Re: Tetrits and "stickiness"
Nate, Ian, P1788
On 15 Apr 2010, at 18:43, Nate Hayes wrote:
> Ian McIntosh wrote:
>> ...
>> Another one to think about is
>> x = y * z;
>> where y is the singleton [0,0] and z has had a domain (or other)
>> error.
>> Should that be propagated to x? Should it depend on the kind of
>> error or
>> the value of z?
>
> I think so. IMO, x should get the worst decoration of y, z and y * z.
That seems sensible.
>>> Do we need both the sticky part and the non-sticky part?
>>
>> I don't think so, if we handle it carefully. When somebody cares where in
>> an expression a problem occurred, they should ask for it to be checked
>> after each step, and one part is enough. When they don't care about the
>> details, only the sticky part matters. Generally the main question
>> is: Is the result of the calculation is valid, or did some error occur?
>>
>> Other opinions? Other experience?
>
> I agree with you, Ian.
I too. Apart from the good reasons Nate gives in the following paragraph, let's remember K.I.S.S.
A better place for the "details" Ian mentions, is within a debugging environment, where decorations could be designed to keep complete history, and saving time or memory is relatively unimportant.
John