule. However, as a practical matter, a member wishing to introduce an item of new business which is not on the agenda must hustle and obtain the floor to make his motion before the chair declares the meeting adjourned.

I see searching the Web that some, who I assume are not associated with RONR, actually recommend not listing what the refer too as "AOB" (Any Other Business) because it can be disruptive!?!? But I also understand, from responses on my other thread, New Business or AOB would have to be specifically documented as not being permitted with a Special Rule of Order otherwise normal RONR must allow New Business?

He also started a thread on a very similar topic about a year ago about agendas which got into a lot of detail and conflicting opinions with both Mr. Honemann and Mr. Gerber weighing in as to when introduction of new business can be prohibited.

As for my view, I think it's important to get clear on agendas and orders of business. The order of business in RONR is not analogous to an agenda. An agenda lists general and special orders. As you know, those topics appear in the order of business. But the difference is that the agenda says what they are, while the order of business says when to take them up. The two, as I see them, are complementary. Which is why I agree, as Mr. Martin said, that even though the agenda may not call for new business, new business may be offered after the agenda has been completed, so long as you can do so before the chair declares the meeting adjourned. New business, in fact, in my opinion, does not belong on an agenda, because it is an order of business heading, not an agenda item. But it is the case that an adopted agenda allows the chair to, once it is completed, declare the meeting adjourned, because it is presumptively all the business to be conducted. Thus, the better course is to amend the agenda to include the item of business - especially if you think it is important enough to not be pushed to last place.

As you may know this whole question was based on the fact that I found out a new Board member wanted to make a motion and was waiting for New Business which never came because New Business wasn't a listing on the agenda.

Maybe the best question to ask would be is, what or how would you recommend I advise the new board member on his options for the next board meeting? Should he attempt to amend the agenda during the initial approval process or should he make his motion during the "Board Comments" section listed at the end of the agenda. And what counter arguments can he use if the Chair refuses to allow him to offer his motion? Can he or should he use the reasoning that neither the Bylaws nor any Special Rules of Order prevent him from instituting new business, therefore RONR allows him to introduce the New Business once all the agenda items have been satisfied?

"At least seven (7) days prior to all Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, an agenda, subject to amendment, shall be posted in XXXX Facilities and/or on the XXXX website. Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, shall be read and passed a minimum of three times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board (6)."