Re: Bare values read as "just this value please"

I agree with Harald and Jim that this is another, perhaps better, way of 
looking at it, so I apologies if I explained it poorly.

This just enhances the anomaly I wanted to point out though, which is 
that bare values right now mean ideal in the top level and exact in the 
advanced array.

In any case, there was no voiced support for the proposal so it doesn't 
matter.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

On 8/5/14 12:28 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> Yes, this is correct (and I was wondering about how to make this point 
> without derailing the discussion.)  It is only the constraint _set_ 
> that is optional.  If any single constraint in the set fails, the 
> whole set fails.
>
> - Jim
> On 8/5/2014 12:22 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 08/05/2014 04:16 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>>> Slides in case this comes up today (I had to scramble last time):
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1pql9zGhtX8r84qdnGFuSZM0aOMOHBxXVbkJsXwbCI0k/edit?usp=sharing 
>>>
>>>
>>> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>>>
>>>
>> I've disagreed enough on the main topic that it's not worth 
>> repeating, but I'll call out another one from this deck:
>>
>> I happen to disagree with the formulation of the advanced-array: The 
>> individual constraints are as mandatory as they otherwise are, it's 
>> the entire advanced-array element that is optional / ignorable.
>>
>> An advanced-array element either succeeds or fails; there is no 
>> picking individual items from it.
>>
>>
>


-- 
.: Jan-Ivar :.

Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 17:07:51 UTC