| 1 |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:29:41 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Here's the important bit, which I shall prefix with some stars: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > *** The point of DEPENDENCIES is not to replace n variables with one |
| 6 |
> > *** variable. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Yes, it is. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You've clearly either completely missed the point of all of this, |
| 11 |
despite it being pointed out to you, or are just trying to cause |
| 12 |
trouble. Whilst you may be thinking of a DEPENDENCIES proposal that is |
| 13 |
about replacing n variables with one variable (and I've never seen such |
| 14 |
a proposal being made), what we're discussing here is not that. Kindly |
| 15 |
stay out of this discussion until you understand what it is we're |
| 16 |
discussing. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> These are the rules for a machine. People don't actually read |
| 19 |
> dependencies sequentially. Provide a good algorithm which works from |
| 20 |
> any position. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Read backwards from the current position until you find a label. It's |
| 23 |
the same algorithm you use to find out what the current section is when |
| 24 |
you're reading an article. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> The algorithm you presented above was technicality as well. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Agreed, but it was explicitly requested by Brian, so I provided it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> So, now that your forked the thread |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
...as requested by Brian... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> shall we repeat all the disadvantages which you love to forgot to |
| 35 |
> mention? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
No, please stay out of this until you understand the original proposal, |
| 38 |
and in particular the parts marked with ***. So long as you don't |
| 39 |
understand what we're discussing, I'm afraid any contributions you make |
| 40 |
will simply be shouting and waving. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives