Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"

Michel Hack wrote:

In that case, when the routine is repeated, can't the debugger just
manually reset the decoration of each input interval during the slow
but thoroughly-checked sequence?


What debugger?  I'm talking running program here, with alternate paths
depending on whether funny things do or don't happen, as detected by
the sticky decorations.
Ok. I wasn't entirely following, then. I thought you were speaking of a special debug mode or something. 




If the sticky bits represent the same information as the detailed bits
for a single operation, then yes, it would be sufficient to implement
the sticky bits, and have the program clear the sticky bits before
every operation.  I was under the impression however that the detailed
bits proposed by Dan Zuras carried more information than can be
handled as a sticky bit.


Ok. That makes sense.
My understanding is they do represent the same information, i.e., that an "octrit" is comprised of two "tetrits," each tetrit representing the same information except one is sticky and the other is not. So I was liking the idea of "tetrit" but scratching my head wondering why we need "octrits". 

Nate




There is also the issue of the cost of the explicit clearing, but that
depends greatly on implementation choices, and might be negligible.

Michel.
---Sent: 2010-04-15 20:40:14 UTC