| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> it is more in the line of what we currently do, but that doesn't |
| 4 |
> resolve the 'sat' problem: it doesnt make clear we don't want to |
| 5 |
> satisfy it but rather walk through a list of causes and consequences |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> now that i'm thinking more about it, killing || and ^^ would |
| 8 |
> probably solve the automation problem: |
| 9 |
> qt? ( !qt4? ( qt5 ) qt4? ( !qt5 ) ) vs 'qt? ( ^^ ( qt4 qt5 ) )' |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> a bit longer but PM now knows what to do |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> [...] |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> No need for a new syntax :) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Indeed. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What is the general opinion, would it be worth the price of somewhat |
| 20 |
longer expressions? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ulrich |
Archives