[TUHS] Re: undiagnosed pic error

[Kenneth Goodwin <kennethgoodwin56@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1908 bytes --]

You did.

You forgot the trailing }


Syntax error

See previous email...


On Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 12:00 PM Douglas McIlroy <
douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> Google claims I just sent another unintended reply, this time unfinished.
>
> Apologies,
> Doug
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 6:42 AM Marc Donner <marc.donner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > How sparse is the 35x35 matrix?  For comprehensibility would it be the
> best way to do it?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 9:59 PM Douglas McIlroy <
> douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu> 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
> >
> > --
> > =====
> > nygeek.net
> > mindthegapdialogs.com/home
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2978 bytes --]