kinda getting there

1 files changed, 55 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/ocaml/NOCK_FIXES_IDEAS.md b/ocaml/NOCK_FIXES_IDEAS.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1811c21
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ocaml/NOCK_FIXES_IDEAS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+
+C: call #1 is opcode 8 (extend)OCaml: call #1 is opcode 0 (slot), call #2 is opcode 0 (slot), call #3 is opcode 7 (compose)
+
+  This means for the same input formula [2 [0 3] [0 2]], C is directly executing opcode 8, while OCaml is executing the slot lookups [0 3] and [0 2] as separate Nock calls, then getting opcode 7.
+
+  The problem is likely that OCaml is treating slot lookups as full recursive Nock evaluations, when they should be internal operations. Let me check the OCaml Nock 2 implementation:
+
+  | 2 ->
+      (* Nock 2: *[subject formula new_subject] - evaluate with new subject *)
+      (* C evaluates tail first, then head - must match this order! *)
+      if not (is_cell gal) then raise Exit;
+      let c_gal = tail gal in
+      let b_gal = head gal in
+      let nex = nock_on bus c_gal in  (* Tail first like C *)
+      let seb = nock_on bus b_gal in  (* Head second like C *)
+      nock_on seb nex
+
+  The issue is that when c_gal = [0 2] and b_gal = [0 3], we're calling nock_on recursively, which logs and increments the call counter. But maybe C handles slot lookups differently—perhaps as an internal
+  operation without logging?
+
+  Let me check what C does when it encounters [0 axis] - does it call u3n_nock_on recursively, or does it handle it inline?
+
+  Should I investigate the C _n_nock_on or _n_burn implementation to see how it handles Nock 0 (slot) operations?
+
+
+  --
+
+  
+
+  C logs:
+  >>> ENTER call #0 depth=0 opcode=2 bus=cell
+    >>> ENTER call #1 depth=1 opcode=8 bus=cell   ← Goes directly to opcode 8!
+
+  OCaml logs:
+  >>> ENTER call #0 depth=0 opcode=2(eval) bus=cell
+    >>> ENTER call #1 depth=1 opcode=0(slot) bus=cell   ← Evaluates [0 3]
+    <<< EXIT  call #1 depth=1 returns=cell
+    >>> ENTER call #2 depth=1 opcode=0(slot) bus=cell   ← Evaluates [0 2]
+    <<< EXIT  call #2 depth=1 returns=cell
+    >>> ENTER call #3 depth=1 opcode=7(compose) bus=cell  ← Result is opcode 7
+
+  The problem is clear: C doesn't call u3n_nock_on recursively for simple operations like [0 axis]. Instead, C compiles the Nock formula to bytecode first, and the bytecode handles slot lookups inline without
+   recursive nock calls.
+
+  This is why C shows opcode 8 directly - the bytecode compiler has already evaluated [0 3] and [0 2] internally and determined that the next operation is opcode 8.
+
+  OCaml, on the other hand, is a pure interpreter - every Nock formula, even simple ones like [0 3], goes through nock_on recursively.
+
+  This is not a bug in OCaml - it's the correct interpreter behavior! C's bytecode is an optimization. To make OCaml match C's log output, we'd need to either:
+
+  1. Add bytecode compilation to OCaml (major work)
+  2. Inline simple operations like slot lookup in Nock 2 (quick fix but changes the interpreter structure)
+  3. Accept that the logs will differ at this level but verify the final results match
+
+  Would you like me to inline slot lookups in Nock 2 to reduce the logging noise, or should we focus on verifying that despite the different execution paths, both C and OCaml produce the same final results?