Re: Discussion on tetrits motion
Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Reply-To: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "P1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Discussion on tetrits motion
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:36:24 -0500
Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Subject: Re: Discussion on tetrits motion
From: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "P1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Discussion on tetrits motion
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:59:16 -0500
Dan, et. al.
In your 4/17 post, for all 3-bits you included the explicit
tables:
No, Nate.
Those tables were part of a discussion that
only applied to the 'domain' decoration as
I understood it at the time.
In the motion just made, you will notice
that there are no such tables. The reason
for this is that they will not apply to all
decorations.
And, as this motions says nothing about any
particular decoration, I would like to make
discussion of particular decorations the
subject of some future motion.
As I said in the cover letter.
Dan
Dan,
I'm trying to make sense of your e-mail:
-- Of course there are no tables in the motion, but the
definitions that generated the 4/17 tables are the same as the
definitions in the motion. Below I include both for a "side by side"
comparison... the tables are a consequence of these definitions.
-- I believe we need to explicitly discuss advantages or
disadvantages of the proposed definitions with regard to particular
decorations that we probably will adopt, i.e., having or not having a
particular decoration should not be the issue, but how suitable the
motion enables or inhibits the goals of various decorations would be.
Sincerely,
Nate
Very well. Even though this motion is NOT about any
specific decoration, I grant that a decoration like
'domain' is a likely property that we will want to
track with the decorations described in this motion.
There is a whole rather involved topological argument
I am working up to form a framework for deciding what
makes a good decoration or not. But I am trying to
save that argument for a future discussion followed
by a future motion.
Still, you are correct: I will use that argument to
argue that we should have a 'domain' decoration.
Given that, what is it about THIS motion you would like
to discuss?
And, if possible, can you perhaps frame your discussion
so that it applies to any or at least many properties
for which this motion likely applies?
It might help to keep the discussion within the context
of THIS motion.
Thanks,
I did frame a discussion of this motion as it applies to the "domain"
attribute in my post yesterday. It is still relevant.
I fear such an analysis demonstrates the proposed propagation mechanism
would be a setback for P1788; it deviates too far from the semantics we
agreed on in Motion 8. For example, Motion 8 specifically identifies the
purpose of decorations is to help disambiguate between
X \union {empty} = X and X \union NaI = NaI,
where "NaI" is really some bare decoration. But the definitions being
proposed in the current motion implicitly "undo" this disambiguation,
leaving us, to some extent, back where we originally started about a year
ago.
I believe a priority mapping, as outlined in my position paper, is required
to overcome this difficulty and integrate the very nice idea of tetrits into
a reliable exception handling mechanism consistent with Motion 8 semantics.
Although I have made a position paper available, there has not been any
discussion about it in the short time before the current motion.
I'm a little skeptical that we really need to partition decorations into
"most recent operation" vs. "history," but if there turns out to be a
compelling reason to do this, and if the collective wisdom of P1788 decides
to go down this path, then I believe we need a total of 4-bits:
-- 2-bits for "most recent operation," as defined in section 2.1 of my
position paper
-- 2-bits for "history," as defined by the priority mapping in section
2.2 of my position paper
Otherwise, at a minimum, we need only the 2-bits of history as described
above.
Sincerely,
Nate