Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:12:41 -0500
> From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Michel Hack <hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
>
> Michel,
>
> Wasn't Dan's suggestion to carry both a sticky and
> non-sticky part, with an extra bit, so no mode would
> be required?
>
> Baker
Yes. Just so. - Dan
>
> On 4/15/2010 13:52, Michel Hack wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> > 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.
> >
> > Now, this could be supported by a *mode* (preferably local to each
> > operation) that requests either details or stickiness -- but it may
> > be easier always to provide both. This could perhaps be left as an
> > implementation choice.
> >
> > Michel.
> > ---Sent: 2010-04-15 19:04:33 UTC
> >
>