Re: Another algorithmic complexity question
From: David Steuber (david.steuber_at_verizon.net)
Date: 11/27/03
- Next message: Ray Dillinger: "Re: debbie, we are here"
- Previous message: Kent M Pitman: "Re: Sequences other than list and vector"
- In reply to: Kent M Pitman: "Re: Another algorithmic complexity question"
- Next in thread: Roger Corman: "Re: Another algorithmic complexity question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:53:44 GMT
Kent M Pitman <pitman@nhplace.com> writes:
> Well, "actual" compliance means bug-free. That's hard to assure in a system
> of the size of a CL.
>
> This is the reason I created the term "purports to conform", which a lot of
> implementations do. In effect, what that means is "willing to receive bug
> reports where non-conformance is detected".
>
> I think in practice the notion of purporting to conform is much more
> meaningful than the notion of actual conformance. In fact, it's
> theoretically possible to actually conform without intending to and
> without a commitment to continuing to be that way on an ongoing basis...
> or even without detecting the fact. It's the commitment that matters, not
> the "incidental" fact.
This makes sense. It certainly is a lot easier to prove the
existence of bugs than the nonexistence of bugs ;-)
The notion of "purports to conform" that you put forward sounds like
a good one and I hope that it works well in practice.
-- One Emacs to rule them all. One Emacs to find them, One Emacs to take commands and to the keystrokes bind them, All other programming languages wish they were Lisp.
- Next message: Ray Dillinger: "Re: debbie, we are here"
- Previous message: Kent M Pitman: "Re: Sequences other than list and vector"
- In reply to: Kent M Pitman: "Re: Another algorithmic complexity question"
- Next in thread: Roger Corman: "Re: Another algorithmic complexity question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
