Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michel Hack wrote:
> Nate Hayes replying to Ian McIntosh replying to RBK:
> > > >  Do we need both the sticky part and the non-sticky part?
> > > > (RBK)
> > > I don't think so, if we handle it carefully.
> > > (IM)
> > I agree with you, Ian.
> > (NH)
>
> Careful here.  What Ian said was that some programs care about the
> sticky part, and some care about the details of the last operation,
> but rarely would a program care about both AT THE SAME TIME.
>
> In fact, programs DO care about both, at SEPARATE times.  A common
> situation is a fast path that expects no exceptional cases, but
> checks this assumption with a sticky check at the end so as to
> repeat the routine using a slow but thoroughly-checked sequence.

Michel,

Are you (and Ian) talking strictly about decorations, or of bare intervals, 
as well?

Remember this was the original purpose in Motion 8 of distinguishing between 
decorated intervals, bare intervals, and bare decorations. In the example 
you give, using decorated intervals provides both the "bare interval" result 
as well as the exception history. In other words, the user would not employ 
any forgetful operators so that both bare intervals and decorations are not 
lost during the computation.

Or perhaps I am not understanding correctly and we are talking about two 
different things?

Nate