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

Re: motion 15

Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:

P1788
shortly before the end of the discussion period I rebounce my concern
about motion 15:


In my opinion Nate shows in his position paper that a properly
defined tetrits value suffices to carry a decoration value (or
property) through a computation. Inother words the "sticky"
propagation of information is feasible.
Hence motion 15 is obsolete !
-- or am I missing the point?
Juergen


Dan what are your plans with the motion ?
I think we shall first vote on tetrits vs octagits.
Nate, can you prepare such motion ?



If Dan would like to withdraw Motion 15, I will do this.
Otherwise if people would like to vote for tetrits with bool_set semantics instead of octagits, they should vote NO to Motion 15 and then we can start a follow-up motion for tetrits. 

Nate