1 |
On śro, 2017-06-14 at 16:09 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:57:38 +0200 |
3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> [...] |
5 |
> > > [...] |
6 |
> > > > > > > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:ReqUse |
7 |
> > > > > > > |
8 |
> > > > > > > I really don't like the reordering thing. Even the |
9 |
> > > > > > > restricted syntax does not fix the issue with '^^ ( a b ) |
10 |
> > > > > > > b? ( a )' already mentioned here. It'd be much better and |
11 |
> > > > > > > simpler for the spec just to assign a fixed value and use |
12 |
> > > > > > > the solving rules with those. |
13 |
> > > > > > |
14 |
> > > > > > You're not going to convince me by providing examples that are |
15 |
> > > > > > utterly broken by design and meaningless ;-). |
16 |
> > > > > |
17 |
> > > > > Well... if it's so obvious that the example is broken by design |
18 |
> > > > > that you don't even bother to explain why, I assume you have an |
19 |
> > > > > algorithm for that. Where is the code ? What are the numbers ? |
20 |
> > > > > How many ebuilds might fail after reordering ? How can this be |
21 |
> > > > > improved ? |
22 |
> > > > |
23 |
> > > > Are you arguing for the sake of arguing here? I just presumed that |
24 |
> > > > this example is so obviously broken there is no point wasting any |
25 |
> > > > more time on it. The code of nsolve clearly detects that, so I |
26 |
> > > > don't really understand what you're trying to prove here. |
27 |
> > > |
28 |
> > > Those are real questions. You should take breath, think a bit about |
29 |
> > > it, and try to run the 2 possible orderings of the ^^ through |
30 |
> > > nsolve or even solve.py. They both are very happy (and are right to |
31 |
> > > be) with the above ordering. You might want to think a bit more |
32 |
> > > about what is the relation between this broken 10 chars example and |
33 |
> > > the 10 lines python targets one below. |
34 |
> > > |
35 |
> > > You should also realize that all the above questions have already |
36 |
> > > been answered in length if you do as I suggest. |
37 |
> > |
38 |
> > No. I have already spent too much time on this. We're already long |
39 |
> > past all useful use cases, and now I feel like you're going to argue |
40 |
> > to death just to find a perfect algorithm that supports every absurd |
41 |
> > construct anyone can even write, if only to figure out the construct |
42 |
> > is completely useless. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> I'm not going to argue to death. It's already proven reordering is |
45 |
> broken. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> > If you want to play with it more, then please by all means do so. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> There is nothing to do for reordering. It's broken by design. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> > However, do not expect me to waste any more of my time on it. I've |
52 |
> > done my part, the code works for all reasonable use cases and solves |
53 |
> > all the problems I needed solving. If you want more, then it's your |
54 |
> > job to do it and solve the resulting issues. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Like... writing code handling all the cases and describing how it |
57 |
> works ? We're past that. The only thing we're not past is that you fail |
58 |
> to understand it and attempt to block it. |
59 |
> |
60 |
|
61 |
Then please provide a single valid example that: |
62 |
|
63 |
a. is completely 'correct' (that is, provides a valid, predictable |
64 |
and acceptable solution) with the default ordering O_a, |
65 |
|
66 |
b. is not 'correct' with at least one reordering O_b (assuming only ||, |
67 |
^^, ?? is subject to reordering), |
68 |
|
69 |
c. nsolve reports O_a as all good, and O_b as not good. |
70 |
|
71 |
The best way to convince me is through valid examples. |
72 |
|
73 |
-- |
74 |
Best regards, |
75 |
Michał Górny |