On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:33:22 +0100, Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> wrote: > By imposing transitivity, you're essentially asserting that, if a > programmer forgets to code and register an A -> C direct adapter, this > is never a problem, as long as A -> B and B -> C adapters are > registered, because A -> B -> C will give results just as good as the > direct A -> C would have, so there's absolutely no reason to trouble > the programmer about the trivial detail that transitivity is being > used. [...] > paragraph, then this is just weird: since you're implicitly asserting > that any old A->?->C transitive adaptation is just as good as a direct > A->C, why should you worry about there being more than one such 2-step > adaptation available? Roll the dice to pick one and just proceed. I know this is out-of-context picking, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone state that A->?->C is "just as good as" a direct A->C. I would have thought it self-evident that a shorter adaptation path is always better. And specifically, I know that Philip has stated that PyProtocols applies a shorter-is-better algorithm. Having pointed this out, I'll go back to lurking. You two are doing a great job of converging on something so far, so I'll let you get on with it. Paul.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4