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 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 >