From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 15441 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2023 16:00:10 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 17 Jun 2023 16:00:10 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CA7410C0; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 02:00:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72D9040C39 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 01:59:54 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-76244657caeso29250485a.0 for ; Sat, 17 Jun 2023 08:59:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dartmouth.edu; s=google1; t=1687017593; x=1689609593; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=moadnU5iwZGUuLsnBCJp39dONvvbbpDPBeIq8bMP0To=; b=kh9U1tzFnAUKoFPDyA6gtZPlyTxjhXjpYcWi0FYJwIAhT65GHwYvS89FEiFqy7vajC 5zI7YB7DmA4GDXlxTVN094XjvfpYV9Jr/X1XqFoZiAJfqeSzsycJRN6NZRBnxv7EDBXf 94dyPeQY729ww4phhKgD/JM4AUCbNPMc28c8KoXj0eOFkgLY3uqwOSxLhVuKESMAYJGj egL8XLe9ZJl7cyiCsNIh0XuXUb7FX7u0XGfIBSiVMtQRXIoRxAfZeHk00pJDubqMjdLL t5KN8xFx26/LxRZdxt+RTq8pvGndO9jaEoT2aDsu5ksXB1VS9vGENgMFWdkKfPrK5OQ3 rMIA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687017593; x=1689609593; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=moadnU5iwZGUuLsnBCJp39dONvvbbpDPBeIq8bMP0To=; b=lAgq/adzBX34IVtLdbzedNNqG2JKw+JS/nVd+A9n6B+qlhWJjWvMHJDTPE7RXpOWz6 XwDtDR82eZbru813J1RsXp7WvQc3fhYIfxJM5Q74vZPCLjzyTJBR3WXS+oW9Em3Jt82Z qnTW3zvTQX7o2c/Sxvf7XsQXevZfULnOg8lLRRmjXf/xJUjNvpTkj3EMOq3Dw7xL01rm wl/EaiQ8scRw5JpfvmuPmAogS9Y85PriQuQ1Q4D/bpryikkNhCahttin/DxYI8hyZ5oq XqaE0i4E9WFj7ciDJSipJ2T8HGWuSjLl8gaM7f1mjBHjcJgcVDpVJ7sKC/upjEpFPYUa pFng== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwAzX0xZqMLqCYfmFQGLGVM5CtCnTl7SLLuGebajeVWH43zvZRp buTlE2iRPyxJep43tAj6PFcKQUqG1C4qVCsi4z4d3w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5B4hGMtdQziBfaviMxLj6o5uwentw2pgW7gexr/RAUEdJojMSQsTx8oXE72NvZjXLr3Jq0scDTRKvh4rKirWM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:801b:b0:75b:23a1:456 with SMTP id ee27-20020a05620a801b00b0075b23a10456mr5219673qkb.28.1687017593223; Sat, 17 Jun 2023 08:59:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Douglas McIlroy Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 11:59:37 -0400 Message-ID: To: Marc Donner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: NPQPV3LGCU5UV5E6MD3XZMBQJLRKT7WY X-Message-ID-Hash: NPQPV3LGCU5UV5E6MD3XZMBQJLRKT7WY X-MailFrom: douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: TUHS main list X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: undiagnosed pic error List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Google claims I just sent another unintended reply, this time unfinished. Apologies, Doug On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 6:42=E2=80=AFAM Marc Donner = wrote: > > How sparse is the 35x35 matrix? For comprehensibility would it be the be= st way to do it? > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 9:59 PM Douglas McIlroy wrote: >> >> There may be a simple generic way to correct pic's habit of accepting >> any set of object modifiers on any object, but obeying only a >> compatible subset. >> >> Pic already collects a bit vector of modifier types attached to the >> current object. If that were extended with a few more bits that >> designate the object types, the size, B, of the bit vector would be >> about 35--an easy fit in one 64-bit word. Then a BxB bit matrix could >> record both modifier/modifier incompatibilities and object/modifier >> incompatibilities. The collected bit vector needs to be tested against >> the matrix once per object definition. >> >> It seems to be harder to catch duplication of modifiers, requiring >> extra code at all points where bits are set. Nevertheless, this kind >> of error also merits detection. >> >> Some questions >> >> Does anybody think the issue is not worth addressing? >> >> Is there a better scheme than that suggested above? >> >> Is the scheme adequate? It would not, for example, catch a three-way >> incompatibility that does not entail any pairwise incompatibility, >> should such an incompatibility exist. >> >> Any other thoughts? >> >> Doug > > -- > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > nygeek.net > mindthegapdialogs.com/home